If you cant see that this is a deliberate design approach, you must be slightly retarded.... Urban outfitters have clearly set out to create a certain retro feel, and have really honed in on a more amusing and slightly embarrassing time period of web/graphic design...

I think it is awesome, in the pure fact that I have never seen such a notable and large company taking this approach.. It is usually only done by some "creative" designers in their portfolio sites....

Its definitely risky to sales, and to their image, as some people might not quite get it, but it is truly experimental, creative, and going to cause some strong reactions from their customers...

This is not some website that just blends in with the million other clothing retailers... It has set out to prove that they can be original,, buck the trends that everyone else is doing, and do something totally different and risky. Its something that is going to get people talking... and laughing too I guess!

Makes me feel a bit nostalgic.. like i want to put on a hypercolour tee shirt, play tetris on my game boy and maybe watch some "Blossom"....

Bravo I say! Bravo!

PS. Site looks good... but the actual fashion looks like they have gone with a "homeless, just out of a dumpster' look....

C'mon seriously!

This is by far the ugliest website I have seen in a long time, and I mean it a usability sense mostly, it takes a while to load,

See notes...

Enough said I think, that this quite possibly the ugliest site I have ever seen, and used... so many horrible parts, I actually don't know, if it's a marketing ploy - like that of the GAP logo, or if it's really what they wanted to do.

My bet is that they wanted to appeal to the 80's era, based on the clothing that would be my guess.

If there was a dislike button, I would press it!

Ok. I tweeted about this last week.

My honest opinion. This is a marketing 'joke' that, well, we aren't getting, which in turn, makes it a not good joke. Urban outfitters/ or their agency, is taking the "old spice" commercials to the web.

This is clearly a conscious effort to revert to BAD 1997 Geocities pages in an attempt to garner attention. Which it is doing incredibly well.

I do believe, this could be an amazing testing opportunity. Most of us (myself included) are SO focused on good design, useability, and SEO, that maybe sometimes we are losing the focus of creating an experience, even a bad one. I for one know their traffic has dramatically increased because of this. I would never go to urban oufitters.com, yet I have to see for myself. Art for Art's sake is just wallpaper if it doesn't evoke some sort of emotion, good or bad.

-James

Overall I liked the site, the only areas I really jumped on were certain cluttered areas, their logo which I actually prefer their old logo, and the lack of much dynamic interaction across the site. Check out my notes for greater details.

Thanks!!

Eric

First of all, I have to say I am a fan of Urban Outfitters. Coming from Germany, but visiting the U.S. on a regular basis, I always try to visit Urban Outfitters. I like the stores and a lot of the products, they are selling. So now to the website.

Homepage - First impression When I came to this website for the first time, I wasn't even sure, if it is the right website. So different is the first impression from my experience in their stores. It looks quite cheap and selfmade. Also, you don't know if it is an online shop or a brand website. Usually I like big layers and I think the use of them for the teasers on the right makes quite sense. I am missing a call to action though. I would like seeing the teaser change on mouseover too, displaying a clear CTA.

General Layout The Head-part with the cart and checkout are much too small and easily overseen. The placement of the search-box is imho okay, but it is not obvious enough. I like a horizontal navigation with subnavigation on the left, when there is that much content. I wonder, why they didn't use big layers for subnavigation as well. This makes even more sense than using it for the teasers on the homepage. I am missing any trust-buliding elements and easy-to-find contact information.

Category pages I like the small images for the subcategories on top, I guess (or hope) they stand for the most important subcategories. The big image(s) down below seem like they are used from the catalogue but don't really fit in here. Again, still no clear sign, that I can find products here and buy the. The "recommended" column on the right doesn't help with that. It seems like - "oh, wie forgot the recommended products, let's put them here, but with no text, as we don't have any more room.

Product listings The filter and sort-functions are good and expected. As well as the pagination with the chance to change items per page. In my opinion, the price information could be a little more dominant. In general the product list is okay. I like the "we love" marker on some products.

Product detail Now here we go. I like the product page. Great way of showing the image zoom. Good weighing of text sizes and a clear CTA.

Checkout I havent done a checkout. So I can't judge this. The first page - the shopping cart - looks good.

