What Website has the Cleanest Site Design?

Gabe Anast asks: "The recent article on Microsoft's market dominance referred to an article at the International Herald Tribune, which I read until I became engrossed in the natural readability and intuitive interface of that site. It's amazing! I'll have to say that site has the cleanest design of any I have ever used. So, of course, I thought 'What are the other "best designed" sites? Would Slashdot know? My personal criteria for site design is: graphic design/appeal; an intuitive interface; and content that flows naturally (eg: high content density that does not sacrifice clarity). What are your favorite sites, and by what criteria do you judge such?"

Comments

Easy

[sporty]

Google.com

Easy interface, easy results.

Re:Easy

[gl4ss]

funny thing that google.com is sometimes the best interface to some sites too, as some sites are really hard to manouver but it's really easy then to make up few words that will take you straight where you want on that site.

the less there is the better usually. ads should not be getting too much space and useless bloating by providing links to other pages of the same provider(that have nothing to do with the content) are usually useless on every page.

in fact these 'navigational' bars sometimes make the navigating much more difficult, since they tend to make it so that you get everywhere from one point. now this might seem smart and useful, but would you rather have easier time finding where you are going with a room that had 300 doors, or finding where you want to be in structure where there was like 4 doors from every room with signs saying what are you going towards..

Re:Easy

[fredrikj]

funny thing that google.com is sometimes the best interface to some sites too, as some sites are really hard to manouver but it's really easy then to make up few words that will take you straight where you want on that site.

Case in point: slashdot.org. Seriously, Slashdot's search function rarely takes me to the article I'm looking for, while with Google I always get there if I just remember one or two words from the headline.

Re:Easy

[aster_ken]

I totally agree. I search Slashdot like this:

http://www.google.com/

search terms here site:slashdot.org

Obvious to you or I, but I'm hoping this post is useful to someone.

Re:Easy

[bedessen]

Agreed. Slashdot's pathetic search function can't even search the body of comments, just the title. When is the title of a post ever really that meaningful? Hardly ever. There are a bunch of times I remember some tidbit in a post but unless it was moderated up, or appears at the top of a thread (and thus is included in the ".shtml" archive version of the page which Google spiders), it's almost completely impossible to find.

Or how about the ability to force the search on stories to only match ALL keywords? I know you can order by some nebulous score, but how hard really would it be to add the option to say "find stores that contain all of the following keywords" and then sort that by date? Come on folks, slashdot.org/search.pl is a pathetic piece of crap.

I'm sure there are arguments as to why this is ("too much database load" is a popular one), or "patches are always welcome" is another popular copout.

Sheesh.

Re:Easy

[brendotroy]

Or, if you use the toolbar (I know, it's only available to a few OS/browser combos) just type your search terms in and click the "search this site" button while you're on a /. page. Also potentially helpful (and obvious).

http://toolbar.google.com/

Without a doubt

[Loosewire]

Google - even their ads are clean and not obtrusive.

Gripe

[gehrehmee]

Off hand, I'd say that site's not all that hot. The site doesn't even vary its layout with the width of the window, which means it not only wastes most of the available space on my big monitor, but is completely useless on handleld displays.

I think we can set the bar a little higher than that don't you?

Re:Gripe

[missing000]

It's also not a website. W3C can't tell what it is, and a quick look at the source tells me it full of problems, numberone on my list being an extreeme over-use of javascript.

Re:Gripe

[aster_ken]

That is correct. It is not a site.

Mozilla 1.4b chokes on it. Opera is no better. Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly... Hmm... let's think about why... Maybe because they're using proprietary extensions? Yeah, that's it!

The design, while gimmicky (perfect word for it), is not all that useful. Clean designs can be found all over the Internet. Look at Princeton Financial's site: http://www.pfs.com/

As other posters have mentioned, the perfect site design seems to be Google's. Unfortunately, Google is a one-track thing - you search (or at least do something search related like Google Answers or Google Groups). For sites that require either a great deal more interactivity (sites for children and sites with lots of dynamic user-controllable content), that kind of design won't work. And for sites that are almost purely informational (shameless plug to our site - http://www.texasinjuryattorney.com/), menus, submenus, and in-line links seem to work good.

NOTE: I did not design that site. If I did, it would be better, because I am god-like in my abilities (or at least, that's what my ego tells me). ;)

Clean Design?

[DarkBlack]

This site is broken in a very recent build of Mozilla Firebird. I find it horrid. I hate the floating bar at the top. There is no content in the middle area, probably because it doesn't validate.

I am very displeased with the website's designer. This is all before I have even had a chance to explore the rest of the site. Sorry, your 10 seconds is up. Next Link.....

ok, it's not really part of the internet...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but about:blank is nevertheless really, really clean.

It's right here!

[SoCalChris]

http://games.slashdot.org

Transmeta's site was nice

[PD]

Here's a mirror:

This web page is not here yet

Cleanest site design...

[Dr. Photo]

My nominee for best site design is Slashdot, but then again I'm completely colorblind... ;-)

Re:Cleanest site design...

[ljaguar]

Actually, for the longest time, i have been using slashdot in "light" mode (available under one of the preferences).

It's actually ultra-clean and very light. it's faster to download and render - it's still very usuable under lynx and i have for a while too. And it's pretty color agnostic. as in, just black on white. So give slashdot light a try.

Basically the table is not a monsterosity and the sidebars are missing. And you don't get the pretty topic icons.

Here's an amazing site...

[knightwolf]

Here's one that has some of the cleanest design and interface concepts, as well as low bandwidth support that I've seen: ccosas beanbagcentral site

The whole beanbagcentral.com website is really impressive.

Either way, I vote for well managed color coordination, easy display of commonly used information, not a bandwidth hog, and relative content.

Keep in mind though - how good a site depends on the purpose of a site. It's all a matter of the design, intent, target audience, etc. What may seem like a bad design to some viewers may merely be a website targetted for an entirely different market or purpose. Look for example at news sites. They're horribly cluttered, but they do display at a glance all the most important news. Now, I do have to say news.goolge.com absolutely wins for clean, relavant, and intelligent content. But, it's not CREATING, it's merely caching the creation of other websites.

My Opinion

[MooseGuy529]

Well I would say one site that has a very clean design is Slashdot in Light mode, but I guess that doesn't really count... I haven't really run in to any really easy to use sites lately.

First, a site has to look decent, color- and font-wise. A standard font like arial or times is good, and the colors can't clash. Also, the font, color, size, et cetera has to be consistent throught the page, i.e. if there are topic headings make them all the same style. The place I have seen this most ignored is in small e-shops where they have links and pictures and huge headings everywhere.

Next: navigatino has to be easy and structured, but not overstructured--it's a balance. If you have just a pile of pages without organization, it's really hard to find stuff, but (as it sometimes happens with large directories like Yahoo and Google) grouping under too many levels gives vague top-level headings that don't really reveal what's beneath.

Another random thing that popped into my head: if the main content of a site is articles, then the navbar should have a bunch of categories for articles. It's really annoying when I see something like Home, About Us, Articles, Polls, Members, Forums, Help, Log In and I go to several places looking for stuff when all the main content is under one heading; in other words, keep the sections balanced.

Use stylesheets... it's really annoying to see crappy web pages with different fonts and colors, or mistakes in markup because the writer was typing out font tags. I saw a web site the other day that had font tags around each and every link on the page to give links a different color... um, there's an easier way to do it!

Don't add pointless features. Nobody really wants to vote on which picture of your cat is the best (sorry, a classic of vanity web pages) or sign your pointless guestbook. When you use one of those stupid web-page wizards, put a little thought into whether you really need each feature you want to add...

More about stylesheets... This is hard for already-created sites, but lay out and format the bulk of your site with CSS so it can be resized, stretched, and twisted without looking stupid. Make sure changing the font size doesn't ruin your layout, and also that you can change the font size--don't use pixel sizes!

Okay, I'm done ranting...

Ha'ayal and Fisheye

[epsalon]

These Hebrew sites employ a very clean and easy forum system, unseen anywhere else.

Re:Why, my own of course

[mabster]

And yet, when I click View|Text Size|Largest, your site's font doesn't change.

Makes it difficult for readers who can't read small fonts, I would say.

Easy for basic functionality

[dszd0g]

Don't get me wrong, google is my favorite search engine. I just don't think they deserve any awards for Web page design.

The basic features of google are easy to access, but there are a whole bunch of google features that are not available from their main page. Google has their own features page (try getting to that from the front page), but there are all sorts of third party Web pages explaining some of the "hidden" features of google. Their "Advanced search" really does not offer many of their features. A better Web page design would have a link on the front page to all their other features. Some Web sites off a site map, but I have not found one for Google.

A good user interface makes the basic functionality easy to use: google does this. But also makes the advanced functionality easy to find for those who want it: google does not do this.

The man knows his html...

[crapulent]

Come on, the timecube guy is obviously a master at modern UI deign and html layout. :-)

Seriously though, here are some sites whose design I like:

Sweetcode

Mathworld

openrbl.org

perldoc

Paul Borke's website

the Joel On Software forums

the Tech Report (a debatable choice, but the best of its type)

Dmitry's Design Lab

Everyone knows that Jeff. K's Web site

[Mordant]

is the best.

how about some judging criteria:

[avi33]

First of all, it can't use javascript, because anything that can't be displayed on my 1984 casio digital watch (running slackware via the CLI) isn't really a website anyway. Same goes for tables, XML, pixel gifs, images that use more than 8 bits of color, and true type fonts, though CSS and a DTD are mandatory.

