He quite explicitly says that ugliness (quite apart from simplicity) actually has some advantages, like earning the trust of a certain class of users.
It's fine to disagree, but to suggest that he's "confused" when he's stated that so clearly is kind of condescending.
I think he may be right, and I think the "ugly == trustworthy" idea is also lent credence by the hideous ads in small newspapers, in "Coupon Clipper" type mass-mailings, ugly signs for small local businesses, etc.
He has made up this elaborate theory that ugly sites sell because they're ugly, when Occam's razor says they sell despite being ugly. Thinking that muddy can accurately be called confusion.
"Elaborate?" His notion is, if anything, radical in its simplicity.
Websites, advertisements, et al. do not exist in a vacuum. If websites "sell despite being ugly" then the whole design business is a scam, and at the end of the day you've got a much more complex situation to explain. What does Occam's razor tell you about that?
The point he's making is that design sends a message. Certain types of "bad" design included. And that certain types of "bad" design send a message that may actually appeal to some users. Is that really so elaborate, so confused?
It's fine to disagree, but to suggest that he's "confused" when he's stated that so clearly is kind of condescending.
I think he may be right, and I think the "ugly == trustworthy" idea is also lent credence by the hideous ads in small newspapers, in "Coupon Clipper" type mass-mailings, ugly signs for small local businesses, etc.