I agree that the Web isn't all that bad, but it's important to remember that bad web sites make great examples. That's probably the biggest reason that there's so much about bad web sites in the IA literature. I don't think I've read much literature that says "most web sites are bad" since 2000 or so. I'd like to know who some of Mark's sources are.

Posted by: Joshua Kaufman on November 30, 2002 03:41 PM

---

 

I reckon most web sites are bad, as are most movies, TV programmes, CDs, etc.. Think about how much stuff is produced, and how little of it you really like.

Posted by: Matt Round on December 1, 2002 04:26 AM

---

 

Okay, how about a new question: Are most of the popular web sites bad?

Posted by: Joshua Kaufman on December 1, 2002 11:10 AM

---

 

Sturgeons Law: 90% of everything is crap

Posted by: Eric Scheid on December 1, 2002 12:02 PM

---

 

I think it's mainly Jakob Nielsen that claims that most websites are bad or designed incorrectly. These conclusions are build upon observations of usability tests. I'm sure you can find more about this on his site useit.com ...One thing you should be aware of is that the sites investigated often are Ecommerce sites. And they claim that a site is bad when a customer can't do the purchase. The design of a website is highly dependent on the target group, so just because granny can't navigate your site, it doesn't mean that your site is badly designed...In my opinion!!

Posted by: Inge on December 2, 2002 08:33 AM

---

 

I think the web is brilliant!

Time and time again I watch people use sites that would be described as unusable by the professionals. The users do not realise all of the capabilities of the site, and often perform their tasks in a very inefficent manner or maybe not at all. But time and time again, these people get something useful out of the experience. However their attitude changes when they have to pay for access to a site.

Here is a predictor of usability results (based on users perceptions) for any given site: If you have to pay, it's got bad usability. If its free, then it's good.

Posted by: Mac on December 2, 2002 09:10 AM

---

 

I think Mac has a very valid point. People's expectations have a lot to do with their experience which then colors their perception of the site. And expectations affect some people more than others.

(Personally, I'm affected greatly by expectations, especially when it comes to movies. Not watching trailers generally has a positive return on investment.)

Posted by: boysen on December 2, 2002 02:29 PM

---

 

I don't know about "most", but I'm amazed that -- ten years after the Web was invented -- many web designers are *still* making very elementary design mistakes.

Case in point. In my hometown, one of the local television stations just "improved" their website. In actual fact, they loaded up the site with huge, slow-loading graphics. Yeah, it looks slick, but at about 200 K per page, you'd have to possess the patience of a saint to view more than a couple of articles (especially if you have a telephone modem).

It's ridiculous. They advertise their new website like 20 times per hour. The thing if unusable, for all practical purposes.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 2, 2002 05:30 PM

---

 

I agree with Mac - when I have to pay, I expect a quick download, fast access to the information I want, and no obstacles. When it is free, I'll try harder to get what I want.

The operative phrase in both of these statements is "what I want" - the user must be incentivized to use the website if he/she is going to use something that is poorly designed. I want to buy their product, I want to read their info, I want to sign up for something.

Now, there are degrees of poor design. I think (remember, this is just my opinion) that the majority of websites, maybe 60%, are OK: I might stumble over weird navigation or a clunky checkout process, but I do find what I need and nothing breaks down in the process. There are about 15% that are really well designed and a pleasure to go to. The rest suck: if I have to use them, I'm tired at the end of each visit, I vow not to come back unless I absolutely must, and I try to find alternatives to it.

My bank is a good example: their (free) online banking program is terrible. It's buggy, hard to use, and a nighmarish color scheme that makes my eyes water the instant I login. But I HAVE to use it. So, I'm actually looking for a new bank. I'm not kidding. I like to check my account a few times a month or more, and this thing not only bothers me, it erodes my trust in the company - how can they protect my money if their product is so awful?!

So, you can't ignore the impact of good usability on your site, but to say a site is "unusable" because it doesn't conform to good usability guidelines is not only inaccurate, it's unfair.

Posted by: Lydia on December 2, 2002 09:30 PM

---