[glutamate]

This is poor advice.

Lots of people make a quick judgement on your trustworthiness based on whether you at least have adequate design. If they turn away in 200 ms because of poor design, they will never be able to evaluate what your true value proposition is.

Many decisions in a B2B context are defensively made, so as to avoid the risk of looking stupid in the future if things don't work out. Like the old saying, nobody got fired for buying IBM. If your branding and design isn't at least adequate, again there will be no trust and a fear of being blamed in the future.

I've even had clients tell me that design really doesn't matter and they just want to see functionality right now, only to be shown something with full functionality but poor design and then walk away.

The trick is to not be a perfectionist but to spend the 20% effort that will get you to the 80% which is good enough.

[infixed]

Is it poor advice though? I don't think the article is suggesting to skip designing a nice landing page -- the article is saying that customizing the _login page_ is not worth the effort, which I agree with.

I can say that at my last company, redesigning the login page was bottom of the stack of things we wanted our first designer to work on. We just had a centered "Login with Google" button, our logo, and a email + password form. What else do you need?

[glutamate]

The login page (or, i guess, signup) is where you are going to drop 90% of your funnel if you get it wrong.

Simple it good though, agree with that.

[kqr]

Your conclusion is hard to argue against, but I'd like to pitch in that some customers explicitly want something that's not well designed.

In particular, those customers that think adopting an early-stage prototype will give them a competitive advantage, they expect something that's not well designed. If they get something shiny when they've asked for a prototype, they'll be worried you're trying to hide a turd behind the polish, whereas if you give them something that doesn't look great, they'll know you're serious about giving them the latest, rawest, earliest experience of whatever it is you're innovating on.

(Of course, "early adopters" is a rather small market niche, so you might not grow very far doing just this.)

[glutamate]

Super interesting, I think this level of 3D client interaction is above my pay grade

[sosull]

It pulls at a compelling thread about the differential possibilities of design and the identities it's coded against. Anti-design is an inherently valuable approach to work. It can let us think about how to achieve the right client fit, the right product motivations, and the right overall system incentives. This isn't to agree (per se) that only bad clients want glossy design in prototypes, but rather to suggest that we as people self-segregate into particular visual cultures that may seem inherently bad to outsiders. Design, or the perceived lack of it, can be a form of (highly valued) in-group signalling that allows us to sieve out the wrong kinds of interactions.

And then sometimes bad design is just great on its own merits. By way of example: https://x.com/NCTreasurer/status/1577673238536245248?s=20

[hirundo]

I had a contractor do house repairs before we put it on the market. We didn't ask him to, but he took his orbital sander and sanded the stair railings that lead to the front door. He said "people really notice this."

The very first prospect we had put his hand on the railing, looked up at the house, and said "this place seems to be well taken care of." And made a decent offer the next day.

So I'm in favor of detailing the sign up page with care.

[lelanthran]

The advice on polish applies mostly to venture-funded startups trying to get users to move from existing $SOCIAL_APP to new $SOCIAL_APP; in this instance, sure, polish what you can at the top of the funnel.

For B2B products it's a little different. When you're holding an MVP in your hands, it's really hard to tell whether you're grasping a rusty old anchor that will drag you to your death, or whether you're looking at lightning in a bottle.

One quick way to tell is if businesses sign up and user it even though it's as fugly as can be.

If, when pitching the product to a potential sale, the subject indicates that they need particular cosmetic changes before higher-ups would approve it, then you're likely pitching a dud product.

If, otoh, they interrupt you during the pitch of that fugly product, and offer to trial it immediately, or buy the prototype, or call in a higher up, then you have the proverbial lightning in a bottle.

Cosmetics is, I think, a good indicator for B2B products - if people want it even though it's ugly, you're selling painkillers. If people want it only when it's pretty, you're selling vitamins.

[danmur]

Yep. It takes so little time/money to tidy these pages and people notice when you haven't and it counts against you.

[masklinn]

You could just as easily get the opposite effect: if the login page is polished and snazzy, the user may well have the same expectation of the product itself, and every sharp edge will be that much more visible.

If the login page is simple and generic, the message is way toned down. Similar to the advice of not polishing the front-end too much if the backend barely works because clients will expect that a finished interface means a finished product.

[Grimburger]

> top comment on ycombinator dot news doesn't have the slightest clue about modern IT contracting

not surprised at all

[cybrox]

Not only is the comment more nuanced and helpful than the original article, it also quite easily holds up against ye olde yOu dOnT kNoW sTufF argument.