In This Article
NEWSLETTERS | JULY, 2010 Debunking the LeadersMass Media? Mass Carnage!Aside from search engines, portals, and social media sites, the sites we spend most of our time on are content-driven sites that profit from clicks. The deeper your session—the more pages you view during your visit—the more money they make. If a large number of users get frustrated or confused by too many choices, they're expendable. In other words, the shock and awe content convention is a proven money-maker, despite being a disappointing user experience. Unfortunately, the ubiquity of this convention, and our experience using these sites, begins to craft how we think a page should look and work. Below are 5 examples of detail pages from some of the most popular mass-media sites on the web. From left are HuffingtonPost.com, Icanhascheezburger.com, PerezHilton.com, Engagdet.com, and Gadling.com (a nice cross-section of our guilty-pleasures, by the way). Taking a bird's eye view of these pages makes the point pretty clear: Each one has more secondary content than primary content—in some cases absurdly extending the length of the page to more than twice what it needs to be—and no sense of visual hierarchy or intent to guide the user.
Oh, I forgot to mention the sixth page. On the far right is an article page from CloserLook.com. With an Alexa traffic rank of 2,412,345 (compared to 150 for HuffingtonPost.com), they are certainly not even in the same universe as the other sites. But of these six sites, which one is clearly designed with a focused intent in a way that has actually considered the human at the other end of the signal? I think that's obvious. Closerlook is a mid-sized, finely positioned healthcare marketing firm. The purpose of their site is probably similar to yours—to communicate their expertise to prospective clients and build trust with them before they are hired. Because their audience is so specific, it's imperative that Closerlook make extremely clear what they want their readers to do after reading an article. On the page I captured above, there are only two calls to action, contact Closerlook or subscribe to their newsletter, as well as options to download the article or email it to a friend. While a deep session on their site would be indicative of interest in their services, it's not going to directly make them money (there are no third-party advertisements of any kind on their site). Sending their readers down an endless rabbit hole of content is not necessarily to their advantage; hearing from them directly is. Yes, Closerlook's simple site makes them look small. They are small. But who cares? They know exactly what they are doing and don't need to appear any other way. You'd never hire a marketing company that served 100,000 other clients. Bigness, or the appearance of bigness, just should not matter. So far, I think Closerlook's example makes perfect sense for any small to mid-sized business to business services company on the web. But what about small to mid-sized retailers? All kinds of things change when designing a transactional ecommerce site, but the value of simplicity is not one of them. Just Because We're Used to It Doesn't Mean it's GoodI think Amazon.com is great. I use it all the time, both to buy and sell books. I often go there to research a book and read reviews even if I plan to check it out from the library rather than buy it. For me, and I'd wager for most of our clients, Amazon is the ecommerce site on the web. It's been looked at as an example to emulate in every single ecommerce project I've been involved with over the past few years. But I also think that Amazon.com is a mess.
Just like the mass media sites I looked at earlier, Amazon offers significantly more peripheral content on a product detail page than information about the product itself. In the example to the right, I've captured the detail page for one of our old favorites, Don't Make Me Think, by Steve Krug. The most important button on the page, the "buy" button, is lost in the noise of hundreds of other links. Yes, Amazon wants me to buy this book, but they also see the big picture: the longer they can keep me in the store, the more likely I am to buy something. So, they inundate me with other opportunities to buy. It's really rather obnoxious. Fortunately, I know exactly where that "buy" button is, and if I'm certain I want to buy something, I can make a break for it and be checking out in seconds. But what if I'm interested in buying something but I'm not yet committed? All the extra information on this page—the lists of related books, other formats, reviews, and the like—could be very helpful to me provided I felt guided through the page. But I really feel like I've just been dropped in the middle of a ransacked Walmart. I can find my way out because I've learned how they lay out their store, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do it better. By abstracting the page, which I've done beneath the screen capture to the right, the design problem is made more clear. The crowded and unstructured page is the result of years of ad-hoc development, not a thoughtful or human-centered design. But because we've all grown used to Amazon's page layouts, a complete redesign—even a very good one—would probably create more confusion for users returning to the site and cost millions in losses. In the meantime, Amazon likely spends large sums on usability testing, but all of that is pretty meaningless unless they can consistently test users whom have never seen the site before. "Ever heard of Amazon.com?" Um, ever heard of McDonald's? There are better examples than Amazon. I've taken screen captures of three other online retailers from whom you can purchase the same book we looked at above. Again, zoomed out (so to speak), some design advantages and disadvantages become more clear. From left to right, these are probably ordered from most to least popular, but also from worst to best designed.
