[nkozyra]

Preface: I think a lot of us - particularly developers - have a tendency to mock/devalue what people in design and UI/UX do.

I think there's incredible value in what they do and part of that is keeping sites from going stale. I believe that in general people get fatigue from seeing the same design day-in, day-out. There's a cost to not changing. Or at least a trade-off.

The risk is when redesign is carte blanche for the design team to do things that they think are pretty without the requisite user testing and data to back up decisions.

Major design changes should come with a nice set of data to support them.

[Agentlien]

For a lot of websites I visit frequently what I want is ease of use and familiarity. Redesigns are often a bother since I need to learn to navigate the new site.

For sites I don't visit as often I likely won't really notice a redesign.

[Closi]

As a counterpoint, Facebook got criticism for each redesign but if they kept their 2001 aesthetic it would look and feel incredibly dated now.

[Agentlien]

I haven't had a Facebook account for many years now, but I remember that what bothered me about their redesigns wasn't how they changed visuals to keep up to date. It was a rapid series of restructurings which meant you always felt you didn't know where to find things.

[dfxm12]

Craig's List looks dated, but remains incredibly functional and is still the top site in its segment. Its dated look doesn't scare people away. It is still very functional. That's the important part.

[Closi]

Yet Craigslist appears to be steadily losing traffic each and every year since 2017, so I’m not sure it’s the best example.

Meanwhile Facebook marketplace is nipping at their feet while they are staying static.

Clearly Craigslist is incredibly profitable and successful, and possibly more profitable in the short term because they aren’t investing, but IMO remaining static means you lose ground eventually.

[jjeaff]

I think that fatigue of seeing the same design is real. But I also think that for the most part, company employees, executives are the only people who see the sites frequently enough for it to be a problem.

[Closi]

I’ve absolutely sat in RFP processes where a product is discounted because it ‘feels old and legacy’, so you are absolutely right that there is value in the emotional feel of a product.

There is definitely a perception that if the front end of the product is old and hasn’t had a refresh, that it’s probably the same with the rest of the product and it’s sitting in maintenance mode.

[bigDinosaur]

It depends on what you view a website as.

- a tool?

- a marketing piece?

Redesign for the sake of it is usually bad for the former. It's fine (good?) for the latter.

[exmadscientist]

This is the right answer.

Major redesigns to marketing pieces (aka, advertisements) are fine. No one spends a long time staring at them anyway.

Major redesigns to tools will annoy the hell out of their users, unless things are done very carefully indeed (or the old tool was indisputably awful). You've got to look at how novices onboard to and use them, how intermediate users use them, how experts use them, and, if you can find one, how a master uses the tool. (The master will probably do something that surprises you. Make sure your redesign does not piss the master off, unless you like firefighting.) That's a lot of work!

Unfortunately, most things in life are tools by this definition, or at least close enough to them.

[unionpivo]

For some maybe.

But a lot of non techy users get confused very quickly. My family members, and not just older ones, are constantly having problems with app's changing things around, smart smart TV moving things around, apps changing icons etc.

I am usually their first call and I can tell you, that a lot redesigns, even when they are clearly better designs, leave a lot of users confused.

And it annoys me because not only are they usually annoyed when they call, but somehow its my problem. There is a reason why I am on backend. I don't like dealing with users.