In the book, the newspaper Aftonbladet is mentioned as a website that looks poorly designed but stays true to the layout and style of the newspaper itself. I think they’re missing the point by a large margin. Some people reading the news on their website might be familiar with and even read the physical paper itself, but the vast majority of people don’t come close to the paper version. That’s why circulation has been going down over the last 15 years as the popularity of the internet has shot up. My hometown newspaper, The Indy Star, retains the same basic color scheme, font, and maybe a bit of the page layout, but it is largely very readable and doesn’t make me cringe when I look at it. It’s usable without totally mimicking the original product.
Another thing to bring up is the mention of effectiveness flashing ads and banners. I have yet to meet a single person who doesn’t despise these things. I know I’ve seen both my mother, father, and brother just close the ads as soon as they pop up. They even asked me to show them a way to block them in the browser (Ad-block and Flash-block in Firefox!!!), which I gladly obliged. I cannot stand these things and they have positive utility in my mind at all. I associate them with spam I get in my mailbox. I now use a browser that blocks pop-ups, ads, and flash-based objects on a website that only start up if I allow them. It has literally made browsing the Internet bearable again. Why do companies keep throwing shit like this out there if they know there is going to be literally no positive response? Is this something to the effect of spam mail and telemarketing where there’s a high level of output but only a small response required?