So I guess this answers the question from my last post…well, sort of. I’m not sure if this site really speaks to whether or not the sites mentioned are successful, just that they’re ugly. And I’m standing my by theory that ugly doesn’t sell. It’s not a theory as much as a hope. Because if ugly sells online, then I’m out of a job (not because I’m not ugly, but instead because we design attractive Web sites).
What I really like about this Web site is they don’t just go after the low budget sites, like ones with animated mailboxes for email links and midi’s playing in the background. They go after high budget sites too that try to push the envelope and just end up creating a site that has zero usability factor. A couple of examples quoted from the site:
Adobe Creative Mind — Just because you’re the People’s Voice Winner in the category of BEST USE OF ANIMATION OR MOTION GRAPHICS at the 2007 Webbys doesn’t mean you aren’t the leading contender for Worst Web Site of 2007 at Web Pages That Suck.
Leo Burnett Canada — Here’s a site that made the Daily Sucker back on September 23, 2005, but somehow didn’t end up on Worst Web Design Techniques Featured on Web Pages That Suck in 2005. I made it a Daily Sucker in 2007 (yes, it’s that bad) so the site gets its proper credit.
That last site is a great example…it’s very cool, but so hard to use. I walked away going, “wow, that pencil was fun…what was that site about again?” I think it’s about advertising. How ironic.
It should be noted before you comment about it that they admit their site doesn’t meet their own criteria, and therefore sucks itself.
Here’s hoping none of our sites ever make it on there!