Summary To me, the first impression is terrible. I don't want to dis someone's work, but I think the feeling and experience of Urban Outfitters, that you have in the store, is not transported in any way. In addition to that, you can't even tell at first, if it is a store. These two impressions really stick to me. My guess is, that the page works usability-wise. Meaning if you give someone a concrete task - for example, find a Men's jeans size 32, this will work very much. But if someone arrives here not with a concrete task, there are 2 challenges: 1. Am I at Urban Outfitters, can I trust this site? 2. I want to get inspired like in the store and get in the mood for shopping - is he going to start browsing?

I agree with a few of Eric's comments.

1 being that the top of the page has far too many elements on it.

The page that I do like on this site that id not on the concept pages is this page: http://www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/category.jsp?specialCategory=false&navAction=jump&navCount=0&itemCount=&id=TRENDS_12DRESSES&101115hp. When you click on the girls they come to life. Yes, this has done before, but the way they are doing it is pretty cool. So they get a thumbs up from me on this page. Moving on, I have added notes to the images.

If they're going for a 90's look, they have achieved it. So well in fact that it looks unintentional. In this case, I think success is failure. Going for the 90's retro look should be a PLAY on that style -- not a replay of the actual style. It needs to be firmly rooted in the contemporary style while playing up ELEMENTS of the 90s.

It begs the question of whether going for a 90s look is the right approach. What research led them to do that? And is it right for the brand? Urban Outfitters is all about a timeless deconstructed late 70s/early 80s aesthetic. This makes me feel like they have lost their way.

In terms of basic usability, the site works well enough -- I'll give them that. But there's no delight and the dreadful sameness makes me want to click away.

The ONLY section that works (and seems more in line with UO brand and breaks the 90s retro scheme) is the 12 Days of Dresses. If you click through to that it's a good presentation on the main page, but dies immediately after that. And the only other random thing that kind of works is Ashley Watson Employee of the Month and it's a true relief when that sends you over to the UO blog.

They should take a cue from the website of their sister store (older upscale sister?), Anthropologie. It's visually and interactively delightful in the way UO should be.

Essentially this is a slap in the face to progressive web design from a aesthetic stand point. It obviously intentional but that intention, for me, falls flat. It's all thrown together, trying to be all web retro for the kids. For me retro web design is reverting back to the 60's/70's or even earlier, perhaps Victorian. Using the grace and essence of that time to create something cool yet functional.

I get the concept and in a way they have done it too well. The terrible font distortion, overly simply layout that feel cluttered. It's very web circa 1997. But that is not a time to feel nostalgic about, that is a time best left where it is. I'm half expecting to see animated rainbow gifs and a counter somewhere on the site...

It's obvious it was intentional, you only have to know the brand and even look at the code to know that these are savvy peeps. Whereas Gap went too far into 2.0 with their re-branding, Urban Outfitters went too far back and then went mental!

Overall the design is straightforward and clean. The main image on the home page is a little too large for my taste. Generally speaking you want something to grab the user's attention when they land on your site and you want it to be something important.

But the heart of the home page bludgeons you with the 12 Dresses of Christmas. If they would have sized it down a notch the effect would have been less overwhelming.

I am not a big fan of the small graphics that are in the background. They seem to have been places a bit haphazardly and the effect is a little disconcerting. I realize this probably fits into their target demographic but they also need to realize that the not-quite-as-hip parents of their intended audience need to like the site as well.

The site text seems a little sparse, I think I would have liked a tad more - descriptions, titles that don't feel like they are thrown in at the last minute, that sort of thing. I just felt the site deserved something to give the overall design a little more structure. Despite the clean layout it just feels like an online photo gallery or a collage.

Not a terrible design but one that feels incomplete.

Urban Outfitters never has, and never will be about being sophisticated. It's always been a label which to me has had that homegrown feel to it. I guess it's almost hippie.

For me, that is why this web design hits the nail on the head. It fits its purpose, and its audience, perfectly.

I think you're incredibly naive if you think a company this big would come out with a design this "bad" and not know about it (I'm not suggesting any of you DO think this btw). Of course they know the typography is wonky, stretched and mis-shapen. Of course they know the images use funny colours that don't match and the navbar seems to have no attachment.

But that is the whole point. This isn't American Apparel, this isn't Gucci. You only need to look at the clothes themselves to see that. This is about patchwork and wonky stitching, lumberjack shirts and goofy satchels.

