Interesting Topic
- Started
- Last post
- 18 Responses
- unknown
Ok, since there's a lot of stuff in the threads about "not so important things", I'd like to ask a question and raise a discussion. Let me just say that this is not a 2A, Apple vs. PC or something like that thread, although some of these things or similar companies might get mentioned.
So it comes:
As I was looking around the web, just cruising to see what some of the fellow designers, companies are doing, I came across Fantasy Interfaces site. Yes, yes I know how cool their stuff is and so on, but here's the scoop. As I was looking through their projects I noticed something that has happened with other projects developed by 2A or some other "tech design" or "Flash advanced" developers. These projects, praised by the communities, winners of cool site awards and shit in 99% of the cases were replaced with plain HTML/DHTML/Simple Flash sites. This is not a case of redesign or new branding, it is just that they got taken off. So my question is: Does this mean that, after all, usability and content play the most significant role for the companies and their web presence. It seems to me that, plain (nicely designed and laid out) sites that use traditional top/left navigation with middle content still, after all the commotion and excitement from new companies, remain the best approach for almost 90% of the sites out there. Personally I think this is true and I will explain my opinion. After 10 years of working in the design profession, as most of you guys out there, I've come to realize that content and simplicity play the key role on the internet. Don't get me wrong, I love to do crazy interfaces and some creative shit, but the fact is that 99% of the internet users decide to leave when it gets 'too creative' or two graphical. The purpose of the site is to provide quick information and possibly sales abilities.Let me hear your opinion. What do you think? Please explain your opinion.
Cheers
- ribit0
Depends entirely on what the site is trying to achieve?
i.e websites cover everything from online magazines to information sites to design showcases to obscure art... they are all useful...
- robbob0
I agree that with all the excitement that 2A's launch seemed to create, I found the site to be the opposite of what i consider to be effective communication. Way too much chrome and unnecessary material in that design. Simplicity is the key, and it is as far-reaching as fashion, auto design, editorial, computers, anything. This was an obvious statement even before Bauhaus came along, where symbols and simple typography for example had been used for centuries.
- jevad0
I totally agree boz:
"usability and content play the most significant role for the companies and their web presence."
paramount to a website's success is the fact that people can use it without getting distracted by useless eye-candy.
and we all know - content is king!
- dstlb0
I think it depends a lot on the market you're developing the site for and the particular kind of brand / company that you're promoting with the site. Youth, kids, fashion, design, music, games etc can get away with a lot more 'creativity' than shopping, news, business and corporate sites, mainly because of what their respective market's users are used to and what they're visiting the site for.
- jevad0
yeah good point andy - it's a lot about knowing your target market/audience too...
- unknown0
dstlb,
I agree to some extent with you. However if we are talking about kids for example and you look at some crazy flash stuff developed for that target audience, is it "really" appropriate. Let's not forget that kids have less chance of navigating through animated site then adults. I agree it needs interactivity, but also I've seen sites that are too advanced. Just take a look at again, very interesting concept, from FI's development for http://www.dotu.net. Although interesting the interface is 'not understandable from the start', and who is their audience? probably kids.
You see my point. I agree that these types of sites need to have a bit more engagging feel, but for corporate or other not entertainment related companies, I don't think that the latest is the best, if you know what I mean.
- dstlb0
Haha, Dotu doesn't work with the new Flash 7 plugin. I know what you mean though, some sites are a pain in the ass to navigate through and they're the ones that users give up on.
Being able to navigate through content is the important thing, as long as you can do that easily then it's fine to add eye candy and animations as long as they don't slow the site down too much.
There's definitely a place for the more experience-based sites but even they have to remember to put the user first, there's no point building some mental interface if no one is going to understand it.
- dstlb0
I think I just made the same point in three different paragraphs, in three slightly different ways, no wonder I always got shit marks for my essays.
- unknown0
"Let's not forget that kids have less chance of navigating through animated site then adults."
are you sure?
what you're saying is rudimentary basically, there are exceptions based upon target/purpose/sector but basically its information relay that counts.
- vsc0
I think usability is boring and, also is based on the principle that people cannot find information for themselves.
All around "click here" and "find out more" are clever strategies to get people to a target, but are withdrawing the user's learning process -- and i don't really know if it creates the so claimed distinction between companies.
Which is the role of the artist on that process? to stupidify? or to transform ideias into new ideias?
- plamenski0
Phases:
1. Eye Candy/Pretty
2. Experimental/Indulging
3. Simple/Content-wise
4. Witty/Engaging
- unknown0
vsc, how can usability be boring? I don't understand your statement. 'Transform ideas into new ideas'?
- unknown0
he means that you can take arrows and put them at 45 degrees.
- unknown0
:)
- jox0
I think usability gets confused with uglyness, mostly "thanks" to Nielsen. This all comes down to less is more. That's pretty much it. It doesn't have to be sterile and flat like his stuff is.
I agree that it depends on your target audience, but why should you limit yourself to "one" type of people? Simplicity doesn't scare anybody off, like some intensive flash sites (I personally enjoy) would do.
Keep it simple, nice and functional. It's not so hard to create something good with simplicity as a goal.
- vsc0
my point was that standartization is boring and does not create anything new. how many corp sites look alike?
how many times did you have to follow the marketing guy?of course usability is important, but not to the point when you are not needed anymore.
- vsc0
baseline: easier and usual interfaces are not as strong and enticing as xp stuff.
GO NETHERLANDS!!
- ER0
lets consider this: for the most part, the sites that we examine and make up most of the internet are for business. these sites are to make money in one way or another.
the most effective way for this to happen is quickly and easily. this means the user shouldnt have to LEARN anything.
Useability is not boring. its complicated and challenging. and its very important skill if you plan to work with deep multifaceted sites and clients.
the space to push boundries and the creative envelope is where the form is a higher priority than the function.