The King and I
| 11:37 am on Jun 17, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I studied app psych at uni, with some research of GUI and AI amongst others, should i whole heartedly take into account what Neilson (especially his top ten mistakes) states is a good / bad website, when designing my next site ?
I always thought the idea behind the complexity of websites (enabled scripting, flash, proprietry languages and frames) was to give the user a simplier more intuitive experience, however Neilson suggests that except in none prominent manors not to use frames or flash (bummer!).
So should i now be developing sites at level 2 browser compatibility, as the SE's algo's can only see that deep into the pages of a site (according to J Nielson.) ?
If so then, what should i be looking to develop something like his homesite ? no pictures, quality content, universal browser capable, looks simple - stop there, i suppose that is his point anyway.
It's simple, intuitive, but dose'nt look that great !
| 1:34 pm on Jun 17, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think it depends very much on the site. We are fans of Jakob's insights and use it a lot, but we run business information and ezine sites targeted at senior management. They really just want the info quick, and they are not too savvy with the Internet. They do not care about how good a site looks but whether they can use it.
Usability is also more important for sites that need to build up a loyal group of users, and want broad hits from dial ups as well as those on fast access.
On the other side, if you want to make a statement about your own sites tech savvy (if you are a tech firm), the value of having an impressive site may outrank what you lose from Se positioning and repeat visitors -(maybe?!)
The point is.. design your site based on what your customers and more importantly new potential customers coming to you from the internet want - and then quickly sell on your product/service.
| 1:44 pm on Jun 17, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I see what you mean, ultimately SE positioning is the most important consideration mixed with functionality and ease of use for the user.
About six companies, with multiple sites, except ours, got a new site in plan, last one was tables, shall prbably use a similar practice instead of Flash and Frames.
| 8:03 am on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
you can still have a really nice looking site and have it ranl well in the search engines it just takes skill and a lot of thought.
This is why there are very few really good web designers ;)
| 9:05 am on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
good point knighty...
we "re-discovered" color codes a while back and its a great way to add color and panache to a page (just be careful with color combinations and keep it subtle!) with little added page weight.
use external js or css to have a dynamic site.
optimise gifs.. in fact you can probably get rid of a lot. Use the same one as much as possible on different pages to take advantage of cacheing..
Most importantly Knighty is spot on. Get creative and spend some thought and you can end up with the best of both worlds. Nothing can replace this which is gotten by experience. Its amazing what rural people around here can do with rice and a few ingredients that grow wild. They are forced to be creative and often come up with better dishes than the most swanky restaurants using expensive and imported ingredients.
| 10:02 am on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I appreciate the comments - and will take time and try to be as creative as possible in my next inhouse website.
| 2:39 pm on Jun 18, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Good luck Caine. The thread on "The Myth of Broadband" may be interesting too. Let us know how you get on and I hope a few more suggestions come up here too.