On the left is the detail page for Don't Make Me Think on Borders.com. While it's certainly more simple than Amazon's detail page, it does feel a bit clunky since the template seems to expect more content than this page has. In the center is Don't Make Me Think as listed by BarnesandNoble.com. Like Borders, it's simpler than Amazon, and makes abundantly clear how to purchase the book while also including additional and helpful information like related books and reviews. I've never purchased a book from BarnesandNoble.com (and probably never will), but on the merits of design, this page is clearer than Amazon's. Lastly, on the right is a screen capture of the listing for Don't Make Me Think on AbeBooks.com. This site offers used books only, but has the simplest and clearest design. While certainly not as aesthetically pleasing as the the others, its precisely ordered design makes the prioritization abundantly clear, by compartmentalizing the different kinds of information. It's one of the only stores that lists related books beneath customer reviews (prioritizing people over robots, by the way). Of the three, it's functionality is the most clearly recognizable at such a reduced size. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!) for Your AudienceSo far, we've looked at some of the most popular sites on the web—sites we spend huge amounts of time using—and how the weaknesses of their designs have shaped how we go about designing sites for ourselves. But we don't have to do what they do. In fact, the simple difference in user traffic between our sites and theirs is the main reason why we shouldn't. I hope my agenda is clear: I want to convince you that you don't have to do what they do. You can simplify. Before you even start designing a page, keep in mind the following four principles, in this order:
Remember, these are basic, underlying principles. They don't close any aesthetic doors. They provide a stable foundation upon which there is much freedom to design something as unique as it need be. But they will result in a page that is simpler and more effective than much of what we've reviewed today. |
Great points -- I've always marveled at all the so-called design sites that are just repurposing of other content in a poorly designed fashion. I've often commented that I feel design should carry more weight than it does, even in our community. Sure, content is king, but if you can't read the content b/c of poor heirarchy or too many ads, what's the point.
Also, I came from your newsletter, you might want to link that directly to the second page, at least the 'Read More' link.
EXCELLENT POST! We tend to get too focused on things other than our audience. Good food for thought!
I'm glad to see that the tide is slowly turning back to the realization of how important design -- good design is. There is so much content just thrown into a blog format page these days (and called a "website") that a viewer can hardly distinguish one site from the next!
I believe that the "visual hierarchy" you mentioned -- of solving the problem of the overflow of information -- requires a systematic order that is part intuitively artistic and part practically logical.
It's a skill and a talent that few "web designers" (or IT folks calling themselves web designers) do not possess or have an understanding of.
Designers trained in print communications may seem to be less relevant these days, but the core strategy of organizing information in a story-telling form, from the cover to the inside spreads to the back cover (of a print piece) and communicating the message from general to specific so that the viewer has some clue about the overall intent, direction and positioning of the message are still very valid tools in developing the architecture of an online presence.
The optimum User Experience includes pleasing visuals and clearly identified eye travel along with consistent navigation and a well though-out information hierarchy design.
Content integrates and depends on well-designed visuals to solve the communication problem, lead the viewer through the content in a way that makes sense and is not confusing in order for the resulting desired action to take place.
“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” —Steve Jobs
Great article. Very helpful as I venture down the path of redesigning my own site.
Simplicity, has always been a key to good design - less can be more. There is the temptation to include everything, just because we can, but it's often isn't optimal, and the message gets lost.
Thanks keeping me on the right path :)
A very much needed admonishment! It's amazing that in such short order the web has already fallen into the rut you're rebuking. Hopefully we're not so far in that we can't be pulled out. I'm inspired by your words to try.
Ahh simplicity. Not new, but good to remember. Let's look at the Japanese as Zeldman.com (since 1995, like you guys) suggests:
First sentence: "With respect to clarity, simplicity, and boldness of line, the Japanese have been a thousand years ahead of us in fine art and graphic design. Our best painters learned minimalism, cartooning, and much else from the Japanese during the “Orientalism” period of the late 19th century. Before that, western fine art was judged in part on its complexity and detail. And our posters and advertisements! Don’t ask."
http://www.zeldman.com/2010/07/25/the-puzzle-of-japanese-web-design/
Reverse-wireframing Amazon really helps to make your point and would probably make a great exercise for designers who wanted to QA their own work or maybe projects they're newly involved in. Once you get going on all the details of a page, it's hard to keep in mind the "big picture." Really great post!
Derek, I agree with you about the reverse-wireframe image Chris created. The text of the article was making a lot of sense to me, but it all came together as soon as I saw the Amazon wireframe he created. It is amazing how cluttered that page is while also still being so successful.
I was speaking with a new client yesterday about CraigsList. A point I brought up to her applies here. If CraigsList (and Amazon) were to go live for the first time today as they currently exist the chances of their success would be grim--based solely on how poor the design is. However, the history of these two sites is very much worth considering.
