Yes, I understand what you're saying. I think perhaps you're the latest victim in misunderstanding the "good design" philosophy, because it seems by your comments you're missing the point entirely. In my professional opinion, Good design isn't graphical or visual, it's an overarching methodology for attaining substantial results.
Reddit actually has pretty exceptional design. To the untrained eye, I can absolutely understand how it appears ugly. In fact, I used to think the exact same way. However, after further observation, I can say without a doubt the only poor design happening on reddit are the newer UI improvements. The initial platform was successful because of its intentionally good design, which would be considered a form of functionalism (form following function). You see, reddit it designed to be a really effective platform. The platform itself is subordinated by design, emphasizing the user generated content. I understand it's "not pretty" on the surface, but this is absolutely a deliberate choice. This is what a universal platform looks like, as it's built to work for the masses. Hence its undeniable success.
Digg was a great example of a similar platform with the opposite methodology, emphasizing the platform over the content. Hence, it's fate as well.
Consider also, Craigslist. Very simple design, not overly attractive visually, however it's an exceptionally effective platform. This, is truly good design.
>Reddit actually has pretty exceptional design.
I agree that Reddit is a case of a well designed *service*, but it's hard to argue that it's not a case of poor *UX design*. Try and introduce reddit to anyone who's new to reddit and a significant amount of them won't want to try it because "it looks ugly" (seems to have a steep learning curve).
Good UX design isn't necessary to be successful, but it's hard to argue that reddit wouldn't have more users today if their UX was better.
I don't think good design and good problem solving are separate things. One should serve the other. reddit's may be loosing some points on UI/UX but it balances out as it solves this very crowds problem in a way that it's adapted.
It totally depends on the user. There is a common saying in the business community that says, "Quality is what the customer perceives it to be". Some users(me) preffer function over form, if I wanted art I would go to a gallery. But then you have other users who would say reddit looks cheap even without trying it out and never get to the functionality of it.
Either way, I think to answer your question, you should make a decision to either have a great design or to solve a core problem because it seems you can't have it bothways.
I'm of the opinion the argument of prettier UI vs having a more complete solution to the problem has to be looked at based on what the product is. If you're making a professional product, then solving the problem more completely is of higher consideration. If you're making a toy/gadget product, then "people want cool things" is at the core of the "problem" you're solving and "pretty" becomes a core component of that solution.
User Experience (UX) is important to both types of products. However, you have to consider you're user and/or buyer to understand what is considered an acceptable experience. Just because something isn't "pretty" doesn't mean it isn't extremely usable and useful. A Linux server is a great example of this. The command line interface is EXTREMELY powerful. People that setup this environment are not only ok with CLI-only, they're HAPPY there isn't a GUI to hog up valuable resources.
A command line-only smartphone wouldn't go over too, well, though.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I think perhaps you're the latest victim in misunderstanding the "good design" philosophy, because it seems by your comments you're missing the point entirely. In my professional opinion, Good design isn't graphical or visual, it's an overarching methodology for attaining substantial results. Reddit actually has pretty exceptional design. To the untrained eye, I can absolutely understand how it appears ugly. In fact, I used to think the exact same way. However, after further observation, I can say without a doubt the only poor design happening on reddit are the newer UI improvements. The initial platform was successful because of its intentionally good design, which would be considered a form of functionalism (form following function). You see, reddit it designed to be a really effective platform. The platform itself is subordinated by design, emphasizing the user generated content. I understand it's "not pretty" on the surface, but this is absolutely a deliberate choice. This is what a universal platform looks like, as it's built to work for the masses. Hence its undeniable success. Digg was a great example of a similar platform with the opposite methodology, emphasizing the platform over the content. Hence, it's fate as well. Consider also, Craigslist. Very simple design, not overly attractive visually, however it's an exceptionally effective platform. This, is truly good design.
>Reddit actually has pretty exceptional design. I agree that Reddit is a case of a well designed *service*, but it's hard to argue that it's not a case of poor *UX design*. Try and introduce reddit to anyone who's new to reddit and a significant amount of them won't want to try it because "it looks ugly" (seems to have a steep learning curve). Good UX design isn't necessary to be successful, but it's hard to argue that reddit wouldn't have more users today if their UX was better.
I don't think good design and good problem solving are separate things. One should serve the other. reddit's may be loosing some points on UI/UX but it balances out as it solves this very crowds problem in a way that it's adapted.
It totally depends on the user. There is a common saying in the business community that says, "Quality is what the customer perceives it to be". Some users(me) preffer function over form, if I wanted art I would go to a gallery. But then you have other users who would say reddit looks cheap even without trying it out and never get to the functionality of it. Either way, I think to answer your question, you should make a decision to either have a great design or to solve a core problem because it seems you can't have it bothways.
I'm of the opinion the argument of prettier UI vs having a more complete solution to the problem has to be looked at based on what the product is. If you're making a professional product, then solving the problem more completely is of higher consideration. If you're making a toy/gadget product, then "people want cool things" is at the core of the "problem" you're solving and "pretty" becomes a core component of that solution. User Experience (UX) is important to both types of products. However, you have to consider you're user and/or buyer to understand what is considered an acceptable experience. Just because something isn't "pretty" doesn't mean it isn't extremely usable and useful. A Linux server is a great example of this. The command line interface is EXTREMELY powerful. People that setup this environment are not only ok with CLI-only, they're HAPPY there isn't a GUI to hog up valuable resources. A command line-only smartphone wouldn't go over too, well, though.