In a sense, by definition not, since good design is design that achieves its purpose.
Sometimes ultraclean design can send a message of fanciness or snobbishness that turns off "ordinary" people. But I think a good designer can temper that fairly easily.
I believe its not about looks as its about UI. If the end-user experience is bad, then the looks will be ignored in an instant. If the UI has flow, is functioning and it gives what users came for and it doesn't cause that many problems in user experience, then the looks is only something that can be neglected if thats not too bad.
There can be times that the UI is something that wins user over other sites. The known cases of Flickr (that blended good looks too) and GMail.
But I've never seen a fancy looking site win users over others, just for that... and I will be a little hard now, and say that, users will not switch over to Virb just for looks (and I don't see anything new or fresh)...maybe new users will pick it over MySpace (if they like it more) but see masses of existing users moving to it, i don't see it happening..
I would tend to agree with this. On first site, virb doesn't seem like a site where the content is produced by ordinary people. If I had no experience with the web or design, I would be kind of shy to upload my content as it might look too scruffy for such a polished site.
On the other hand, the sheer scruffiness of a myspace and some of the content on there drastically lowers the perceived entry standards for one to participate. Therefore you have more people unashamed to put up their poorly designed sites.
I don't believe that most users will put up with poor design.
It's just that some sites like myspace have so much momentum that users will go to them despite their poor design because all their friends are there already.
The problem in terms of design is just the opposite. I would say that users' high expectations with respect to presentation have hurt web startups in a big way since many founders can't afford a professional web designer. Flash over substance is always a bad thing.
Virb does look real good. My only worry is that it doesn't offer many features that matter to normal people. The best addition is the button to stop customization. For the majority of myspace users they're not going to care for most of the techie features. They could have some tricks up their sleeves though.
When Purevolume updated their site a while back I was real dissapointed at the lack of additional functions. They just added the social network part into the site. I'd hope that they are taking a more innovative approach to this project and not just trying to compete directly with everything Myspace offers.
Heh. I would like to see the author's home page circa 1998. I will bet cash it had a textured background, MIDI file, cat picture, stock art animation, link to Lycos, etc.
Everyone's first web page looks ugly. Most will stay ugly.
But there's something to the idea that ugly works, that worse is better. Direct Marketers have known for decades that a 'downmarket' look improves response, at least in the US. Junk mail looks trashy because that's what thousands of generations in a viciously competitive ecosystem has produced. Ugly works.
How sure are you that the relevant quality of the successful ad shown in the link isn't downmarketness but that it's eyecatching? As the author says, the 'upmarket' one is harmonious - which is a really bad quality in an ad. The damn thing needs to grab you! If you can do that and maintain an upmarket, snooty feel, then you have a big win when selling such beauty products. Probably most things, too.
"Eyecatching" means garish, cluttered, etc. This is not always desirable. Usually it's reserved for wide-spectrum ads for cheap items, hence "downmarket". Audience drives design. If your audience is a few thousand rich wives you'll take the elegant route. If your audience is a million working girls your best response comes from more strident stuff. Since there are so many more working girls versus rich wives, it seems as if all DM is "downmarket". I am sure of this because I've seen the difference even a few changes can make, and I've seen years and years of real-world research on how different styles gather response for different things.
Let's say I'm doing an ad for big copiers. Artsy doesn't work here. You need strong, reassuring. Price isn't listed. Instead you want a couple of pictures, big (local!) phone number, local address, and an IBM-ish logo. IKON, formerly Alco, wanted to establish a trust brand that buyers don't have to think too hard about. So: IKON came out of "I Know One Name".
Now you are selling pizza. Number, types of food, price, delivery options, hours of operation. Closeups of bubbling cheese. Sizzle, not steak.
Cut to the iPhone. Popular yet hip. It's a fine line, and very few orgs can manage it. That's why Apple is the darling of the ad world. They are an outlier.
Another great fine-liner was Grey Poupon mustard. They took the visual cues of the rich, the exclusiveness, the clubby feel un-rich people imagine exists ("But of course!") and placed it right in front of the fact they were flogging mustard for 4 bucks a jar. But once that hook was in and the audience was ok with funny crunchy brown stuff, other fancy mustards went right back to the more familiar downmarket themes of "fun for kids" and "kick it up a notch".
...and so on. Non-commercial (and, frankly, inexperienced) artists tend to make the mistake that ads are not thought about too much or are made by folk who lack taste. Sure, 90% of every profession is crap, but the aim of commercial art is different from Art.
Sometimes ultraclean design can send a message of fanciness or snobbishness that turns off "ordinary" people. But I think a good designer can temper that fairly easily.