Comments on: Jakob Nielsen Is Full Of Shit http://high.bigwidesky.com/2008/04/jakob-nielsen-is-full-of-shit/ ain't we fancy Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:32:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Jared http://high.bigwidesky.com/2008/04/jakob-nielsen-is-full-of-shit/#comment-183 Jared Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:10:21 +0000 http://high.bigwidesky.com/?p=110#comment-183 It surprises me that Jakob is supposed to be this UX god, when in fact he preaches the opposite. User experienced is based on human factors -- including human emotions, which he seems to presuppose that people don't need, or have. Therefore, he has an ugly site, and yes, he is full of shit. He's smart up to a point of course, but he needs a good psychiatrist. It surprises me that Jakob is supposed to be this UX god, when in fact he preaches the opposite. User experienced is based on human factors — including human emotions, which he seems to presuppose that people don’t need, or have.

Therefore, he has an ugly site, and yes, he is full of shit. He’s smart up to a point of course, but he needs a good psychiatrist.

]]> By: Eliot http://high.bigwidesky.com/2008/04/jakob-nielsen-is-full-of-shit/#comment-167 Eliot Tue, 20 May 2008 16:58:34 +0000 http://high.bigwidesky.com/?p=110#comment-167 Brian, sorry I've been slow to respond. Many fires, many irons, so on. But that's no excuse. Mea Culpa. I think Jakob is tendentious. That's what I really mean when I say 'full of shit'. In other words, he's like the political ideologue that can't bring himself to acknowledge any validity anytime, anywhere in any of his philosophical opponents' positions. Sure, he says otherwise, but I think his personal site speaks volumes about his actual opinion. This guy has about as much celebrity as a UX wonk can realize. He's the most recognizable name associated with usability among anyone who works with the web. Which isn't saying much I suppose, but still, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people who know who Jakob is and generally what he does. That he would allow his web presence to be as shamelessly unaesthetic given the number of visitors it likely enjoys, strikes me as the key insight to what Jakob <em>really</em> thinks. Re: your logo and site design, The logo has the following merits to my mind: 1) it is simple as you say, and 2) it tells the story of the brand directly. The site design is obviously very minimal as well, which I think is just fine and perfectly appropriate. Brian, sorry I’ve been slow to respond. Many fires, many irons, so on. But that’s no excuse. Mea Culpa.
I think Jakob is tendentious. That’s what I really mean when I say ‘full of shit’. In other words, he’s like the political ideologue that can’t bring himself to acknowledge any validity anytime, anywhere in any of his philosophical opponents’ positions. Sure, he says otherwise, but I think his personal site speaks volumes about his actual opinion. This guy has about as much celebrity as a UX wonk can realize. He’s the most recognizable name associated with usability among anyone who works with the web. Which isn’t saying much I suppose, but still, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people who know who Jakob is and generally what he does. That he would allow his web presence to be as shamelessly unaesthetic given the number of visitors it likely enjoys, strikes me as the key insight to what Jakob really thinks.
Re: your logo and site design,
The logo has the following merits to my mind: 1) it is simple as you say, and 2) it tells the story of the brand directly. The site design is obviously very minimal as well, which I think is just fine and perfectly appropriate.

]]> By: brian schwartz http://high.bigwidesky.com/2008/04/jakob-nielsen-is-full-of-shit/#comment-166 brian schwartz Sat, 03 May 2008 13:56:31 +0000 http://high.bigwidesky.com/?p=110#comment-166 Grr, comma in my comment detracted from my SEO goodness - <a href="http://www.creativereason.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.creativereason.com</a> Also, I had a typo - Then again, what do I know, he's getting people like you drunk blogging about it and the SEO mantra "any traffic is good traffic" is <strong>maybe</strong> more important for him. I forgot the <strong>maybe</strong>, without it, I appear to be omniscient. I'm not. I don't actually know if it is more important for him. I can only guess. Grr, comma in my comment detracted from my SEO goodness – http://www.creativereason.com
Also, I had a typo -
Then again, what do I know, he’s getting people like you drunk blogging about it and the SEO mantra “any traffic is good traffic” is maybe more important for him.
I forgot the maybe, without it, I appear to be omniscient. I’m not. I don’t actually know if it is more important for him. I can only guess.

]]> By: brian schwartz http://high.bigwidesky.com/2008/04/jakob-nielsen-is-full-of-shit/#comment-165 brian schwartz Sat, 03 May 2008 13:46:37 +0000 http://high.bigwidesky.com/?p=110#comment-165 functionality v form design v functionality usability v asthetics etc This is seemingly the constant struggle. But shouldn't it always be a balancing act? Jakob's site sucks because it's ugly. I've looked at it in the past and I always think to myself how ugly it is. If you are forced to write a page saying why your site is so ugly, then it's ugliness has detracted from your content. So function loses out in this case because people are actually consciously thinking about it. I love nerds (and I often am one), but in this case an "off the shelf" blog template for his site would've been a better choice. Then again, what do I know, he's getting people like you drunk blogging about it and the SEO mantra "any traffic is good traffic" is more important for him. Speaking of traffic - <a href="http://www.creativereason.com," rel="nofollow">http://www.creativereason.com,</a> simple, clean, logo only - brilliant or lazy? functionality v form
design v functionality
usability v asthetics
etc
This is seemingly the constant struggle. But shouldn’t it always be a balancing act?
Jakob’s site sucks because it’s ugly. I’ve looked at it in the past and I always think to myself how ugly it is. If you are forced to write a page saying why your site is so ugly, then it’s ugliness has detracted from your content. So function loses out in this case because people are actually consciously thinking about it.
I love nerds (and I often am one), but in this case an “off the shelf” blog template for his site would’ve been a better choice.
Then again, what do I know, he’s getting people like you drunk blogging about it and the SEO mantra “any traffic is good traffic” is more important for him.
Speaking of traffic – http://www.creativereason.com, simple, clean, logo only – brilliant or lazy?

]]>