> it does, because it makes the valuable parts harder to find
I fully agree with that, as I was just pointing out that the good content is still there, although somewhat hidden. There is a mental barrier (consisting of crappy text) between the reader and the good content, making it harder to find and harder to read.
But this is, again, the perfect analogy on an ugly website, where you also have a hard time finding and reading the good content. Not because of too much text, but because of things like bad colors and fonts. And because the overall structure is hard to grasp, and because the ugliness makes you don't wanting to read into that. Those are all mental barriers, too. It's just a different kind of crap that hides the good content here. (... increasing your search effort, thus decreasing the information value)
The moral question here is whether it should matter that you have to search for the good bits. And in both cases (language as well as optical design) this question is equivalent to the question of whether we should hold up the strong value: "only content matters" (... even if its hidden behind crap).
But no matter how you answer this question, it should be the same answer for both kinds of ugliness. Otherwise you're applying double standards.
This is interesting. I see your point, but I don't want to concede it :)
To me, visual ugliness is far far less offensive than verbal. Probably because there's so frickin' much assaulting our eyes daily, while there's less verbally, so I'm just more used to filtering things out.
This is especially strange when you consider that, in the case of the Real World, visual ugliness is typically persistent while verbal is transient... but for some reason we put up with billboards every few hundred feet along highways, every time we drive anywhere, but not ads every few minutes on the radio. Is it just that (it seems to me that) we have more choice in what we hear / produce vocally than in what we see, so we put up with it less? I.e., muting something is easier than removing / fixing / repainting it. Though for comparison's sake, I don't have a TV and I don't miss it.
---
At least part of it, for me, is that I can absorb information far more quickly visually than audibly. And I can sort out visual clutter more easily than audible clutter. I was able to parse their page in an instant, and find whatever I desired (and can search within the page for specific terms). Its ugliness didn't significantly impact my ability to interpret its information (some sites do, but rarely, and certainly not this one). But if someone had read the page's contents to me, inflecting at the wrong points or completely monotone, I would have had to sit for a half hour, listening, paying attention, and would've probably left within seconds after realizing that would be the case.
I fully agree with that, as I was just pointing out that the good content is still there, although somewhat hidden. There is a mental barrier (consisting of crappy text) between the reader and the good content, making it harder to find and harder to read.
But this is, again, the perfect analogy on an ugly website, where you also have a hard time finding and reading the good content. Not because of too much text, but because of things like bad colors and fonts. And because the overall structure is hard to grasp, and because the ugliness makes you don't wanting to read into that. Those are all mental barriers, too. It's just a different kind of crap that hides the good content here. (... increasing your search effort, thus decreasing the information value)
The moral question here is whether it should matter that you have to search for the good bits. And in both cases (language as well as optical design) this question is equivalent to the question of whether we should hold up the strong value: "only content matters" (... even if its hidden behind crap).
But no matter how you answer this question, it should be the same answer for both kinds of ugliness. Otherwise you're applying double standards.