I agree. This new design is undoubtedly stylish, but it also submerges the entire app in a kind of style-over-substance magazine look, and worse, a look that is even now getting a bit tired.
As a user I quickly get suspicious when there is a lot of style. I quickly pick up the difference between the veneer and the inner wood, so to speak, and as a user, the first thing I look for, perhaps subconsciously, is the way through the veneer. I need to use buttons and fields and read the important stuff, all the way trying to ignore the style -- the baroque embellishments, the clever icons, the careful colour balance -- which is functionally superfluous.
The main problem with style is that it obscures and dimishes the value of information. Good UI design is functional and elegant and avoids stylistic embellishments. The old design was simple and to the point. The new design is very busy and unsimple. It reminds me of the kind of excessively flowery, explosive embellishments typical of indie festival poster designs that was in vogue the last 2-3 years, but has been going out of fashion, like this one: http://bit.ly/nzJaR3. Another problem with style is that it's easy to seem derivative and as though you are trying too hard. Nobody could fault the simple, apparently genuinely sincere ambitions of your old design. Now your design is ambitious in a kind of pompus way, and easier to shoot down.
Yet another problem with style is that it can seem to imply a level of information quality. It's difficult to articulate, but look at the third section of your article, the way restaurants are presented. Instead of the old, close-to-the-database look, we now have something out of a coffee table book. The level of polish seems to imply that the information itself has been carefully harvested, edited, quality-checked and polished. But in your case (I'm presuming), some entries are probably more rougher than others, and the surface polish is not representative of the actual content.
Indeed much of it is "functionally superfluous", but it does serve a purpose. For example Lowe's presents itself in a different way than Home Depot with friendlier colors, different typography, and messaging that on the surface may seem inconsequential. They sell the same things as Home Depot but it's those nuances that appeal more to women.
Simple and to the point designs often lack personality. And if you're trying to build a brand your site design needs to have a point of view.
Absolutely. But personality is an aggregate of style, design, functionality and so on. Style, design and functionality are additive to a great degree — you can add more functionality and splatter on as much stylistic flourishes as there is visual space available.
For example, the minimalistic Japanese "no-brand" (it's very much a brand) MUJI has very little actual style, but lots of design. It's simplistic and function-oriented. And yet the personality is often immediately recognizable. IKEA is often minimalistic, but has a significant brand presence without applying a whole of style.
Style is like makeup. You're not making a cake, so you have to be careful about how much you apply. Too much makeup and you come across as desperate or insincere. Too little and your wrinkles will be showing. I don't know how far one can stretch this metaphor -- you get the point. :-)
As a user I quickly get suspicious when there is a lot of style. I quickly pick up the difference between the veneer and the inner wood, so to speak, and as a user, the first thing I look for, perhaps subconsciously, is the way through the veneer. I need to use buttons and fields and read the important stuff, all the way trying to ignore the style -- the baroque embellishments, the clever icons, the careful colour balance -- which is functionally superfluous.
The main problem with style is that it obscures and dimishes the value of information. Good UI design is functional and elegant and avoids stylistic embellishments. The old design was simple and to the point. The new design is very busy and unsimple. It reminds me of the kind of excessively flowery, explosive embellishments typical of indie festival poster designs that was in vogue the last 2-3 years, but has been going out of fashion, like this one: http://bit.ly/nzJaR3. Another problem with style is that it's easy to seem derivative and as though you are trying too hard. Nobody could fault the simple, apparently genuinely sincere ambitions of your old design. Now your design is ambitious in a kind of pompus way, and easier to shoot down.
Yet another problem with style is that it can seem to imply a level of information quality. It's difficult to articulate, but look at the third section of your article, the way restaurants are presented. Instead of the old, close-to-the-database look, we now have something out of a coffee table book. The level of polish seems to imply that the information itself has been carefully harvested, edited, quality-checked and polished. But in your case (I'm presuming), some entries are probably more rougher than others, and the surface polish is not representative of the actual content.
Just my few humble cents.