We've come to expect a certain look and feel from these stalwarts of the first age of the internet, and I'm sure that Amazon at least is quite bound by the habits people have built over the years around how an Amazon product page works and where the key elements are. Amazon is probably very intentionally doing a sort of qualified usability testing. That is, testing within the context of what they know their users are expecting based on the historical UI precedent Amazon has set for itself.
This isn't to say they couldn't do better, and I think that this backs up Chris's point of not following the leader. Amazon (and a few other big name sites) is bound by rules the rest of us aren't.
The other point worth considering is that we users don't tend to like change. Just look at the uproar that occurs every time Facebook makes a UI adjustment. Amazon actually has changed quite a bit over the years, but it is amazing how it has also changed the same, for better or worse.
@mark o'brien I think Don Norman or Jakob Nielsen would disagree with you. Craigslist has been controversial from a design/UI perspective, but it is lauded by many on the merits of not just longevity, but austerity. I think their success, or chances of success have nothing to do with when it went live. It could easily be successful if it were launched tomorrow, particularly for being iconoclastic. If anything, it's a quite strikingly appropriate translation of the newspaper classifieds to a digital form.
Ok, otherwise, fantastic column, as usual. I always know I can trust that you are on the forefront of all things web.
Actually, it's not as if Craigslist's design was what was normal when it launched. Even in 1995 there were ads on pages and more graphics. But it fit into more of a portal category and I think Newmark was intentional about keeping it very basic.
Chris,
Fantastic piece.
I've been working in the field for many years now and have found that there is always another hurdle to leap. We've all gotten cozy in a way with how we do things (just as we did with print and other media) on the internet, and it's time to try some new things and push the envelope. Maybe even bring a little white space back into it.
Good design transcends materials.
Ed
First of all, thanks to everyone for such great comments. I've been traveling since Tuesday, so this has been my first opportunity to review what you've all written and respond. So, here goes...
indie_preneur: Exactly. I didn't want to rail too much against advertising and how that applies to the crowding of the page, but I must admit that I'm not a fan. Also, thanks for the feedback about the email. I'll try that out next time.
Ceci: Thanks! I'm so glad you enjoyed it.
Eileen: The point you made about how the blog format has informed web design in general is a good one. I've noticed this too and wondered how far that can really go. One more technical manifestation of that has been the use of Wordpress as a general CMS—for sites that exceed the typical functionality of a blog—and the difficulties that have arisen as a result. It's definitely indicative of how, I believe, the blog format will be a stepping stone from one era of the web to another. Also, thanks for the Jobs quote—it's a good one.
Nancy: I'm glad you found this helpful. Good luck with your site redesign. Keep me posted on how it's going. I'd love to see a before-and-after.
Elliot: You know, I love the word "rebuke." I don't see it used much on the web, but it's definitely the kind of action we could all be the subject of more often. So, my intent wasn't necessarily to deliver a rebuke, but I'm ok with it being seen as one ;-)
Rick: Interesting. I was sent that same Zeldman article by a friend just the other day after publishing this post! Thanks for sharing it.
Derek, Mark, Adam and Rachel: Now this is an interesting topic. I like the word that Adam chose to describe Craigslist: austere. As far as it's design is concerned, it's clearly been intentionally kept style-less. I'm not sure if "simple" is really the word, though. Looking at Craigslist, I'm impressed with it's scope. It covers a huge amount of territory (not just geographically), but it only uses text and a few linear elements to distribute its information over the page. Frankly, I don't think it's a great example of information design. While it has a clear structure, having no graphical cues to support it makes it fairly weak. But this is where Mark's point comes in: we've grown used to Craigslist in the same way we have Amazon. We know where to go on the page if we're looking for a used bicycle in Raleigh, North Carolina. Because we've spent the last 15 years getting used to how Craigslist works, all the rules are reframed based upon a logic internally consistent to Craigslist alone (and sure, maybe Nielsen). The longevity point is the one I'm left considering the most. It's been around as long as Newfangled has! So, they've "beaten" design in a way.
Ed: Thanks for the compliment. Just today I said to Mark that there's always a new management hurdle to leap. What's true for management is, as you say, true for design. The technology around which we all design is constantly changing, which means the basis upon which we judge how well something works is always changing, too.
Thanks for reading, everyone!
Great, great article. Really enjoying the themes you've been exploring this year.
@chrbutler you are the best webtech writer out there right now. Any plans to expand your content? Videos? Books?
