I chose to discuss the following question in the Joan Holman interview (page 3):
“So if a company already has a web site, what would they look for in trying to improve that site, with online marketing in mind?”
Essentially, Holman answers the question of what companies should look for in trying to improve their websites with mistakes commonly made, and how to avoid making them.
In her answer, Holman stresses the importance of usability testing. Holman states an example of a web site with high technological requirements aimed at a market segment that is not really expected to possess such technology. The technological limitations discussed are bandwidth and software, such as Flash and ActiveX.
The usability testing that Holman discusses seems simply aimed at making the website available, and doesn’t touch on the more complex issues of how to organize the information on the website and how to actually communicate a company’s message. Though obviously limited by the format of an interview and the somewhat vague question, it would have been nice to see Holman answer a question of such great interest (to many, I assume) not quite as trivially.
Sure, the mistake made by the exemplified company owner is grave, but these days – how often do we really come across (serious) websites which do not put content and usability first? I believe it’s been a while since Flash web sites and dramatic animations entranced us enough to lead us astray. By now we all know and hate the Flash intros and the unnecessary animations, and so we won’t make the same mistake when producing our own web sites.
What I would have liked to see Holman discuss is how to present content and what content to present, though she does touch the area briefly in one of the previous answers. For example, would she let users freely discuss a company’s product on the company website? Is it ok to link to price comparison web sites? Does she believe in staff blogs? Also, examples of company web sites she believes stands out from the crowd and why they have succeeded would be great. The current perspective in the answer seems only about getting a web site that is passable, not one that really creates an advantage.
Another example of this quite defensive stance is that Holman sees the users’ technological characteristics as limitations (the web site must be usable by all users), while they in my mind also could open up possibilities. For example, if a user has a large screen (high resolution) then that user is likely to be somewhat wealthy and an early adopter of new technology. You can utilize the large screen to show larger spots at the side of the web site promoting for example high end technology equipment, which the user is likely to be interested in.
In a similar manner one could make conclusions about users of Google’s new web browser (Chrome). Using it suggests that you are both somewhat tech savvy and an early adopter.
In summary, I would have liked to see some more new things from Holman, and not just the basic reminders of common mistakes, and I would have liked her to not just discuss usability as the ability to use something (as with technological constraints), but rather the effectiveness of the usage (as with the way in which you present content).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Filip, you make a well-thought out argument. Usability is about much more than "loading up", although there are a lot of sites that do not follow even the basic guidelines.
A very interesting example is Dilbert.com, which is a comic that satirizes the workplace. The main character, Dilbert, works for a software development company, and his boss is completely incompetent. The comics are often based around the mistakes that occur around software and website design. So it came as a huge surprise when Dilbert.com changed their website to one that was all Flash. The readers hated it, and most of the comments were about how ironic it was that a website dedicated to ridiculing the mistakes at an IT firm could make such a huge and basic mistake. Eventually, after considerable backlash, the website reduced the amount of flash. The following link has some comments by users. As you can see, most have nothing to do with the comic strip, but rather about the new site:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-04-25/
ActiveX technology is another good case in point. This technology is extremely popular in Korea, but not elsewhere. It can be a big problem for visitors not used to ActiveX. For example, WooriBank uses Activex very extensively for its online banking site. When I visit the site, it asks me to install several Activex components, which can be very frustrating. To make matters worse, Vista's security software makes installation very difficult. Its ironic since both are Microsoft products. The same is true of the KAIST portal, which uses a lot of Activex.
There are many important firms that are unable to get the basics right. Many other firms that get the basics, are unable to properly convey their message, as Filip noted.
good point. Filip. one of my observations with the company website is this: in the past companies spend lots of money to design fancy websites, buy, more and more contents/story design becomes important, however, still companies pay too much attention on 'graphics.' good example is blog. if we look at top blogs which draws thousands visitors each day, still, their design is quite simple, but, their contents are so good.
Post a Comment