SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: impressions
Re: SIGIA-L: impressions
From: Christopher Turner (princeofcats_at_newarcadia.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 17:14:12 EST
For a while, I've been kicking around the notion (and I think its germane to
this discussion) that the web, in all its multiplicity, really only boasts
three kinds of sites: content sites, interaction sites, and what I'm calling
'presentation' sites. I would offer that the degree to which a visual
impression matters depends upon which kind of site we're discussing.
For content sites, the impression will hinge upon the quality and urgency of
the content being offered. Someone mentioned porn sites: for them, I think,
the content is of sufficiently high interest that many folks will put up
with an awful visual design & miserably confusing architecture. Similarly,
I'll wait quite a while for espn.com to load because I enjoy the content
which is exclusive to their site. I spend more time at reuters.com, but I'll
still visit espn.
For interaction sites (such as Amazon, or any other e-commerce effort), I
would differentiate between what I call 'visual design' and 'usable design'.
If the buttons are ugly, but the interface allows folks to accomplish their
tasks quickly and easily, then my experience has been that users will walk
away with a favorable 'impression.'
For presentation sites (finally) visual impression is everything. Ziya
offered up the example of the vendor selling $20,000 watches: I think these
hypothetical folks would be well-advised to create something at least as
visually appealing as their physical storefront.
None of these distinctions are meant to be mutually exclusive; obviously,
most sites are a blend of all three. But - when attempting to judge the
success or failure of a specific site - I find them quite useful.
Best to all,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:59 EST