Due to the lack of visual masking in the short presentations, the results from the two studies that claim impressions are made in tens of milliseconds are highly dubious.
The visual system has a dedicated buffer and it’s guaranteed that users responses were influenced by processing which occurred across 100s of milliseconds. The only way to reduce the impact of this buffer is to display a masking stimulus following the stimulus of interest.
Sidenote: Early psychology experiments used a complicated physical contraption called a Tachistoscope to control very short duration timing. Modern psychology experimentation software use low level display parameters to synch screen updates with the hardware refresh rates.
This doesn’t jeopardize the general message of the article, but I hate to see research used to improperly promote a sensationalist headline.
Despite what one might think from reading other comments, the debate is not graphics vs. text. Skilled typesetting can render text-only pages both beautiful and graphical. (Clearly not Nielsen’s approach.)
Our challenge as designers is to weigh and successfully balance the emotional reaction we seek to elicit against the information that needs to be conveyed. An accurate understanding of context (user, content, market, etc.) is what guides skilled designers to the sweet spot on the classical <-> expressive continuum.
BTW, it’s important to note that the prinicples Lynch discusses are relevant and applicable to a wide array of design projects, not just web design.
Good article, but for those web designers that choose to ignore visual elements, you have to ask yourselves a couple of questions. If people are just interested in data, why do the majority of people have hi-speed internet connections? Why are people getting bigger and higher resolution monitors? It isn’t to see more text data. If that is all they wanted they could use an old 14400 dial up modem and a dusty 600×480 monitor.
People are buying bigger HD monitors and using hi-speed internet connections because people want visuals and they respond to them.
Now, more than ever, a web site has to have compelling, rich, visuals in order to be successful. It is just as important as the copy.
This article ultimately presents a really well thought out and supported picture of two sides of aesthetics in web design – design for impact (expressive) and design for understanding (classical). I love that it pushes against Nielsen’s dismissal of graphics. We’ve talked to test participants who say that they don’t see or pay attention to imagery on an informational site, but we take those answers with a grain of salt. We never believe that people are trying to tell us they want the information stripped of all design or that they want old school web non-design, like Alertbox. Good design enhances the readability of text-heavy content on the web. Nice to have a well-thought out paper that supports what we know in our gut.
I’m currently doing a computer science education and we had the same topic about low level vision. In that class they said the time the brain can group proximity/closure/similarity/continuity was 0.2 seconds or 200 milliseconds. But that was in a crowded screen where suddenly an image appeared and disappeared. I love this kind of magic a website can create in the human brain. It was a hard article for me because i had to look-up some words. But i managed.
… and spies two ladies chatting, sipping their cocktails. One is very attractive (as in HOT!) and her friend, somewhat plain. Guess which one our man goes for? Even if “plain jane” is more interesting, with more context and personality? Why Eve picked the shiney red apple? Maybe it’s the same reason my clients, when asked to show me web sites they like, will pick the ones with the pretty picture and otherwise horrible design (aesthetically and from a usability standpoint).
That’s why its called “eye candy”.
Now, I’ll study Mr Lynch’s web style guide to learn how to better apply makeup to an otherwise “plain Jane” (or, as they say, “put lipstick on this pig and sell it!”)
26 Reader Comments
Back to the Articleandyed
Due to the lack of visual masking in the short presentations, the results from the two studies that claim impressions are made in tens of milliseconds are highly dubious.
The visual system has a dedicated buffer and it’s guaranteed that users responses were influenced by processing which occurred across 100s of milliseconds. The only way to reduce the impact of this buffer is to display a masking stimulus following the stimulus of interest.
Sidenote: Early psychology experiments used a complicated physical contraption called a Tachistoscope to control very short duration timing. Modern psychology experimentation software use low level display parameters to synch screen updates with the hardware refresh rates.
This doesn’t jeopardize the general message of the article, but I hate to see research used to improperly promote a sensationalist headline.
More at http://surfmind.com/muzings/?p=81
chrisbarnes
Great post! Definitely worth sharing.
Despite what one might think from reading other comments, the debate is not graphics vs. text. Skilled typesetting can render text-only pages both beautiful and graphical. (Clearly not Nielsen’s approach.)
Our challenge as designers is to weigh and successfully balance the emotional reaction we seek to elicit against the information that needs to be conveyed. An accurate understanding of context (user, content, market, etc.) is what guides skilled designers to the sweet spot on the classical <-> expressive continuum.
BTW, it’s important to note that the prinicples Lynch discusses are relevant and applicable to a wide array of design projects, not just web design.
TOR
Good article, but for those web designers that choose to ignore visual elements, you have to ask yourselves a couple of questions. If people are just interested in data, why do the majority of people have hi-speed internet connections? Why are people getting bigger and higher resolution monitors? It isn’t to see more text data. If that is all they wanted they could use an old 14400 dial up modem and a dusty 600×480 monitor.
People are buying bigger HD monitors and using hi-speed internet connections because people want visuals and they respond to them.
Now, more than ever, a web site has to have compelling, rich, visuals in order to be successful. It is just as important as the copy.
Tania Schlatter
This article ultimately presents a really well thought out and supported picture of two sides of aesthetics in web design – design for impact (expressive) and design for understanding (classical). I love that it pushes against Nielsen’s dismissal of graphics. We’ve talked to test participants who say that they don’t see or pay attention to imagery on an informational site, but we take those answers with a grain of salt. We never believe that people are trying to tell us they want the information stripped of all design or that they want old school web non-design, like Alertbox. Good design enhances the readability of text-heavy content on the web. Nice to have a well-thought out paper that supports what we know in our gut.
Usability Student
I’m currently doing a computer science education and we had the same topic about low level vision. In that class they said the time the brain can group proximity/closure/similarity/continuity was 0.2 seconds or 200 milliseconds. But that was in a crowded screen where suddenly an image appeared and disappeared. I love this kind of magic a website can create in the human brain. It was a hard article for me because i had to look-up some words. But i managed.
nicksharpe
… and spies two ladies chatting, sipping their cocktails. One is very attractive (as in HOT!) and her friend, somewhat plain. Guess which one our man goes for? Even if “plain jane” is more interesting, with more context and personality? Why Eve picked the shiney red apple? Maybe it’s the same reason my clients, when asked to show me web sites they like, will pick the ones with the pretty picture and otherwise horrible design (aesthetically and from a usability standpoint).
That’s why its called “eye candy”.
Now, I’ll study Mr Lynch’s web style guide to learn how to better apply makeup to an otherwise “plain Jane” (or, as they say, “put lipstick on this pig and sell it!”)
Eat first- ask questions later.