| LED Digest 2314: Website Design Foundations |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Registration from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. December 27, 2006 Issue no. 2314 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Google on Linking ==-- ~ Mackenzie Andersen "[By catering to Google] one is granting more power to large corporations than to individuals..." --== Simplicity is Overrated ==-- ~ Scott Marino "There is no rule about what a site must be to be successful." ~ Will Bontrager "...a site must be usable for the sales copy to be seen." ~ Michael Linehan "...there's a huge difference between talking about a complex toaster and a website..." ~ Beth Earle "...any advice offered kindly in the true LED spirit will be appreciatively reviewed..." --== New Years Thanks & Goals ==-- ~ R. Neilson "2. Write a business plan and stick to it." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Mackenzie Andersen Subject: Google Linking Just a comment. We are a small business dealing in a micro market. I never expect to be at the top of the Google listing, except if one searches something like "stoneware wildlife sculpture" (quotes not necessary), which I just did and found our site listed as numero uno. If one searches "ceramics" I think it would be hard to find our site, but I would post my link on the directories that come up in the first few pages. In terms of my own link pages, I think the value is in the quality. I try to post links that I personally like, or seem relevant to the link topic, even if they are not my personal favorites. The reason I would exchange links with someone is in the hope that people who are attracted to the reciprical site would also be interested in what we have to offer and vice versa. It seems to me that if one caters to the Google alsorythm schemes one is granting more power to large corporations than to individuals, and that is not what we are about. It seems that one would waste a lot of time spinning one's wheels trying to second guess that game, and lose sight of the fact that one wants one's links to reach those that are most likely to click and order. Mackenzie Andersen andersenstudio.com -------- new post - new topic --------- From: Scott Marino Subject: Simplicity > [Don Norman] argues what consumers (of widgets, > of websites) really want is lots of fancy functions - even > while touting that simplicity is desirable. - Nathan Holley, LED Digest 2312 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1417/55/ A lot depends on the interpretation of "simplicity" and to what part of a site design you are referring to. If you are talking graphic design, a simple site / page would be a straight text design with minimal graphics and navigation. By today's standards, a site like that would be described as "amateurish". The average user likes to see a design with nice images and some fancy color changing mouse-overs as a starting point. Many users like the look of the flash sites that have smooth transitions, sounds and 3D views. There is a substantial percentage of the population that does not use these fancy flash sites because they don't have the right plug-in to make them work. A lot also depends on what the product / topic is. A site selling pet food does not have to be as flashy as a site promoting a new movie. If you are talking navigation, simplicity is key. If a person can't find their way around or locate what they are looking for in 2 or 3 clicks, they are on to the next site. Clear, organized links are the key to successful navigation. Links with text describing the target page are the most clear and simple. The user knows what to expect on the linked page. In a complex design, the links might be embedded in the graphics and you have to move the mouse around or even blindly click on something in hopes of finding what you want. Links that are too complex can quickly diminish a sites usability. Sites that are built for entertainment typically need to be complex and to have a lot of bells and whistles. More is typically better on these sites. For sites that are providing information, simple is better. People what to find their information as quickly as possible and are less critical of the design. For commerce/retail sites there needs to be a good balance between the complex and the simple. People want multiple product views, ways to enlarge product details and a nice overall graphic design. On the commerce sites, the product information portion must be simple so people can easily understand the product. There is no rule about what a site must be to be successful. All it needs to be is more attractive than the competition. Attractive does not necessarily mean complex or simple. Attractive means it is better at capturing interest and then keeping the user engaged. Of course, this is only my $0.02... Scott Marino -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Will Bontrager Subject: Simplicity The article referred to talks about products and sales, not about web sites, unless I missed it. Personally, I don't see how the point of the article applies to web site design -- that products with more features sell better than products with less features -- unless one is selling the web sites's design itself. When a visitor is at a web site, the site already bought, so to speak, by the fact of being there, and usability is now a prime requisite. That's not to say web sites can't have lots of features, they don't have to be simple, but they must be usable to keep visitors and get repeats. Visitor frustration does not contribute to a site's stickiness. Products with more features may well sell better on web sites than do products with less features, just like they do off-line. Yet, a site must be usable for the sales copy to be seen. Will Bontrager http://grannysez.info/mistakes.html How many mistakes have humans made today? -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Michael Linehan Subject: Simplicity Interesting points from Nathan Holley on simplicity. Depends, I think, on what we mean by simplicity, and where and how it's used. Personally, I've always wondered about Jakob Neilsen's site (http://www.useit.com). It's one of the most ugly sites I've ever seen, simple in the sense of being incredibly plain. And yet, with it's huge number of links, large font size and lack of decent, readable layout, it's not very useable at all! It looks like something made in 1994 (even the colours). Makes one wonder. I certainly agree this type of "simplicity" and is generally not going to attract prospective clients and encourage them to make that buying decision we want. But I think there's a huge difference between talking about a