Your website is not for you

Personal vs business websites

• Many initially react against the title because their personal sites really are “for them” (notes, experiments, blogs, art).
• After reading, they note the article is clearly about company/organizational sites, not personal homepages.
• Some wish the title had said “commercial” or “non‑personal” website to avoid confusion.

Who is the website for? UX vs OX

• Broad agreement (for business/gov sites): primary audience is users/customers, not founders, boards, or marketing.
• Others argue websites are also for the company: they must support business goals, convey positioning, and build brand trust.
• A detailed thread frames it as UX (user experience) vs OX (owner experience). In reality, many organizations optimize for OX: easing owner anxiety, satisfying leadership taste, and following firms like Gartner for reassurance.
• Several anecdotes show decisions driven by owner/marketing control over tools rather than end‑user outcomes.

Design, branding, and “website as art”

• One camp: a website is a tool with a job (help users accomplish their task); treating it as art leads to self‑indulgent design that doesn’t convert.
• Counter‑camp: brand identity and emotion matter; stripping away “art” makes the web soulless. Examples cited where overly artsy landing pages failed to convert, but also where idiosyncratic sites (e.g., HN) gained character over time.
• Ongoing tension between conformity/usability (Jakob’s law) and differentiation/innovation.

Designers, founders, and power dynamics

• Many complain designers often lack domain, business, or technical understanding, design for portfolios, over‑prioritize minimalism, and ignore established patterns.
• Others counter that designers are frequently scapegoats, downstream of unclear strategy and executive whims; “design theater” reflects broken product processes, not just bad designers.
• Power issues recur: HIPPO (highest paid person’s opinion), CEOs micromanaging colors/logos, and staff needing to translate superficial requests into underlying problems.

Practical UX failures and nostalgia

• Frequent criticism of modern sites: hard‑to‑find basics (restaurant hours/address, government service details), intrusive popups, autoplay media, scroll/UX hijacks, constant redesigns.
• Some praise older, stable, text‑first designs and simple gov design systems as more genuinely user‑focused.

Research, testing, and limits of UX

• Recommendations include simple usability tests (watching first‑time users) and ruthless editing of self‑reassuring copy.
• Skeptics note UX research can be over‑confident, biased, or unable to surface non‑incremental ideas (“faster horse” problem); best results come from combining research with informed judgment.