[tptacek]

Do you disagree with this polemic?

It's pretty specific and clear: it argues that plenty of startups are successful with virtually no design at all, with interfaces as clunky as "clients call us on the phone" or "emailing spreadsheets back and forth". It implicitly argues, "early stage startups are continuously faced with a choice of spending energy on design† or on customer discovery", and "early stage startups should virtually always opt for customer discovery".

I can see how a reasonable person might disagree with that.

I don't see how a reasonable person could say that the question isn't a reasonable one to pose.

† Admittedly a synecdoche for lots of other things, like scalability, code quality, test coverage, &c

[potatolicious]

I don't think the content of this post is the objectionable part per se. I suspect GP is just tired of these self-important flame wars plastered all over HN. These epic battles of egos, written in a tone that incites rather than argue, are getting very, very tiresome.

Android vs. iPhone. Devs vs. Designers. Tech founders vs. Non-tech founders. MBAs vs. CS. Instead of just arguing the merits of whatever point one has, it's become all too common to just lob ad hominem insults, call each other self-indulgent assholes, declare each others' views to be "horseshit", etc etc. It's grandiose posteuring and "witty" jabs disguised under a thin veneer of "legitimate discussion". It's like watching a pro wrestling match.

This is what I enjoy least about the startup community - and it certainly and obviously isn't contained to just HN. There's so much venom being spewed around for no good reason whatsoever. All of this mud-slinging is about as mature and informative as Kim Kardashian on TV.

It's like we can't communicate an opinion or belief without wrapping our entire egos into and making a spectacle out of it. Shit, I think I'd rather watch reality TV - they're about as nasty to each other as we are, but at least there's the off chance of ladies mud-wrestling.

[mortenjorck]

It seems the author might do better framing this as "don't design first" (which would also be a significantly less baiting headline). While it's certainly not how I would build a startup, if it works for some, I won't argue against evidence.

But most of the post is spent venting against a perceived popular bias in favor of visual designers over "real value creators." The problem with that is that everyone who contributes to a product or service can create value—a particular startup may not need design early on, or it may not need developers early on, but it depends on the market it's tackling. The wrong omissions can spell disaster; the right omissions can spell success.

[thebrokencube]

I think this makes a lot of sense. Like, if you work at a web design shop and your website doesn't look good, you're doing it wrong IMO.

[tjogin]

It's impossible to create anything at all "without" design.

Design is not graphical embellishment. Design is decision making of appearance and functionality.

[ahoyhere]

Here's the problem with the "plenty of startups are successful with virtually no design at all" argument:

It ignores the special nature of the customer.

To talk about these successful startups, or design in general, as if there is one true answer is like talking about price. You can't have price without value, you can't have value without the exact customer in mind, so gabbling on about it in the abstract is an utter waste of time.

SOME customers are totally insensitive to good user interface, good flow, good product education, etc. They don't care if there are features which are pleasantly surprising. They don't care if they have to wade through poorly laid out, confusing forms, or configure things when smart assumptions could be made for them instead, etc., etc., etc. They are so desperate, or otherwise so used to using crap, that they just don't care. These people are also insensitive to visual design.

And ALL those things distinctly fall under "design."

MOST customers do not act like that. They crave software which is a pleasure to use, that anticipates their needs and provides them with things they never would have thought to ask for but later cannot live without, software that saves them massive amounts of time, software which prevents or eliminates anxiety & stress, software that doesn't make them do shit work, etc.

Software, in other words, which is well-designed.

The visual styling on top is a bonus -- these customers like pretty things -- but as long as it's not butt ugly, software with all those other features will do well with the majority of potential customers.

If it's pretty, the effect is multiplied. Some customers don't care or even actively dislike attractive things, but they are not the majority.

Whether or not total crap design will work for you wholly depends on who you're trying to get to give you money.