complex toaster and a website --- i.e. a product and a marketing message to sell a product. I also don't agree with, "Because the people want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed." In my opinion, Don Norman is confusing and overlapping stages of the process. The MESSAGE must be simple, while (we hope) being educational, informative and even inspiring. I've had to (professionally) look at sites where I can be two or three hundred words into the site where I'm still wondering, "What the heck are these people actually offering?" If I were not there professionally - i.e. just as a consumer - I'd be long gone. We all have heard over and over again about the studies that show that people MUST understand within a second or two what you are offering. They must then understand very quickly and easily - within another few seconds - why they should bother reading your site, rather than go somewhere else or just go watch TV. They MUST understand IMMEDIATELY AND EASILY where to go next. If you go to some huge video camera review site (as I did not long ago), you can bet it had better be very, very easy to understand and navigate. There must be an underlying simplicity. No-one has time, patience or inclination to figure out what we are trying to tell them or where to go next. There is a huge difference between simplicity of the kind that is just plain, ugly and unattractive, and the powerful simplicity of a Japanese flower arrangement or piece of woodwork by a master. The first type of website will just leave people flat (and not encourage anyone to buy anything). The second is enormously more likely to captivate, engage and guide the viewer towards purchase. And, I believe, is far more effective than a convoluted, overloaded site with fifty options that are all given equal emphasis. THEN, on that foundation of elegance and effectiveness, we can add appropriate features, photos, interactive elements ----- that still remain easy to understand and use. There is a central thread and foundation of simplicity that permeates the site, even when complex, technologically advanced features are used (e.g. http://www.lexus.com). The example of the gaming site is good. Yes, there are some types of sites where being at the cutting edge of complexity and density of capabilities is compulsory - and that industry is probably number 1 for that. But in the vast majority of cases, I think "elegant effectiveness" is the way to go; the way to make more sales. Michael Linehan Marketing Alchemy www.marketing-alchemy.com -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Beth Ann Earle Subject: Simplicity > Simplicity does not just relate to features or the lack > thereof. It also relates to ease-of-use. The more you > make it simple for a user to find and operate the features > of your website. - Maty Matyszak, LED Digest 2313 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1419/55/ Maty is spot-on here. And ... I'm going to go out on a limb to provide an example, that being my company's own just-redesigned and just-relaunched web site, found at http://www.pilotfishseo.com I feel safe in saying this, since I had absolutely nothing to do with the project, but it's a rich, beautiful site, with a fantastic look. There's a decent amount of content, too. BUT ... the site structure is quite simple, the buttons to get to important places are all obvious and easy-to-find, and there aren't a lot of annoying distractions (at least as long as you don't mind the bit of animation at the very beginning). The points about bells-and-whistles sites being well-suited for on-line gamblers are well taken, as should be the point that we've found that sites like this, with a strong look-and-feel paired with good content but, in reality, maintaining a very simple structure and navigation system, work well for our target audience, largely small- to medium-sized b2b manufacturers. Because I provided this example ONLY in connection with the simplicity discussion, here are a few caveats: * We're still getting our minds wrapped around the accessibility issue (in fact I forwarded the accessibility threads to our creative director), so those concerned about accessibility might find some problems with the site -- any advice offered kindly in the true LED spirit will be appreciatively reviewed and considered. * We do the best we can with what we have, so you may have concerns about our coding in certain instances -- again, if anyone feels so moved as to comment on something that completely freaked them out, we'll gladly accept your polite, LEDly comments. * Yeah, we've got a few email addresses hanging out, but they've been hanging out for a long time and have already been fully embraced and abused by the spam guys, so we're not going to worry about it (although we DO strongly discourage our clients from following our admittedly bad example). There's a contact form, too, and that's where we try to channel all of the on-line comments through. So, basically, I guess I'm asking that those with non-simplicity concerns to please be gentle with us. This example is not presented as the be-all, end-all perfect site suited for every client and every situation. It's just a simple, but good-looking site, that suits our purposes. With best wishes for 2007 and beyond, Beth Earle P.S. How pathetically insecure am I that the caveats are longer than the actual information? P.P.S. For David Spahr -- there's no music -------- new post - new topic -------- From: R. Neilson Subject: Thanks and goals I am thankful to be having my family come home for christmas day. Thankful all six of my children our healthy and doing well in life. Thankful for good friends and business associates that our more like family. Goals: 1. To revamp my website and give it an updated look ( haven't done that in to many years). 2. Write a business plan and stick to it. 3. Work on learning how to use all of my computer programs more proficently to improve my business. 4. Spend more time with my two teenage sons(still at home) before they grow up and leave home. 5. Build a family website to allow extended family to stay in better contact and share the changes in their lives with all of the family. Plus include the family research into are ancestors so all can learn more about their roots. Thank you for a great digest and all the great sharing of comments by other LED'ers. While we may not always aggree I sure do learn a lot from the variety of comments and suggestions. R. Neilson H. L. Supply www.hansons.net ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2006 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Life itself is the most wonderful fairytale of all." - Hans Christian Andersen |