Why would you then design a website where every element is perfectly aligned and adheres to all the strict web design rules? If you're selling knitted woolly jumpers that look like they were knitted by my Nan, you would not sell them on a website where everything is beautifully aligned, perfectly typeset and spotless.

I don't think the site needs to care about usability either, to the extent we might. It's easy enough to use, you find an item, add it to your cart, and bam. It's an absolute doddle to browse.

Personally I admire the bravery needed to come out with a design like this. I think if you're selling these types of clothes, the site simply must match. The clothes are a bit weird, goofy, and about as sophisticated as a pig in dirt.

Which is why this website is very nearly perfect for its audience - because it is exactly that. Goofy, patchy, weird, and a bit "special".

I could have sat here like some of you and nitpicked at how bad the typography is, how the colours are awful, and how the usability of the navigation bar breaks every design rule in the book. But I think it's missing the point, and I don't think this is a design that cares whether it adheres to the rules so many of us abide by like religion.

It's rubbish but I love it. Just the same way your Nans Jumpers are rubbish, but you still love them.

When I first saw this, I thought that it had to be a joke. It looks like my kid brother "designed" it in 1997. [no offense bro] If this is really something that they've decided to do intentionally, be all hipster and retro on the cheap... why not at least use something from the nineties that was well designed as their reference? Oh man, I just looked for an example of good design from the nineties and couldn't find one.

chuckle

I AM a fan of the stuff that Steven Turtzo has done for them. It seems to suit their aesthetic without being too campy or precious. It certainly gives me a better idea of what to expect from their products and from their stores.

sigh.

Well I'm going to concentrate on one thing... navigation. The tree navigation on the left hand side is literally the worst case of tree navigation I have ever seen. It has no structure to it. Items appear and disappear of the tree at the whim of the designer. I think the menu items are actually based on the top level menu item selected. So each menu item has a different tree.

Basically the Tree is not really for navigation it is more a list of what is available within this category. Quite an unusual approach to tree navigation.

I wonder if their users get lost? Or maybe the web designer is applying the same concept that store designers often use ... if the user gets entirely lost then it will pass by lots more items and will possibly get enticed into buying one..

Bizarre but then so is Amazons design style and it seems to make them money. Just goes to show good design and a healthy ROI are not always linked (-:

I really like the concept. But to be honest this redesign need to be designed again. The header doesnot seem to work. To be honesh i like the older header. And also the color of the header is not complimenting with the body. You should try and use the header of old page (may be with different color). The gift card section is also too big for me. When i see the front page this section rather catches my attention than the clothes. Navigation seems to be a problem as well. With the old design the navigation on the left of the page gives more engaging feature. But on the new one there is no option for such. May be you should try and include it some where(may be on the right side and above gift cards).

There are plenty of suggestion. Hope you'll improvise them all to get the best out of you and this website.

Good luck.

Overall I agree with most of the previous comments about the design not being aesthetically pleasing. The shop part of the site seams to have lost its grid. The new design does however convey some sense of the young and hip 90's but the typo just feels sloppy.

What I do think they are doing well is increasing there cross product exposure and identity branding. The site dose feel like it has a loot more content and the user easily ends up in areas that convey brand values and lifestyle.

The blog and lifestyle articles do seem to have received a lot more design attention.

In general the shop part feels like a design prototype and would give the design a second iteration.

I think this site is more about function than form. While there is an apparent grid layout happening here, nothing is very memorable or eye catching. I was expecting the quality of the photography to be better as this is a fashion site. I'm speaking specifically to the photos of the models, what's with the drop shadow?

I could see that the designer wanted to pull a hip and free style look and feel, but it looks like 90's design when internet just started booming....

I liked the layout where the recommended is always on the right column and 'More idea' is at the below the main image when you go to the detail page, but that's about it.

The design can be little more detailed. It looks little bit unfinished.

What works:

The cover page female image draws the viewers attention immediately. The large type treatment on the left matches the dress - and establishing some generational context (a 18-22 year old would be interested).

What needs work: There is an awkward balance between the central frame (the ad) and the gift card ad banners. These visual area compete. There is a lack of visual affordance to the Gift card - not establishing the same clever try 12 dress metaphor as the ad in the central frame.