| 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. |