I'm going for content. I hate those flashy sites with nothing good to read/get/anything.
I'm not saying a good looking site with good stuff is worse than a normal looking one, just that I don't really care about how it looks unless it's an eye-killer.
I agree on that one, but ofcourse to some extent. Content is the very
essense, just like in music, but then again, how it looks (or sounds),
can make it unreachable. So I guess I actually am going for a fourth
alternative, a bit of both
Really, you do need both elements. You can have great content, but if it isn't laid out well or is difficult to access/view, then the message gets lost.
Personally, I don't like real flashy sites either. I like to put in just enough to make it interesting, but not enough to go overboard.
Personnally, I prefer visiting a website that has less content but a good looking design than the contrary.
It angers me when there's a site with lots of content, but organised and presented in such a way that it's impossible to find what we're looking for.
Of course, if the site presents content and is great looking, it's better.
i visit websites for their contents so if the text can readable and don't disturb much i may like the Frihost.But the graphics and designs may let the site be the best one!
meet in rio
A crappy design will put me off far more quickly than poor content. Badly presented websites really do make my brain ache. They don't have to be very complicated--I'm content with black and white text and jumpy #links--but garish colours/misplaced components turn me right off.
I think you're asking the wrong people. People here are interested in web design and are therefore biased and less interested in content than the general web user.
I've only been here a short time but I've had a look at a lot of frihoster sites and the majority have had a decent design but little or no content. Many hosters seem to get to the stage of a good design and then decide to change it, rather than adding content. The content that is there tends to be about web design, something like 'I'm trying out a new CMS' or 'I'm moving to a fully valid XHTML design.' This kind of thing does not interest the average web user and these sites will not get many visitors.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. If web page design is just a hobby with you then that's fine, but if you want visitors then you need content. Many of the most successful web sites have had appalling design but masses of attractive content, think of craig's list or friendsreunited. They employ designers now but they started as poorly designed static HTML.
Imagine going to a store to but a TV. You want to see an attractive display of all the TV's available with their main features highlighted. You don't want to sit through an hour long presentation on how the TV's are made in Korea, using electronics manufactured in Taiwan. Then they are shipped in containers to Hong Kong, then air freighted to a wharehouse in your country where they can be ordered by your local store when stock control demands. This would be followed by an explanation of the stock control system before you are told that the system doesn't work very well so they are going to get another one. But in the mean-time there are no TV's.
Content is what the general web user wants and if you don't have any you'll only need a three-digit counter.
don't think I'm talking about impossible to read sites.
more like... www.maddox.xmission.com
you can find it all easily, but the design is the simplest out there. Even then, it gets tons of visits per day, why? good content
Absolutely agree with you there. That site's design sucks in artistic terms but it has great content. Content wins every time.
I'm for both. I dislike looking at websites that are hard to even glance at. If it's hard to make out, then I'm not interested in finding what I need. If the site looks good but there's no content, then I'm clicking on the next result on Google.
This website is done by a company in Flash (that's what they do) as a demonstation, and it's really good. It makes a whole movie out of a few statements and definately kept my attention.
Now, with THIS website, this is just HORRIBLE.
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ is a website (they made 2 books, I've read the 2nd one out of the two) that picks out a lot of bad sites. Their goal is to make you design good websites by looking at bad websites.
I'm going with content. You know, looks aren't everything. While it is important for a site to be easy to use (and that includes having text that is not difficult to read), nobody is going to care about a cool looking site with bad content. Its like a book with a nice cover and nothing but trash inside.
haha, i'm really surprised by the outcome of the poll!
from my personal experience, i've realised that the vast majority of people only visit a page for the second time if it looks good. a bad design is the biggest factor that will turn people away from the site.
I, as a webpage owner, of course preffer pages with a good content. and the reason for the results of the poll is probably that all the people who voted, own or helped/are helping in creating a site and that's why chose content over looks.
still, I expected at least one person would vote for the looks
A little note about flash:
Never create a flash site, because I believe flash isn't made to create whole websites with. It takes away the possibility to save links, and some flash pages really are "over-animated". What I dó think is right, is that flash elements make pages more dynamic. You can always integrate one flash element into your site, to make it look more dynamic.
I think it changes when you reach an expert level. Look at this page for instance. There's a lot of information on that page, concerning rogue anti-spyware programs (mostly spyware itself). But how would you rate the lay-out?
In Dutch we have the expression: "The eye wants something too." And I think that is quite right. When I started with my website, I started with the lay-out too.