Ugly UX

As a web designer and a user of the web I have come across a few websites that have useful information but lacks in visual representation. One website in particular I have to pick on is wikipedia. It is dull and makes you feel like you are in a library back in college reading through an encyclopedia.

If the user is using a form of digital media why would the user want to feel like they are reading a book? Not only is wiki like reading a book but if a person is looking for information why would they use a site that can be edited by anyone with an opinion making it not fully reliable? Though wiki has a pretty bland way of connecting to the user it is used by people all around the world. But why? I have no doubt that for the most part people use this site for research and when trying to find information on a topic a person generally looks for pages with a thorough description. In this case there is mostly words associated with the page but also can include images and links to other external resources and references. It may not be glamorous like instagram or youtube but it gets the job done. Any topic a person looks up the layout of the page is generally the same. They create a sense of familiarity and simplicity in their design that if you search up “dogs” one day and “cars” another day the alyout in consistent.

They gives the user the confidence to know how to navigate the page and a familiar visual presentation that can be understood and used around the world. This goes to answer the question “Can ugly be good UX?”. Wikipedia campared to many other modern sites has an “ugly” interface off first glance. The page may not have cool transitions but it is very simple and sure simple can be a bad thing but if done right and thought about thoroughly it can be more user friendly than most of the modern apps that we feel appeals to vast majority.