Public Voice Network
- Trailer Of The Day 799799
- Pic of the Day 7479674796
- London machete attack 6565
- Auto Racing? 99
- QBN Personas 1313
- the gif animation thread 1849718497
- blog 5771457714
- You're at a party and… 6969
- Best American band of all… 129129
- Chick of the Day 1825618256
- Public domain?
- Chick of the day .Gif 5555
- Align shortcode Divs? 1616
- Viewing Old PC Hard Drive… 77
- Paid vacation? 2727
- You're Doing It Wrong… 88
- weird 3d stuff 9696
- The Purge 2020
- Hiphop like this. 7474
- DaftPunk 224224
- CSS z-Index 11
- Cape Cod 1414
- Technological Eye Strain 1717
- Bitcoin 130130
Web search + sign in 1919 Responses
Last post: 1 year, 11 months ago | Thread started: Jun 21, 11, 9:29 a.m.
- whatthefunk
Question - I'm looking for some examples of websites that successfully display search and sign-in on the top nav and/or homepage. It seems that most sites display a 10pt "Sign in" text in the top right but I'm having some trouble locating good example that present both.
Trying to develop a site homepage that promotes user sign in as well as a search function without having two competing open form fields next to each other.
So far I've found
Twitter.com
VirginAmerica.comany other ideas?
- Jun 21, 11, 9:29 a.m. – Permalink
- whatthefunk
Most insurance sites kind of do it well, for instance Farmers (http://www.farmers.com/) displays an area where a user can initiate a quote or they can also sign in - both examples display open form fields that do not necessarily compete with each other.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 9:48 a.m. – Permalink
- ToxicDesign
I think this is quite a common ux pattern
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 9:49 a.m. – Permalink
- JSK
The problem is not where the login is located it is method of login.
Think Amazon. It has varying levels of login security.
The user shouldnt think about logging in until it requires action that is sensitive.
Unless the primary task is based on login, the method of login should be hidden or not required unless it is prompted to do so.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 9:54 a.m. – Permalink
- whatthefunk
@jsk
The insurance site above is a good example of an exception to the method rule. How does a site simultaneously appeal to new users (via prominent search fields) and highlight login to both new and existing users.
The top right tiny "log in" is too hidden and passive, it may work on large sites like google and amazon but for other sites, sites who's strategy is to promote log in while also sticking to the original search strategy creates a challenge.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 11 a.m. – Permalink
- JSK
Is search made only for new users? A search field should not be a primary draw in gaining new users. Search is made for all users. The purpose of login is mainly based in transaction, personalization, and anything that is deems premium.
What value does a returning users get when you sign in? Why should any search be different?
Visually, you can draw prominence but I fear the issue is not how to make it look more appealing but how the product is positioned and user experience is handled.
Most users do not login in to a site unless it is required or needed to complete their goal.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 11:12 a.m. – Permalink
- whatthefunk
I'm well aware of the points you're making regarding sign in and search. When I say search I'm referencing a utility that allows users to begin a search like on the insurance example. The way the site displays both a sign in form as well as an online quote form is what I'm talking about.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 11:20 a.m. – Permalink
- JSK
What degree of prominence does a login require? What I fail to understand is that your original question of competing forms question.
I still stand by hidden or minimized login as user behaviour of login is a learned sect. Once they use it, they will always remember it. Login only hinders from over aesthetics value of multiple form presence.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 11:27 a.m. – Permalink
- JSK
and etc on insurance sites as you have said. Look also in to banking sites. http://www.citibank.com/us/home.…
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 11:29 a.m. – Permalink
- whatthefunk
I believe the example bzsaw gave above - http://begfor.it is an interesting approach, similar to that of twitter but the major call to action is far more prominent then a small login in the top right.
JSK - you are right that returning (or power) users will learn but it's still a major strategy of this project to initiate all users to sign up, therefore it needs to be more prominent.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 12:27 p.m. – Permalink
- JSK
You make users sign up when they need to. No user in their right mind will sign up for something they are unsure of. Force the user to sign up when they have made the commitment with content or incentive as they use the site.
If you look at Tim's http://begfor.it as you indicated, the login is still hidden except a button. And there is no way a user can sign up until they have made the commitment. No new users will come to a site and click on Sign In and sign up to the site.
I think you believe that if there is a sign in / login / sign up in a very big prominent way, people will sign up. That never happens. The sign up strategy is based on the investment that the user has made and it is dependent on at what juncture you ask the user to sign up or sign in.
If your goal is to gain more users, sign in / login is still secondary.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 12:33 p.m. – Permalink
- bzsaw
Sign up strategy is one of the most difficult things to do. Before someone signs up like JSK mentioned the user needs to see a value in wanting to sign up.
For http://begfor.it the user that want's an item will sign up and become a user of the site. The person the user tries to recruit to vote for them will only sign up if they have a strong loyalty to that person. This is why we're adding in FB and Twitter logins. This will make it much easier for beggars to get friends in to vote for them since most of them have an account with FB or twitter.
The process to sign up has to be dead simple and we keep refining, testing and refining. It's a fine balance between locking out and letting in. We couldn't have voting wide open with no verification because it would leave it wide open for fraud and unfair play.
- Dog-earJun 21, 11, 1:15 p.m. – Permalink