Alex: I'm glad you enjoyed the article! Thanks for the compliment, but I don't know, I think there are many really great writers out there, and I'm kind of new at this comparatively. Right now, I don't have any specific content-expansion plans. We'll be releasing a book anthology of these articles, and Mark has a book on the web development process in the works.
Sounds cool. Does Mark have any other articles online? I see he doesn't write much on the site but maybe elsewhere?
Also, in your last comment, what did you mean by "graphical cues"?
You wrote:
"When we see more than just words on a page, we think, 'this comes from something bigger than me, something I can trust.'"
and then later
"Bigness, or the appearance of bigness, just should not matter."
So here's my rant:
I'm glad you said this. The first part I know was more about how we trust big sources like the networks on TV. But it ties in to the second part, which you said about a small firm.
One thing that drives me up the wall about designers is that so many of them start "companies" and refer to themselves as "we" even though it's only them. So many freelancers think that it's easier to develop a brand by faking it than to do it based on themselves. It's almost like by calling yourself a company you get to leapfrog right into already being "successful." But if you're just one person, it's much more honest to say "I'm John Smith. I'm a designer" than to say "We're Supercreative Design. We..."
If you're a good designer, you shouldn't have to pretend to be a group.
Alex: No, he doesn't right now, but you can check out his webinars on our "webinars" page. As for the graphical cues, I just meant visual details that were not text—even simple ones like lines or colors.
J.T.: I know what you mean. Sure, it's probably not the best thing to do, but it's pretty understandable. I did the same thing when I was freelancing right out of college. It comes from the fairly reasonable notion that people trust "bigness" because they assume it guarantees stability and quality. Of course, that's not always the case, but it will take the average freelancer a while to learn that and gain the confidence they need to be able to compete with other "companies" going for the same job.
Thanks for reading!
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Amazon is a mess... As an IA & UX enthusiast—and someone who strives to achieve many of the same best practices that Newfangled often writes about—Amazon's page structure abhors me. But as a consumer, I put up with it—simply because there really isn't an alternative. (By "alternative" I mean a site with comparable features, product selection, functionality, 3rd party integration, etc—not just a site that sells the same product.) So it's a love/hate relationship.
The "don't follow the leader" concept is spot on. Though convincing clients of this can sometimes be difficult, I've actually had success using published research and commentaries (like this article) as a tool to help them understand and gain buy-in.
One thing working against this "cause" is the availability of free/cheap ready-made website themes and templates that emulate many of these "leader" sites. The proliferation of sites using these templates only perpetuates the don't-follow-the-leader challenge (i.e. the more sites like this we see, the more accepted that design / practice becomes.) Not all, but the vast majority of these templates are created by people who either aren't qualified in usability, or by those who couldn't care less about it and are just trying to make money off of those who don't know any better. (Or a combination of both.) It's a frustrating reality, and I'm not sure there's a solution—but it's good to at least be aware of the situation.
Anyway, great points Chris. Like many of the posts/articles you and Mark crank out, this one should be made essential reading for web managers, directors, producers, owners and/or anyone else involved in the web development process (including clients, if appropriate). In fact, if someone (wink) were to write a book about such a topic (wink wink), the core message described in this article would make a great chapter.
-Tom
(PS: I'm sure you'll let us know when these books you mentioned become available, but do you have any idea of a pre-sale date yet?)
I love the book "Dont Make Me Think" - one of my favorites as well. I too haver never been a big fan of Amazon's site. I think it is too cluttered and confusing. I am willing to bet a simpler GUI would provide increased sales. I always strive to keep a simple design when building sites. It is also one of the reasons I dont use adsense - I think it cheapens the site by displaying all those ads... I would rather focus on my audience and delivering content.
Great post Chris. I agree with your thoughts...
Your diagram of the Amazon information maze shows clearly what we all intuitively know is true. A redesign at this point would be an enormous task - tracking and programming the 301-redirects alone for all the linkbacks to the site and every product page alone would probably blow the budget!
Great article.
Stevie Black
Tom: Amazon abhors you or you abhor Amazon ;-) I get your point, though. Sometimes I do feel like a bit of a slave when I know that the reality is that I'm going to be putting up with the bad design and UX of the "big guys" for a long time to come—if not ever. I'm glad the newsletter resonated with you. Your point about the cheap templates that "follow the leaders" is right, too. This does perpetuate the whole mess by taking a "trickle down" approach to design. It's too bad.
We'll be including this article (and others from the past year) in Volume 2 of our Newfangled Guide to Your Website. Volume 1 is available now. Mark is still working hard on his forthcoming book...details on that when he's ready.
Russ: Thanks for reading! It's amazing that Don't Make Me Think has only needed one revision since it was first written.
Stevie: Glad you liked the article. Stop by next time, too!