empirical literature on what makes websites effective (which we've done a lot of now)
Can you share some of your sources?
Is the premise that modern sites do not take studies on aesthetics/usability/effectiveness into account even true? I've moved into web development over the past 8 months or so and I regularly search for topics such as "log in vs sign in," "ok cancel button placement" and "optimal web page navigation."
It seems to me that there is no shortage of studies, opinions and hard evidence on display regarding the (in)effectiveness of particular web design choices. Granted not every google hit is going to cite a formal study, but a surprising amount do. Googling the above over the past ten minutes or so has given me references to a study on optimal text layout, a study on label placement/alignment, why dropdown menus apparently suck, and how presenting users with too many choices is detrimental to user engagment (admittedly this one was generalized to the web after the fact).
Right, the whole point is that there's a lot of studies, and professional web designers don't seem to use them.
But what are you basing that that off of? There are a ridiculous number of confounding factors that might explain why a particular website doesn't conform to the latest studies in web usability (money, time, the site gets tons of hits already, management is hard to talk to, etc) outside of "professional web designers don't seem to use [empirical web design data]."
And if you go beyond the web designers themselves then you are really just asking why companies/corporations don't tirelessly invest in making the best website possible.
"Effective" at what? Most websites aren't terribly concerned with aesthetic nuances -- they're concerned with things like monetization, channeling users into specific behaviours, avoiding user confusion, etc.
User interaction / interface design / usability / human-computer interface / etc. is a thriving field.
There is absolutely a collection of best practices, and most of it is in line with the research. Keep text to a minimum, have a clear visual hierarchy, create clear calls to action, if images have faces, make sure to follow the line of sight - these are all commonly accepted design practices, and are supported by the literature. Most good designers are familiar with color theory, etc.
Of course, most people don't hire a designer, or hire an awful one. This should be no surprise, as it's the same in most areas of human endeavors (how many people do you know who would go to a chiropractor for their back over a licensed doctor?).
However, there are large, well managed sites that you'll see breaking the accepted best practices left and right. The reason that you see this so frequently is that it's incredibly easy to run your own experiments online if you have enough traffic. There's websites that let you literally drag and drop to get an entirely new design,, and then will split test the pages just the right amount to get data while still optimizing to minimize lost conversions. Why would you use the best practices from theoretical "average website visitor" when you can use super easy software to figure out the best practices for your exact audience?
Finally, some of this stuff is anti-inductive. If you're trying to maximize attention, the best practice is whatever everybody else ISN'T doing. As soon as something becomes the accepted way to do things, it might be the wrong thing to do (although if youre trying to maximize usability, the opposite is true).
I don't perceive this as a problem unique to design. It's also a problem in education, business consulting, medicine, etc. Any time consumers don't have an easily available means of assessing product quality, there is little incentive for businesses to maximize effectiveness, so there will often be a huge gap between best practices and actual practices.
It sounds like you're mostly referring to UX. I share the impression that there's a lot of research in this area that rarely seems to be applied. One reason for that seems to be because people are lazy and/or too content with mediocrity. But the main reason seems to be just because it requires a lot of expertise. Which means either taking the time to train yourself, or pay others. Depending on your intent, this isn't always worth it (but I think people very much underestimate how "worth it" it is).
Keep in mind that not all targets are the same. Two examples:
http://craigslist.org - designed above all else to be useful. The aesthetic that matters here is 'useful'.
http://alteraeon.com - small static pages designed to work well with blind/visually impaired screen readers.
As far as I understand most websites don't optimize for aesthetics but for some business purpose.
Depends on who you're marketing the site to. Programmers would be satisfied by descriptive links or even plain urls. Have you ever seen werc in action?
On the other hand of the scale, you have websites like this that appeals to.. I dunno, this design annoys me but I guess it works otherwise the site wouldn't be there for almost two years I know it.
Regardless of the content of either of those sites, the first is clearly more aesthetically pleasing despite the lack of shit moving around on the page. Scrolling to the bottom of the second (which shouldn't even be a thing at all: it's like a <100px scroll on a standard monitor and even hiding the taskbar and bookmarks toolbar in Chrome still leaves a miniscule amount of vertical scroll) reveals a copyright footer (and "top" link!) that is almost comically out of place after viewing the content above it. I would be very surprised if this site worked because of its modern web facade rather than in spite of it.
Yeah, that mobilitywod site annoys me as well. It's a big part of what I hate about modern 'web apps'.
I think he actually means rational. He advocates to make design decisions after reading academic papers on the subject.
Whether or not that's optimal is a separate issue.
The rational part is reading the papers; the optimal part is doing what the papers say.
However, reading papers is not limited to design. It is part of general rationality (virtue of scholarship).
Of course, if you search for papers on cognitive biases in web design, then they would tell you about rational design.
It's not at all clear that doing what the papers say is optimal. Whether or not it is an open question and depends very much on the context.
Trainers of world class olympic athletes do read papers but they also do a lot of things that aren't yet backed up by papers or differ from what's written in papers.
In web design the correct approach is often to run a A/B test instead of simply trusting that the solution that performed well in other contexts will perform.
Most successful artists don't read academic papers on aesthetics. The develop their skills differently. The post argues to choose a different approach to the problem than the best experts on the topic use. That's not something that you should simply label as "optimal".
One crazy_idea I once had was to mine popular paintings and phottographs for aestetic patterns and derive (properties of) an synthetic optimum picture from that.
I had some hypotheses about the result and these could be checked thereby. For example pictures or landscapes depicting places that should be safe and ressourceful in the ancestral environment should rate highly (e.g. looking out of a dry cave over a bountiful valley with trees and and river or coast and a sky that promises good weather.
For pictures of people or faces there are some results of what is considered beautiful.
But for user interfaces this is more difficult to predict.
One crazy_idea I once had was to mine popular paintings and phottographs for aestetic patterns and derive (properties of) an synthetic optimum picture from that.
Not crazy enough -- people have done that :-) I don't have links handy, but there was at least one project which merged pictures of attractive women to create an "average-pretty" face -- it may have been culture specific, that is, they repeated this exercise for pictures of women considered attractive in different countries. As far as I remember, the end result was a predictable meh.
So I'm working for a friend's company at the moment (friend is a small business owner who designs websites and a bit of an entrepreneur) anyway, I've persuaded him that we should research the empirical literature on what makes websites effective (which we've done a lot of now) and to advertise ourselves as being special by reason of doing this (which we're only just starting to do).
One thing that I found absolutely remarkable is how unfilled this space tends to be. Like a lot of things in the broad area of empirical aesthetics it seems like there are a lot of potentially useful results (c.f.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485842/ ), but they're simply not being applied- either as points of real practice or of marketing differentiation.
A fascinating gap.