Vielen Dank für das freischalten des Kommentars….

die Lipizzianer haben wir in Wien bei ihren Übungen gesehen und mit den Jungtieren– einfach schöne Tiere!…

Here is a recent newspaper article on “Websites judged in less than a blink”

Summary: “INTERNET users can give web sites a thumbs up or thumbs down in less than the blink of an eye, a new study has found.

In just one-twentieth of a second – less than half the time it takes to blink – people make aesthetic judgments that influence the rest of their experience with an internet site.

The study was published in the latest issue of the Behaviour and Information Technology journal.”

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17859512^15318^^nbv^15306,00.html

‘Content/Usability/Accessablilty are highest priority,

but design is also one of the top.’

who the flug am i? – You state that you “use design before you build the pages” to do usability testing and get feedback. I would argue that very little testing is done with print or the web. Most design is done in a bubble of “know bests”—design teams and marketers who know what they want. The problem here is that sometimes their muse for the design is a prize, sometimes the muse for design is ego, and sometimes the muse for design is the way in which the end user will interact and feel (consciously of subconsciously) about the product of the site.

In your case of a Fortune 100 Co. you will do testing because you “A” can afford it and “B” understand the minor enhancements to user experience will add up over the course of a design. The problem is and the one that Gerry wishes to address and the audience to whom he is speaking is the 98% of business in most western nations that is smaller than the Fortune 100’s or 500’s or 1000’s, for that matter. Most western business is predominantly small and those companies are often owner managed by individuals who don’t have marketing degrees, they have good products or services that people want and or need. These companies are not going to do usability testing to any large degree because it is going to cost them more than the price of the project to test the project. These companies will have to rely on the firms they hire to provide a web project that will meet their need and help achieve their goals. McGovern’s idea is to help these owner managed companies gain an understanding of how business can benefit from improving the content of their sites. His audience is likely not going to be self interested graphic-come-web designers who are looking to build their portfolios and improve their design skills.

Website design for business is not exclusive of visual design, it may use it more subtly and sparingly to convey a message in a way that will be best received by the end user. Let’s not forget simple rules of visual design count as visual design regardless of whether or not we have bandwidth bursting graphical UI’s or flash intro’s just one image on a whole website.  Alignment, contrast, typeface etc all contribute to the design of a sight whether or not it looks cool. It can still look good.

Truly successful design on the web enhances user experience, meets or exceeds their expectation, and enables them to take the desired action that is the goal of the site owner. How it looks wholly depends on the end user’s desire and expectation. Often the problem is that business and designers assume that they are the the same as the end user—and they are wrong.

The attacks upon his website design and professional skill set is a pitiful stand by for addressing his opinion with objective reasoning. Those slamming a person for having an opinion should be mindful of the opinions they have themselves.

This was absolutely not my intention. I’m not attacking Gerry, or his website, merely stating that, in my opinion, he’s failing to see the bigger picture.

As far as I’m concerned, and I think this is the biggest problem with his comment, his opinion isn’t backed by considered arguement or reasoning. If it is, I missed it.

Dave Selden – Good points. Like I just said Cody, I agree, he made sweeping statements without really backing it up with reasoned arguement.

Jay Gilmore – A great comment Jay, really great. Pretty much sums up my current thoughts on Gerry’s post, but much more eloquently :)

Remember back in the day when interactive was opening a magazine and flipping through pages and finding an ad that made you open a sleeve to smell it?

A designer came up with that.

Designers make the web ‘work.’

Hard for me to say that everyone has inevitably come to grasp how to best design, but alas, those that do find work.

And alas for me, I’ve made the mistake of visiting Gerry’s sites and now see why it is completely futile for people like that to exist. Though this site design I actually like althought it could use darker text. Could you show me the font in black please? oh wait, I’ll photoshop it.

Web site design is in an adolescent phase of existence. We are trying to find the balance between aesthetics and profits. Most real web proponents will agree that aesthetics are part of usability. Seth Godin, in his “Knock Knock” ebook, suggests that the design will be more effective if it meets the user expectation for the type of company, service, product etc. In the case of Nike, their site may well meet user expectation—lots of style but short on performance, much like most of their mainstream product lines. But their clientele expect that.

In addition, Nike is part of the mega corporations whose whole business can rely on its cache as a brand versus a provider of quality necessary products. They make their business on creating desire in an average product. They will spend more on marketing and advertising than most companies will spend in their existence.

Most business can’t afford to waste prospects time with barriers and confusing navigation because they have no cache and people will not be patient with strangers. There is significant research to show that simple, unbeautiful sites can and do sell products, generate revenue and get return visits. What “designers” often don’t realize is that in many cases it is content and solutions that close the deal on the web, not visual appeal, Flash intros and complex JavaScriptnavigation.

Mark is correct though in stating that there are exceptions, that there is a time and a place for Flash and more flamboyant design on the web…but it applies to a very small place on the web where the site owner is moving to meet the expectation of the user. But if the site owner is developing these sites for the sake of themselves they may be sending money to the fire.

On a final note, design, advertising and writing awards are fine provided the correct metric is observed by the right people. If the aforementioned magazine awards are about the look of a site, then fine. But if you attempt to communicate to business that that will somehow lead to inevitable profits on the web you are grossly mistaken. Businesses who hire firms to design and develop a website must make sure that they are hiring the firm to achieve their goal and not to create some elitist art piece. If a design firm can demonstrate that their projects directly lead to a positive change in the business, and that met the objectives of the client, then that is the firm to hire. If the only thing a design firm can say is that they won 20 design or advertising awards from their peers you should be cautious unless you believe in success by association.

BTW: Someone mentioned the iPod looking pretty as an end. The iPod’s design was first and foremost to be the least complicated it could be. Engineers and user interface designers will create something and then start trimming away all the extras until you are left with a the simplest form and then turn it into something beautiful. That being said—the guy who helped lead Apple’s design team has recently been given an award by his home country, the UK.

Where I think this guy misses the point entirely is that the web excels at communication – presenting information quickly. He went a little too quickly, I think, making a very big statement with nothing to back it up. There are no illustrations to prove his points (and which are proven to aid in retention and understanding, I might add), and this guy’s site demonstrates a severe lack of branding knowledge. The sun dawning over the earth? What is this, 2001? Come on!

A further designer’s critique might also question the use of years as navigation elements … what am I going to find when I visit 2001? Hal 9000? What’s with the logos on the right side? Are those ads? Endorsements? And does anyone know what “solutions” means as a navigation element? There’s no hierarchy of information, either, with every bit of text having basically the same weight. It’s as if he threw content at the page and left it where it’d stick.

I guess what I’m saying is this: Gerry should back up his big statement with demonstrated expertise and actual content. Gerry is unqualified to make this statement and it shows. Although I agree about Flash intros.