Is it just me or do you think the new Times Online redesign is OVERDESIGN?

Most negative criticism to date has centred on its use of lime green and the fact that their servers were overloaded and things didn’t work for the first day or two. There has been positive criticism – “nice” navigation, use of “new media” blah blah. But no-one saying it is crap.

Sure, it is well-designed at first sight, but look at it for more than a few minutes – if you can. Excluding the header and footer I count at leat 25 panels of information. Relatively few in the left-hand, content column, but many more in the central navigation column and yet many more in the right-hand ads etc column, many illustrated with smart graphics. That’s one hell of a blast to try to take in. Plus the Macromedia Flash Adverts that give me a headache.

Effective web design is not necessarily pretty design. Robert Scoble comments:

ugly designs are well known to pull more revenue, be more sticky, build better brands, and generally be more fun to participate in, than sites with beautiful designs.

Google. Is it pretty? No. Craig’s List? Pretty? No. MySpace? Pretty? No.

I’m not suggesting The Times should go for the ugly, but overdesign is bad design, which, according to a report recently published by the Social Issues Research Centre, causes stress and anxiety:

Some changes in muscle tension were quite dramatic … the participant’s faces tensed visibly, with the teeth clenched together and the muscles around the mouth becoming taught. These are physically uncomfortable situations that reduce concentration and increase feelings of anger.

Quickening heart rate? Increased sweating? Furious clicking of the mouse? Simultaneous clicking and cursing the screen? Bashing the mouse? Welcome to bad design.