> it's not an accident that some of the ugliest websites [...] are also the most popular.
It just indicates that our sense of beauty is broken. Or more accurately, hasn't adapted for web pages evaluation yet.
My guess is that we use, to judge web pages, a sense of beauty that we developed for static graphic arts: painting, typography, advertising etc. It fails to take key points into account: a site's dynamic nature, its complex structure, its usability. My usual experience is that many sites which look shiny on screenshots are a PITA to actually use.
It just indicates that our sense of beauty is broken. Or more accurately, hasn't adapted for web pages evaluation yet.
My guess is that we use, to judge web pages, a sense of beauty that we developed for static graphic arts: painting, typography, advertising etc. It fails to take key points into account: a site's dynamic nature, its complex structure, its usability. My usual experience is that many sites which look shiny on screenshots are a PITA to actually use.