SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: impressions
Re: SIGIA-L: impressions
From: David Charles Ptak (dptak_at_r-effects.com)
Date: Sun Jan 27 2002 - 06:02:40 EST
Do you really want to call Amazon "interaction"-based? I'm not
sure I would -- it does have interactivity in the form of community
and affiliate-ship, but realistically it falls primarily in a fourth genre
of site we may wish to deem "transactional". That said, any site
which has its primary focus on one genre does not make it part
of that genre only -- on the contrary. The vast majority of sites straddle
these artificial boundaries making difficult even the classification of
them by professionals such as ourselves. These boundaries are not
always immediately identifiable -- and many users, even if they could
tell the difference, may not care to if it makes no tangible difference
to their experience.
Anyway -- just a though that struck me in the waking hours of insomnia.
++
David Charles Ptak dptak_at_r-effects.com
Sr. Information Architect
User Experience Group +1.810.222.2788 (e-Fax)
Ripple Effects Interactive +1.412.683.5690 x246 (Voice)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Turner" <princeofcats_at_newarcadia.com>
To: <sigia-l_at_asis.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: SIGIA-L: impressions
> 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.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best to all,
>
> Christopher Turner
> http://www.newarcadia.com/tower
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:59 EST
|
