The author’s condescending remark, “I know they won’t win any design awards. But they are functional and familiar” betrays the offensive implication that designers simply decorate web sites with pretty graphics, with no understanding of what they are doing.
The article is not ‘provocative’ because it is suggesting something radical or novel, it is provactive because of it’s crass arrogance and ignorance.
Surely in 2006 we’re not still debating the value of design! The purpose of design (whether in print or web) is to aid the communication of ideas and information, and to create desire.
I would be amazed if an IA, information designer or graphic designer had been anywhere near the example pages that were shown. All three were terrible – it’s a wonder that site made any sales at all!
I am all for live testing (under rigorous conditions),,, but does the author of this article (which I have to say, has no place on this illustrious site) seriously believe that as designers we are just poking around in the dark hoping for the best?!
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
P R
First: Back to the basic purpose of the article: improving website design. Still pertinent and still needing to be examined…even in this lofty year of 2006! In fact, what seems to be missing in relating to the comparision test comments—is the realization of what is the difference in the effects between A, B, C.
Too many of the comments are concerned with details. Without a doubt, the best version was site B. Why? Structurally it was ergonimically appreciated visually (meaning eyeballroll) and did not ‘yank’ the head down as was version A’s affect…which to a tired neck, is a complaint. Further, a minor frustration that the core of the info which immediately ‘weights’ seems to be sinking into the bottom of the computer screen.
Test it yourself. Where are your eyes immediately drawn to before you reavert to search the site? Looking right down at the bottom of the screen. Now you understand the effect of the neck being ‘yanked’.
In version B, the bulk that the eye first seeks is better positioned to the upper left, and is more effortless to view overall.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
clay davis
forgive me if this was mentioned already but I think b was most succesful simply because of the “want names pictures and address” link near the top. who wouldn’t avoid mucking through such a bad layout if they could click on a link and get what they really wanted? the rest of the design choices in my opinion are irrelevent.
74 Reader Comments
Back to the Articleadjava john
I have a great website and i want to add articles source in this site, plz help me. I want articles on trade and business.
Damian Stephens
The author’s condescending remark, “I know they won’t win any design awards. But they are functional and familiar” betrays the offensive implication that designers simply decorate web sites with pretty graphics, with no understanding of what they are doing.
The article is not ‘provocative’ because it is suggesting something radical or novel, it is provactive because of it’s crass arrogance and ignorance.
Surely in 2006 we’re not still debating the value of design! The purpose of design (whether in print or web) is to aid the communication of ideas and information, and to create desire.
I would be amazed if an IA, information designer or graphic designer had been anywhere near the example pages that were shown. All three were terrible – it’s a wonder that site made any sales at all!
I am all for live testing (under rigorous conditions),,, but does the author of this article (which I have to say, has no place on this illustrious site) seriously believe that as designers we are just poking around in the dark hoping for the best?!
P R
First: Back to the basic purpose of the article: improving website design. Still pertinent and still needing to be examined…even in this lofty year of 2006! In fact, what seems to be missing in relating to the comparision test comments—is the realization of what is the difference in the effects between A, B, C.
Too many of the comments are concerned with details. Without a doubt, the best version was site B. Why? Structurally it was ergonimically appreciated visually (meaning eyeballroll) and did not ‘yank’ the head down as was version A’s affect…which to a tired neck, is a complaint. Further, a minor frustration that the core of the info which immediately ‘weights’ seems to be sinking into the bottom of the computer screen.
Test it yourself. Where are your eyes immediately drawn to before you reavert to search the site? Looking right down at the bottom of the screen. Now you understand the effect of the neck being ‘yanked’.
In version B, the bulk that the eye first seeks is better positioned to the upper left, and is more effortless to view overall.
clay davis
forgive me if this was mentioned already but I think b was most succesful simply because of the “want names pictures and address” link near the top. who wouldn’t avoid mucking through such a bad layout if they could click on a link and get what they really wanted? the rest of the design choices in my opinion are irrelevent.