I suggest that in the vast majority of cases "looks good" and "works well" are almost one and the same thing.
We are after all talking about HCI and usability, and that is very much about what the user *sees*, in other words what the website "looks like".
Let's not make the mistake of thinking that "looks like" and "works well" are competitors. In fact, they are in many cases the same issue for the users, and should be the best of allies.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The best websites are built by designer/programmer teams. Each skill keeps the other in check, but gives the best of their own expertise.
Ultimately you have to admit, if it doesn't "look good" and users are turned off, then it doesn't "work well" either.
There are plenty of other "Directory" companies out there that be at risk in this way - take the Yellow Pages for instance. But as I understand it, when you advertise with them you sign your life away confirming that the advert is all your responsibility, doesn't breach copyright etc blah blah blah.
I don't know if it has been tested in court mind you, but I guess it will all come down to whether Google is seen as the publisher and owner of the information, or whether they are merely the platform for delivery and not responsible for how their customers use it. You wouldn't sue a telecoms company because a customer lied over the phone for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest that in the vast majority of cases "looks good" and "works well" are almost one and the same thing. We are after all talking about HCI and usability, and that is very much about what the user *sees*, in other words what the website "looks like". Let's not make the mistake of thinking that "looks like" and "works well" are competitors. In fact, they are in many cases the same issue for the users, and should be the best of allies. I have said it before, and I will say it again. The best websites are built by designer/programmer teams. Each skill keeps the other in check, but gives the best of their own expertise. Ultimately you have to admit, if it doesn't "look good" and users are turned off, then it doesn't "work well" either.
There are plenty of other "Directory" companies out there that be at risk in this way - take the Yellow Pages for instance. But as I understand it, when you advertise with them you sign your life away confirming that the advert is all your responsibility, doesn't breach copyright etc blah blah blah. I don't know if it has been tested in court mind you, but I guess it will all come down to whether Google is seen as the publisher and owner of the information, or whether they are merely the platform for delivery and not responsible for how their customers use it. You wouldn't sue a telecoms company because a customer lied over the phone for instance.