And secondly, it's got to look good running at 64 x 48 pixels. Some people need to look at their monitors from the next room using an inverted pair of binoculars.

Finally, under no circumstances shall you take into consideration the content being displayed. My blog (dedicated to the daily minutiae of my plants and their arcing patterns toward sunlight) easily satisfies all of these requirements, so why shouldn't a consumer-oriented, dynamic, international news site be able to do it too?

Off the top of my head:

[Fweeky]

• aagh.net -- degrades gracefully, uses real (X)HTML properly, has clean URL's, simple and clear navigation, plenty of <link>'s, and is one of the few sites I know of that not only serves XHTML as application/xhtml+xml as it should be, but serves HTML 4.01 to clients that don't support it. Yes, it's my site ;)
• xiven.com -- honourable mention :)
• diveintomark.org -- aside from the braindead US date format he uses, it rules.
• DevEdge -- clean, degrades very well.
• kuro5hin -- Has a nice fresh creamy flavour.

Clean news sites

[WIAKywbfatw]

Personally, I think that the BBC News and NewsNow sites are both well layed out, work well, etc. Skimming either can be done in seconds and give you a good snapshot of what's going on in the world.

Drilling down to an area of interest on either site is very clean, quick and easy too.

My vote goes to...

[MrResistor]

McMaster-Carr

At first glance many will disagree, and likely every one of them will have no experience with McMaster-Carr. The thing you have to realize is that their printed catalog is about 3500 pages, and they stock over 400,000 items, and this site incorporates all that and more. I have to say this is hands down the most usable e-commerce site I've ever had to deal with, putting many sites with far fewer items to shame.

webpagesthatsuck.com

[schnits0r]

They offer tips on how to fix thing and how not to make annoying sites. I find it best to learn by example. They show bad examples so you know what NOT to do.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

NOOOOOOO!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Websites should read like books.

But the thing is, web users don't read web sites like books.

Look at the usability research, and a few things are clear. Most web sites are scanned, not read. (The exceptions are things like lengthy articles, but even then, many of these are printed and read from paper anyway.) Hence writing in the same style, and offering the same "mass of text" presentation, as would be appropriate for a book is bad practice for the web.

Most users do not scroll much, if at all. Two of the most used features of the web browsing world are the back button and sites' search facilities, neither of which has a real equivalent in the physical, book-reading world. Books have to have a "one size fits all" approach, while web sites can interact and adapt.

While I take your point about content being dominant, web sites really shouldn't read like books for a whole host of good reasons.

I can't believe nobody has said...

[stagmeister]

... Homestar Runenr!!!

This website has such a great interface. It has sound, it has one simply Flash object, it is actually funny, and it's so easy to use that my parents can figure it out!

MY EYES AHHHHHH THE BURNING!

[ogre2112]

E-frigging-gads! EGADS I say!

My god get me a rag my eyes are bleeding!

Financial Times (German Edition)

[hughk]

When the FT decided to produce a German language edition, they kept the distinctive colour, but made a much more interesting paper, presenting complex information simply.

When they did the web site for the German edition, they carried on with the new graphic design producing one that seems better than their English language site. Even if you are a non German-language speaker, I would reccomend a visit just to look at the design. As a side note, the FT as a newspaper is never big on pictures and the web site carries on with that tradition.

Interestingly enough, the site remains free for the time being.

php.net?

[h3]

I've always admired the design of php.net. Maybe it's because I spend so much time there (the manual) and I've grown used to it, but I find it easy to navigate and read. On top of the straight design stuff, they also have a lot of neat "features" that really add to the site design:

• Smart URLs (http://www.php.net/echo will take you to the "echo" manual page)
• Smart 404s - mistype a URL and it'll essentially perform a search instead and come up with suggestions
• "view source", as in view the PHP source that generated the page, anywhere.
• ACCESSKEYs used liberally in the HTML to ease keyboard navigation
• Intelligent language accomodations - urls all have the language code so it's obvious and simple to switch languages. Plus, you can cookie your preferred language.

There's probably lots of stuff I've forgotten or don't know about, but to me it seems clear that the PHP folks take their website seriously and have spent considerable time improving usability.

A couple of neat links:

• http://www.php.net/tips.php
• http://www.php.net/urlhowto.php

-h3

Standards compliance, damn it!

[zonix]

Geez, forget clean "design"!

I'd settle for standards compliant sites. If you start there, it's harder to screw up your precious "design", unless tempted by using flash and javascript, and the like.

People, your next stop is the W3C.

z

Apple.com

[hexdcml]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Apple.com It's clean, simple to use, with lot's of content - compared to Microsoft's website, this is a lot better, and I've read somewhere it reflects Apple's philosophy's or what have you... but I just think it's a really cool site - and Apple being my online Mecca, I visit it daily and never seem to tire from it.

Text-based design

[selan]

Have a look here for a minimalist, clean approach.