|
| |
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
 |
Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 0:33:27
I've been reviewing a bunch of sites lately, and I've noticed a definite tendency to try packing a whole bunch of stuff onto a single screen, as well as a tendency to use 'moving' images and text to attract attention.
Personally, I prefer simplicity --> a single point of focus on each page, so that the viewer doesn't have to mentally scan a dozen things at once, or mentally block out a flashing picture in order to focus on reading a sentence elsewhere on the page.
However, I do seem to be at odds with most designers on this. I'm wondering what some of the pro's in this forum think of using 'active' displays, such as moving type, flashing pictures, and the like, as opposed to a simple computer-screen-imitating-a-paper-book type approach, in terms of the effectiveness of both attracting and 'holding' viewers.
In a similar vein, I'm wondering if anyone has noticed a correlation between the amount of 'flash' on a site and the credibility of the site owners with the viewing public?
Is simplicity really better, or am I just comforting my lazy self with an illusion?
|
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 5972
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 3:59:27
I'm with you on the "Simple is better" thing.
It's a question of balance - too much stuff on a page and the reader may miss the point - too little and it's wasting screen-space.
I've noticed a move towards simplicity from the "big name" designers I respect - much more whitespace than there used to be. I actively dislike too much flash animation, animated gifs etc - to me it's as though the content of the page doesn't stand up by itself so they have to distract us with the "silly flashing stuff".
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 8:18:55
look at google's site - ultimate in simplicity ..and effectiveness
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Mojo
Posts: 2431
From: Chicago
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 13:14:06
quote:
Is simplicity really better, or am I just comforting my lazy self with an illusion?
Unless you actually test and compare (A/B Split Testing) you're shooting in the dark. Often, our feelings about what work are not the best for the average site visitor. The *only* way to know is to test - side by side - different versions of your pages.
Test > Compare > Change > Test ...
_____________________________
Split Testing
Chicago Order Fulfillment
Emergency Kits
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 13:39:58
Thanks for the input.
The first three answers I like, cuz I don't have to do anything...
You're probably right, though, Mojo, so I think I'll start out with the simple layout I have now, and perhaps add some 'features' as I go, when I've got enough visitors to the site to run some meaningful tests.
And if I'm really lucky, I'll have enough revenue to pay someone else to do the tests...
Thanks.
| |
|
|
|
Mojo
Posts: 2431
From: Chicago
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/11/2006 17:51:14
I'm looking for test sites for a program I'm working on which handles A/B Split Testing. If you have enough traffic to make a statistically sound test I may be able to help you with your testing -- for FREE. This includes my charming personal advice on page design vs conversion.
I'll open this up to others that may be interested. For obvious reasons, it is first come, first serve and I only have the time to help a few.
Let me know...
_____________________________
Split Testing
Chicago Order Fulfillment
Emergency Kits
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/12/2006 2:53:36
Sir:
That certainly sounds interesting, and perhaps, at some point in the future, I would be more than willing to take you up on the offer.
At the moment, however, my site is still purely resident on my own hard drive. Three days ago, I had planned to have the site ready for launch by April 1, but I've since been persuaded that I need to learn more about SEO first, and put some time into applying what I learn, so that date is likely to get pushed back a bit.
If my own timeline is not too far into the future, I'd love to see some info on what is required of a test participant. I only have a single, very basic version of everything at this time, and will never be good enough from a technical standpoint to push the boundaries of what can be done with a website, but if my own site is suitable for your testing, I'd love to participate.
Thanks for the offer...
| |
|
|
|
J-man
Posts: 936
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/12/2006 4:12:19
I have ASP test webSpace on a server_2003.jason_havelock@yahoo.ca
//wonder how many bots can figure that on out
I like complicated!
I have JS validation and ajax and MXLookup on the domain name for the email address, but also do the same server side, my point is the effecientcy you can correct form errors via JS enabled and either way ASP/VBregex kicks in validating the request.forms and resonse.redirect with string values on errors, to display an X image beside the question where the error resided in the form. I never got into the db side of things but as you can image functionality degrades gracefully, and full JS functionality reduces server banter. A lot of work sure. I think what i like most about the projects that i just finish is that there are better, casue i use all previous knowledge.
I made a flash site once that used xml, ASP and sql2k, plus parsing via xmlhttp2 into flash, the whole flash aspect but for the target audience, useibility is where its was at
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 3/12/2006 12:40:22
So, uh, I guess that means you're goin' with flashy?
| |
|
|
|
traveler98
Posts: 362
From: Dallas Tx USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/4/2006 18:57:34
quote:
Simple, or flashy?
I have to agree with most here. Simple is better.
To quote a great clothing designer...."when it comes to design other words for simple to my way of thinking are classic and elegant"
_____________________________
The worst day of golf is better than any day at work.
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/11/2006 0:13:28
Like maybe I'm gonna take fashion advice from a GOLFER!!!!!!
Seriously...
| |
|
|
|
eTechSupport.net
Posts: 48
Joined: 8/24/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/12/2006 12:41:46
Simply follow the web standards as laid by W3C and try to make your site as per the user percpective rather than only for search engine.
I think this link is useful; http://webstandardsgroup.org/standards/
| |
|
|
|
traveler98
Posts: 362
From: Dallas Tx USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/12/2006 12:45:13
yeah but a golfer that wears pracitcally nothing but Ralph Lauren. Like I said, another word for simple to some people is classic and elegant.
