Your website is not for you
Business-focused websites should primarily serve users’ needs, not the personal tastes or egos of founders, marketers, or designers, argue many commenters responding to a post titled “Your website is not for you.” Others counter that owner experience, brand identity, and even “artistic” expression inevitably shape sites, and that UX research or design orthodoxy can miss business realities and domain expertise. The exchange highlights a three-way tension between user experience, owner/leadership preferences, and designers’ aesthetics, with broad agreement that misaligned priorities are a major reason so many modern sites feel cluttered, confusing, or self-indulgent.
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.