Here's an interesting thought: AOL's Senior Director of UX (in this article: fastcodesign.com) says that in order to make your product better--even a web-based product--it needs to look visually appealing from 15-feet away.

My question is two fold:
1) Do you think this is a good measure of effective web UX?

2) Are our sites noteworthy from 15 feet away?

I haven't really thought about a concept like this until just now, but I think it makes sense. The problem is, with the web the way it is right now, there are just so many websites that if the website isn't known to the general public, it won't matter what it looks like if people still don't recognize it.

That being said, I think that this is a good philosophy. Take the new MySpace design. No one is currently doing a design that looks like that which makes me like it (I know, I just said that about MySpace, right?). Branch also is distinguishable from that distance, mostly.

It's different with hardware though, at least physically. I agree with the Windows phone concept that they pointed out. I really think it works because it's different.

I guess my question is, then: Is "different" design the same as effective ux?

I would say no, and I think proof might be in the examples given. Neither AOL's Alto or the new MySpace are generating any real buzz or gaining crowds of new followers/users. It's still the same old AOL and MySpace, just with a jazzier look.

I completely understand the 15-foot rule for physical products. A MacBook is instantly recognizable in a sea of PCs and that's awesome. But people don't use the web from 15 feet way, they use it up close. And if the ux sucks, no matter how pretty it looks, it's not going to make any difference.

What he's actually referring to is classically called "gestalt". (en.wikipedia.org) It's a well-known tactic in fine art as well.

Very good point.

I would say "not necessarily", but at the same time, if you don't make something different, it won't be as easily distinguishable. Just BECAUSE it's different, however, doesn't mean it's "effective".

In the defense of MySpace (I can't believe I just said that), their new design actually does introduce a lot of new features as well that make it new and different. As you said, though, it just isn't generating any buzz, most likely because a) it's still in beta (may or may not be keeping it down) and b) it's still attached to the "MySpace" name.

I don't feel this idea works with hardware, though, as something such as a phone will look like a phone. If it doesn't, it's not "better" necessarily, just "different".

Myspace's problem is that no one knows what their service is for anymore.

Danielle, you raise a good point with the Gestalt. Perhaps, what the AOL guy is trying to get at is that the first, overall impression of a UX can affect they way they feel about it. In essence, if you "wow" them first they're more likely to pay attention. That's a valid point.

But there has to be follow-through. If I'm initially wowed by a web interface and then start to use it, and it's actually really confusing and not user-friendly, then they've lost me.

I guess that's what I'm struggling with here, UX is about "user experience" not just attention getting. So, 15 feet isn't even a measure of UX--it's just an advertisement.

This is ridiculously absurd. When it comes to conceptualizing a design the 15ft rule is great (37signals has a philosophy where they start their designs by only using XL black markers, which mimics this approach), but after it's been designed this is just silly.

Besides, why are we taking any insights from someone working at AOL? They're not anywhere near the top of the "good web practices" totem pole IMO.

I think that judging the thought based on where it is coming from (in this case AOL) is not exactly the point that they are trying to make. Yes, AOL has not been necessarily "relevant" in a while, even though they still own many large sites on the web, but the idea is still valid in a way.

I will agree that, yes, being able to recognize a website from afar isn't going to make it the end-all-be-all of design, but I feel that it's something that is useful in today's society, for better or worse.

Take Twitter, for example. In my opinion, their website is horrendous and a lot of my "friends" don't understand it's use or purpose, yet I love it for what it is. So, yes, functionality is important, but a better design wouldn't hurt it either IMO.