_____________________________
The worst day of golf is better than any day at work.
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 1:03:05
Sir:
Thankfully, it's quite simple to pretend that I'm not embarassed to ask, through the internet; in person, I'd probably be a bit red-faced asking this...
quote:
ORIGINAL: eTechSupport.net
...the web standards as laid by W3C...
Exactly what are the web standards as laid by W3C?
With regards your advice to structure the site to suit customer needs, as opposed to gain the highest possible SEO "ranking", I couldn't agree more.
I spent a bit of time researching SEO techniques, reading the tutorials in this forum, and some sites Penny Magas was kind enough to recommend, but concluded that if I fail to generate traffic through non-internet based means, then SEO would not be enough to enable my business to succeed, and if I do enough to succeed, the SEO will be largely pointless.
Thank you, sir, and, as we say in the Arab quarter, "May a camel with a spastic colon never sleep in your tent..."
| |
|
|
|
Mojo
Posts: 2431
From: Chicago
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 1:29:45
quote:
spent a bit of time researching SEO techniques, reading the tutorials in this forum, and some sites Penny Magas was kind enough to recommend, but concluded that if I fail to generate traffic through non-internet based means, then SEO would not be enough to enable my business to succeed, and if I do enough to succeed, the SEO will be largely pointless.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Actually, it's just wrong. How could earning lots of money be "pointless"?
_____________________________
Split Testing
Chicago Order Fulfillment
Emergency Kits
| |
|
|
|
Kitka
Posts: 2512
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 1:30:27
quote:
Exactly what are the web standards as laid by W3C?
You can find them all by starting here:
http://www.w3.org/
_____________________________
Kitka
**It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.**
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 2:12:39
While there aren't a lot of things I could do to make millions, there are millions of things I could do to make money, and every one of them is easier than the task I've set for myself...
I've spent more than 20 years developing an equation that fits on a t-shirt, in simplified form (S=(PEPER,t)).
I've never earned a dime from doing so.
I do anticipate turning a buck from this work, fairly soon, but the business model renders traffic generated through SEO of marginal value, due to the focus on using the site as a backstop for a television, radio and touring campaign, as opposed to the primary instrument of service...
My third wife thinks it's pointless, as well...
Me, I just keep plugging away, because some things matter more than money, and nothing worthwhile comes easy, when you're poor, ugly and unknown...
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 2:24:16
Thanks, Kit...
I'm already familiar with the organization, just wasn't familiar with the name W3C, 'cuz it's been a while since I've visited their site.
I haven't even checked my e-mail in a few days, and had a couple of replies to earlier posts in the box, and am being politely informed that, due to my total reliance on Microsoft Corp. for all my computing and system operating needs, since first taking hold of a 286 with 640K of RAM, I can look forward to endless hours of hair-pulling pleasure trying to make my Microsoft Office produced documents display properly, in Microsoft Internet Explorer, on a site created with Microsoft FrontPage, on a PC running Microsoft Windows XP, and, in the near future, I can look forward to publishing that site on a server running Windows server software and MS FP server extensions, and then adding the Access databases I'm working on now, and then adding the MS Project databases, which should all be compatible, right, seeing as it's all Genuine Microsoft that I paid full price for...
Anyway, I gotta go sacrifice a goat, or club a baby harp seal, or something other than stare at my own impending bankruptcy...
| |
|
|
|
Mojo
Posts: 2431
From: Chicago
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/13/2006 10:58:19
You still don't make sense on how you're going to moniteze the site. Why would quality internet traffic be worse than quality non-internet traffic?
It doesn't add up.
_____________________________
Split Testing
Chicago Order Fulfillment
Emergency Kits
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/15/2006 12:59:44
If you'd like an explanation that runs about 500,000 words, I'll send you an archive. If you read the whole thing, it'll make sense before you finish.
The difficulty I'm slowly learning to overcome is explaining something that requires 500,000 words to explain completely, in 500 words or less, effectively.
I'm obviously not quite there yet, but if you've ever had to write a cover letter, to go with a resume, you probably have some idea how hard it can be to summarize something long and complex (such as your entire career) in three paragraphs or less, without sounding like a brochure...
'Monetizing' the site will be done with PayPal; promoting the project will be done primarily through non-internet means. The bulk of the revenues I expect will be investment dollars, as opposed to donations. The site, however, will be a key instrument for the market research necessary to obtain investment funds, as well as the central point for system, machine and seed development (kinda like Linux, but different...)
Hope I didn't just confuse the picture more...
| |
|
|
|
dpf
Posts: 7121
Joined: 11/12/2003
From: India-napolis
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/15/2006 13:04:18
quote:
Hope I didn't just confuse the picture more... nope but you didnt clarify it either..... quantum pysics can be summarized in far les than 500,00 words
_____________________________
Dan
| |
|
|
|
Proprietor
Posts: 77
Joined: 2/16/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Simple, or flashy? - 4/15/2006 13:31:59
Two questions, Sir:
1. What does a space shuttle do?
2. How?
In 500 words or less, please, even if your answer to the second is a brand new design, substantially differing from any existing machines...
And one little hint: if your answer is going out through an anonymous medium, such as the net, keep in mind that you might run into a little cynicism from time to time, because people tell lies on the net, from time to time...
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
