This technique is also used in software engineering. Apple "makes it suck" when "it" should not be done regularly. Resetting an iPod requires an extremely unintuitive key sequence [0]. Apple doesn't want the user to know an iPod can be reset - resetting is something your PC does when it doesn't work anymore. But occasionally an iPod actually freezes, so they added a complicated sequence to reset the device. Even if you remembered the sequence, you wouldn't want to use it unless you needed it.
Elsewhere, Microsoft intentionally designed Vista's User Access Control dialogs to be irritating [1]. Microsoft wanted applications to stop using Administrator rights for no reason, so every privilege escalation painfully obvious: The screen fades to gray, and an extra dialog appears. Application developers get the same dialogs, and can trim unnecessary escalations out of their code.
That is a fairly risky move on Microsoft's part but I applaud them for taking it, especially if it works. Every average Windows user I knows notices and complains about the constant UAC popups. What's funny to me is that since 7 has come out, I've heard this a lot less. I believe since 7 got the connotation of being the "good" Windows and Vista the abject failure, people may be cherry picking their complaints to support their assertions that 7 is much better and Windows XP is too old to be a viable alternative.
Windows XP has a broken security model. Age has very little to do with it (aside from the fact that support ends in 2012, so it's only worth using for another couple years.)
There is a story about German discounter supermarket Aldi: supposedly they use wooden shelves in their markets even though they are more expensive than metal shelves. But the wooden shelves look cheaper, adding to the bargain image of the supermarket. (It could have been vice versa, I don't remember if wood or metal looks cheaper).
Aldi in The Netherlands uses metal shelving, some of it even wire shelving. The place looks like a dump, but the quality of the food and items is generally really good and the price is really low.
Sleeping is a lot easier on a comfy padded bench than it is on the floor, so it happens a lot less than it otherwise would. Preventing sleeping isn't just to the advantage of the people who want to sit down without having a sleeping man taking up four seats, it's also to the advantage of the people who would otherwise be tempted to take a nap that they know they shouldn't (because they need to catch their next flight).
Oh, and some people do want to sleep in airports -- cheapskates who don't want to pay for hotel rooms. Check out "The Budget Traveller's Guide To Sleeping In Airports":
I'd also imagine more people would avoid sleeping on the floor for cultural reasons too. We perceive someone sleeping on an airport waiting bench to be a weary traveler. Seeing someone sleep on the floor in a very busy place communicates vagrancy.
For example, near where I live, someone recently posted a flier for her house cleaning service. It was on green construction paper and written with a red marker.
My initial thought was 'maybe she'll be cheap' and then 'do I want someone in my house that thinks magic marker is the proper way to make a sign for their business?'
Another example: I buy a LOT of things online. But I only buy from sites that I feel I can trust. That means they don't -look- like a scam, and they look like they know what they're doing. When I go to a site that looks like it came from 1990, I might check prices, but I -never- buy. Instead, I go back to somewhere 'safe' like Amazon and pay a little more.
Most of the examples (shoes, chairs, tables) were designed to prevent or force certain behaviors. They don't 'suck', they 'work' for exactly what they were intended.
I think you miss the point a bit. If making a design look cheap takes away from basic usability, or reflects badly on the company's core competency (your example of the red marker cleaning lady), it's a miss of course. But consider more subtle touches that may seem random to the web site visitor, but make him feel that he's not dealing with a infallible behemoth of a company. I think that definitely can help in establishing some trust when selling something that's differentiated by low price and simplified features, and competing with big brand name alternatives.
I don't think he's missing the point. "Suck" is relative to the user. If your product does exactly what the user and the owner want, it doesn't suck - it rocks. It's an awesome design. Whether it uses Comic Sans and gets snotty designers up in arms is completely irrelevant to its suckage or lack thereof.
Conveying the right expectations is a part of good design. If looking cheap is a selling point, a design that looks expensive is a failure. It's the "nice and clean" design which sucks.
Not that I disagree with the article, but the point of "making something suck" is totally lost if the goal isn't accomplished. His first example is with the Shape-Ups: they don't work. I can't find the specific article for the Skechers shoes but here's one for Nike:
http://naturalbias.com/dont-let-reebok-fool-you-shoes-wont-t...
jakevoytko also brought up Vista's UAC dialogs, which I agree is a Good Thing. In my experience though(especially with my younger cousins despite my repeated yelling), they simply log in as admin and bypass the whole thing.
The truth is that design is as much for ease and comfort, as it is for differentiation and in that department, there is only one slot for the perfect web site, the rest of us have to stand out!
I like the principle of "making things more difficult" in exercise. It's a major principle of training in martial arts: you spend a lot of time training to do things in ways that are a little more difficult than when you really do them so that you find it easier when you really need to do it.
dude, the point is not to make your design awful. It's to address a specific needs, while ignore what it's not suppose to address. This is the point of good design: focus.
Being awful in specific ways can be useful - if your park benches discourage the homeless from sleeping on them, the park as a whole can be more pleasant for the non-homeless visitors.
(Exactly what happens to the homeless is not discussed.)
Can somebody explain to me why fcnfhdn got -3 points here? it's his/her opinion about the article's look which to me is his/her prerogative. it is feedback to the writer about one of the aesthetic element of the piece so it is relevant to the discussion. I'm puzzled at this seemingly random negativity. thanks.
Doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. If his intent was actually to provide valuable feedback, he could send the author an email instead of leaving snarky comments on another website.
So the trick is to make it suck by design. But, that opens opportunity for people to make it suck less, right, even if making it suck less is the wrong thing to do?
I think anything sucking is bad. You can have a site that is well-designed to elicit a local flavor, which might mean "suck" to some, but it doesn't suck.
You can have an airport with bad chairs, but a built-in hotel. That wouldn't suck.
Elsewhere, Microsoft intentionally designed Vista's User Access Control dialogs to be irritating [1]. Microsoft wanted applications to stop using Administrator rights for no reason, so every privilege escalation painfully obvious: The screen fades to gray, and an extra dialog appears. Application developers get the same dialogs, and can trim unnecessary escalations out of their code.
[0] http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1320?viewlocale=en_us&loca...
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/on_software/1445...