←back to thread

Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

17 points burglins | 3 comments | 21 Oct 24 14:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.638s | source

I visited my bank's website and it hit me. For some reason, their crappy website design appears as more trustworthy than other, sleeker designs of modern banks. Why is that?
Show context
JohnFen ◴[21 Oct 24 14:59 UTC] No.41904916[source]▶
I know that in general, the flashier a thing is -- that is, the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics -- the less likely that thing is to be great.

My hypothesis is it's because time and money investment was put into aesthetics at the expense of making the product or service better.

replies(2): >>41907854 #>>41908504 #
tyleo ◴[21 Oct 24 19:53 UTC] No.41907854[source]▶
Is this true in general? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’d love to see some data if you have any.
replies(1): >>41908003 #
1. brailsafe ◴[21 Oct 24 20:08 UTC] No.41908003[source]▶
Whether it's true or not, it's definitely a rule I follow for many situations. If a restaurant has loud signage in a busy area, sometimes literally flashing, it ain't gunna be good. Most new websites try to fill negative space with unsubstantial bullshit
replies(1): >>41908370 #
2. tyleo ◴[21 Oct 24 20:46 UTC] No.41908370[source]▶
I agree with that example you just shared. I think I don’t view it as the same as your quote though:

> the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics

I would consider that sign example to not be aesthetically pleasing. Maybe it’s more related to the ‘loudness’ of the aesthetics.

There are a lot of simple text blogs on HN which is a great aesthetic, some with lots of thought to keep them simple. Thats the counterpoint IMO.

replies(1): >>41909152 #
3. brailsafe ◴[21 Oct 24 22:17 UTC] No.41909152[source]▶
There's an idiom that describes this; "Putting lipstick on a pig".

If a thing looks and feels great, and has something worth making so, then there's no issue at all.