• Nelson TarucNelson Taruc, 4 years ago

    I understand the article's intent, but I much prefer "minimum lovable product" as championed by Cat Noone and others. I'd much rather design an ugly product everybody loves than a beautiful one no one cares about.

    Beauty isn't required for product success, in fact, quite the opposite in my experience. The list of failed startups that launched "beautiful" products that no one wanted is a long and depressing list.

    5 points
    • Account deleted 4 years ago

      Why should ugliness be attached to loveable? I attach ugliness with bad UX, broken visual principles etc. and I can hardly see how anyone can love such product.

      0 points
      • Miles ReiterMiles Reiter, 4 years ago

        In a perfect world you have both. I think that the idea is to focus on the UX rather than the visuals. If you can do both, great. But the point is that people would rather have a somewhat ugly product that they love to use and which solves their problems than one that looks wonderful but isn't nice to use.

        Nobody is talking about having a product pushed out that's just wireframes, or that is made to be intentionally ugly. Ugly here is somewhat hyperbolic.

        1 point
      • Nelson TarucNelson Taruc, 4 years ago

        In terms of design, ugliness should never be attached to lovable. But in the real world, it happens. Take Craigslist: one of the most popular classified ad sites in the United States. Beautiful? Nope. Lovable? Yes. At the end of the day, understand what your users want and need, and give it to them. That's a far better metric for success than product beauty, in my opinion.

        0 points
    • Olivier FOlivier F, 4 years ago

      Completely agree. "Beautiful" makes it sound like just making it pretty makes it a better "MVP", but that is not the right mindset.

      1 point