«

In article
< .com>,
"Travis Newbury" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > > Unlike many of the others that replied, I kind of agree with you that
> > > the site is neither great or fancy
> > > Your site looks plain and simple (though much better than most) Some
> > > will interpret that as your content is also plain and simple, and go
> > > elsewhere (is there anywhere else to go?)
> > Just think about it, a person goes to the site to look for info
> > on washing machines (because he or she has a problem probably)
> > and he or she takes a look and sees all the stuff simply laid out
> > and he or she does not bother to read any of it, just looks and
> > thinks, "Oh no, this is too plain a site, not enough flashy
> > things, fancy doodle colours, I won't bother to read any of it at
> > all..."
> > Not likely.
>
> Uh, no quite the opposite. And the research shows it. (google it your
> self) Many people base their confidence of a sites contents on the look
> of the site. The stats have been posted here several times over the
> last few years. I believe googling something like "consumer confidence
> stats website design" may lead you in the right direction. As a
> matter of fact there was someone here that did usibility studies for a
> living that posted the stats.

Perhaps. But I find it hard to believe in this particular case.
Perhaps a general study, taking no particular field or
consideration into account, and maybe even vaguely constructed in
the methodology or questions, you get the results you allude to.

But I think we need to be careful before jumping to the
conclusion that here we just have a particular case of a clear
general pattern. To be brief, the pattern may be too general and
vague to inspire confidence in your conclusion, considering that
the difference between the OPs site and a possible flashier
fancier one is not the difference between an amateurish one and a
fancy one.

--
dorayme

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:

> But I think we need to be careful before jumping to the
> conclusion that here we just have a particular case of a clear
> general pattern.

Actually, I think Travis was suggesting that we have a general case of a
particular pattern.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Jose wrote:
> > Many people base their confidence of a sites contents on the look
> > of the site.
> Yes, but what a web deigner values in the look of a site is often not
> what the user values.

Since it is pretty much all personal opinion on likes and dislikes,
attempting to please everyone will inevitably displease someone. Bob
Montgomery CEO of Career Builder had a great policy. The did not try
to please everyone. He tried to please 80% of the people that came to
the site. His philosophy earned their company a place at the top of
all internet job search sites.

I happen to agree with him.

> Since it is pretty much all personal opinion...

While true, the source of the personal opinion ("I am a corporation and
want people to be awed", "I am a user and I just want to find out when
the movie is playing".) is not so arbitrary.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > Since it is pretty much all personal opinion...
> While true, the source of the personal opinion ("I am a corporation and
> want people to be awed", "I am a user and I just want to find out when
> the movie is playing".) is not so arbitrary.

See you make the assumption that viewers don't want to be awed too.

> See you make the assumption that viewers don't want to be awed too.

Yes, I make that assumption. I don't think it's unreasonable that the
view of a site is different from designer to user... in most cases a web
site is =about= a thing, and not the thing itself. But for the web
designer, it =is= the thing itself.

When I want to be awed, I go to the movies. To see what's playing, I go
to the website. I get annoyed when the web designer takes it upon
himself to attempt to awe me when all I want to know is "what time is it
playing?", and chances are he will fail to awe me on the hardware I'm using.

Obviously some sites =are= the main attraction, but most are not. This
fact is 96.2% statistically proven.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
> > See you make the assumption that viewers don't want to be awed too.
> Yes, I make that assumption....
> When I want to be awed, I go to the movies....

Key word here is "I"

Jose wrote:
> Obviously some sites =are= the main attraction, but most are not. This
> fact is 96.2% statistically proven.

Interesting this is also about Marcomedia's statistic for player
placement....

Travis Newbury wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>> Obviously some sites =are= the main attraction, but most are not. This
>> fact is 96.2% statistically proven.
>
> Interesting this is also about Marcomedia's statistic for player
> placement....

Having it doesn't mean you use it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

> Key word here is "I"

Does anyone else matter? <g,d>

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.