|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: December 28, 2002 How important is the look 'n' feel of your website? (Gerry McGovern) -- "The look 'n' feel of your website is important. However, it is less important than your text-based content. In most commercial websites, the role of the traditional graphic designer is relatively minor. The role of the information architect is central. The role of the editor and author is critical."
Reader Comments...
Once again, ol' Gerry beats up on designers and states that design unimportant. You can't do that! Design and content are both an integral part of the user experience. So are usability and information architecture. To say that any of these can be sacrificed is to show your ignorance. I'm OK with Gerry saying that content is critical. It is. But he shouldn't pooh-pooh design if he doesn't understand its purpose. When he says, "In most commercial websites, the role of the traditional graphic designer is relatively minor", he demonstrates that he really doesn't know how design, in fact, facilitates communication. When a headline grabs your eye and makes you read the rest of the article, or when the graphics are set apart so they don't interfere with the readability of the article, that's design at work, helping your content do the best job it can. Gerry, good design is not the same as visual eye candy. If you don't get it, shut up. [anecdote]
Totally agree. Visuals are important to me. Granted, my standards are pretty flexible as long as the design is clean, well-organized, and free of gratuitous images. However, a good-looking design immediately raises my respect for the company. The absence of a good-looking design immediately raises doubt. Posted by: Lydia on December 30, 2002 04:30 PM
Design builds trust, opens up the interface for engagement. Just as people are more drawn to a smiling face. But one people move beyond the looks it comes down to the depth (content, tasks etc) Happy New Year to all on Webword and may 2003 bring you all success,health and happiness. Context:posted from a Pacific Coffee in Hong Kong :) Posted by: daniel szuc on December 30, 2002 11:11 PM
A site is only as good as its content. An impenetrable design can make even the best content worthless, but even the best design can't save a site that has nothing of value to offer in the first place. Deal with it. (Ducks behind table, dodging various objects thrown by irate designers. These objects all have an incredibly cool look 'n' feel, but their function is mysterious, and they move very slowly through the air, so that most of them completely miss their mark. But, oh... they do glimmer and shine in such a wonderful way as they hit the ground and shatter.) More seriously... Madman's example presupposes the existence of the headline and the article. Given the expectations of today's users, once the designers have finished their work, a steady stream of content needs to be produced. While that content re-uses and re-inhabits the parameters defined by the designers, that content still needs to be produced. That's a different kind of mandate than a designer's mandate to tweak and refine design based on an analysis of how well the design has been facilitating user access to the content.
Honestly, despite my love of Usability, if I had to choose one thing on a website to be done right, I would put my money into design. A good first impression is paramount. It doesn't matter how great my service is, if the average user is turned off by a clunky/ugly design, I'm sunk. Sure, I might get other usability types and technical people, but that isn't enough to generate revenue. I'll share my own anecdote: when I was job searching a few years ago, I applied at a software company that had looked good from my initial research. I got to their website and it was AWFUL. The design looked like it was done by someone who had read "Killer Sites" too many times. My faith in their stability and savvy was badly shaken, but I decided to go to the interview and see what was what. Turns out they did it in-house. Big surprise! Now, if I had that reaction, imagine what potential investors and clients thought, who have no vested interest in liking the company. I do see the argument that a good design won't save you if you have crappy content, but great content won't save you if you can't bring people into the site and make them poke around. If I had to choose, I'd rather add content incrementally but have a great design to bring people in. Posted by: Lydia on December 31, 2002 11:46 AM
If you listen to users who are not designers / developer, you generally hear that they prefer black text on white background, concise text and a minimum of distractions. The article backs this up with commercial examples where simple presentation of good well-written content has been profitable - it's great ammunition! Posted by: Philip Chalmers on January 2, 2003 09:46 AM
Responding to Lydia: I admit that shoddy design is a warning sign, as is shoddy text. But with all due respect, Lydia, if you are applying for an IT job, then you probably aren't the target audience. Plenty of dot-coms crashed and burned because they sunk obscene amounts of money into cool designs, forgetting that the vast majority of peons "out there" dont have T2 or even cable connections. For a while, I was tracking the ridiculous claims of Jupiter Communications, which used to advise companies to put cool stuff on their websites, but which did an abrupt turnaround after the demise of all the companies who were willing to pay Jupiter to produce a report that would justify spending obscene amounts of money on design. Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on January 2, 2003 11:08 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |