| 5:28 am on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If you're going after the highbrow, trendy types with disposable income... Then yes, I think it would make all the difference. Furniture, clothing... Stuff like that. iPods and cell phones?.. Stuff that people know is going to be the same everywhere... Then no. Not so much. But how something looks is subjective. I tend to be a visual person, so I'm not really impressed with the cookie cutter type sites, when it comes to buying anything stylized. To me it says the people have no creativity, which obviously reflects on their products... Assuming they're the ones developing them. I also get annoyed by sites that are too busy, or it's like figuring out a puzzle trying to find stuff.
| 5:35 am on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I feel the same way, I like sites that look professional because you can see the dedication that was put into the site to build it that way.
That's true with items that are all the same; I guess in that situation I might be more price focused than website design focused.
However, what is your take on the appearance of a website when it comes to a site that performs a service (e.g. membership type site) that doesn't sell any tangible items?
| 8:57 am on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
IMO a site that offers a service does not need cutting edge design. For me it is more important that it is easy to use.
Having said that cheap/diy type designs always put me off.
| 1:10 pm on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Here's a good historical thread on Ugly Sites Sell: [webmasterworld.com...]
I DO believe it depends upon the market and target audience. Visuals have such a huge impact on our perception - conscious and unconscious. Marketers have known this for years. So if you're going to go for minimalist - make sure you do so with a plan.
| 4:24 pm on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
My two cents: nowhere nearly as important as most site owners/marketers make it seem. Form should always follow function, and I've seen sites developed where the function is so badly forced to fit the form that customers run away in frustration. Yeah it's the coolest looking site ever, but I can't use it.
The only real test of whether or not your design is killing you is exactly that: A/B or multivariate testing of different designs. You may be surprised and find there's not a lot of difference, and that the differences you do find are a result of just moving elements around or changing some of their sizes, not colors and pretty graphics.
| 8:24 pm on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Services, I'm not sure. But I'm in the school of thought that... you either care about your business and how people perceive you in life, or you don't. If you have a site that looks like a 10 YO did it, then that tells me you don't care. And if you don't care about that, then you probably don't care about other stuff as well... Like my job. It's kind of like going into an auto garage and seeing spilled oil and crap everywhere. Or seeing a dentist with bad teeth.
I recently was looking for a machinist. Two guys I tried that had less than stellar sites turned out to be total screw-ups. One that had a nice site turned out to be professional (albeit expensive) and gave me a prompt quote. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
| 11:14 pm on Jun 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I must confess that the harder I've worked on improving the outward appearance of sites, the better the conversion for me, a much bigger win than speed
its a direct correlation i've noticed, for me, accross different ventures
| 6:12 pm on Jun 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There's a big difference between:
Simple and usable
Ugly and lacking effort
Unfortunately, there's a lot of the latter and an equal amount of beautiful and un-usable.
| 6:35 pm on Jun 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I vote for "simple and usable". I believe the web is more about usefulness and providing quick answers/solutions than it is about good looks (except for some industries). Fast loading pages too.
| 10:08 pm on Jun 13, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Probably it depends on what your customers expect from your site.
If your brand is more elegant, then they are going to want a more elegant design.
If your value prop is affordability, than ugly is great. Nobody complains about the color scheme for walmart (either online or in there stores).
| 4:22 pm on Jun 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Heh . . that actually makes my point. Design is more subjective than anyone would ever think, you see "ugly" in the Wal-Mart branding/website, I see "a web 2.0 site that looks like every other web 2.0 site" (and in doing so, is buying in to the customer expectations and familiarity ideas of usability.) :-)
| 6:12 pm on Jun 14, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|(and in doing so, is buying in to the customer expectations and familiarity ideas of usability.) :-) |
although personally I don't find their site particularly useable. but that's just me.
So yes, I would agree that your site's look / UI should match your customer's expectations. If Nordstrom had the same design as walmart, people would balk at the prices that Nordstrom charges (even more than they already do).