When I wrote my previous post, I didn’t realise how much of a touchy topic it would be. I guess from my perspective, it has always been drilled into me that there needs to be great usability and accessibility on sites – but there are so many other perspectives to it as well. I thought I would write this post on my thoughts on the comments I have received from Ling and others. If you haven’t read the post, I would recommend checking it out before reading on. And maybe check out the site as well…
Functionality vs Usability
The main argument seems to be that Ling’s site is completely functional so it should be considered a good site, while others disagree saying that usability is more of a definition of a site’s success. These two things are like comparing apples and oranges – they are both needed for a successful website, and you really can’t have one without the other. I never said that Ling’s site did not have the functionality for a successful site, but for it to be more successful there needs to be a great deal of usability. Although I hate to admit that I am now a lot more used to the site than what I initally was – the flashing images, heaps of colours and jumping images really does distract you from what you should be there for.
Ling’s site is rather frequently documented as a badly design website – and that is what my post was trying to get at. The design makes it completely unusable – and there will be many people who will go to the site and be so overwhelmed that they will leave. Psychosis stated that Ling’s site “takes 43 seconds to load”, which is extremely excessive even for a fast internet connection. The four second rule really exists, and although good things can take time – most people who will wait for the site to load will be there to see how bad the design (not the functionality) really is.
W3C exists for a reason. It’s there to ensure that every site is set to a reasonable standard. Just imagine going to Google or Amazon and not being able to use the site because the buttons weren’t clickable and the text was tiny. No website is perfect, and I am not trying to force Ling to make hers perfect either. But it is something that needs to be kept in mind when developing sites.
IT Professional’s vs General Public’s view of Websites
Alvin stated that “In my experience IT pros are the least qualified group to give an opinion on a website.” I am actually rather upset with this comment as Usability experts and designers (such as Damian) are out there to make sure sites please the general public. IT pros come in a variety of flavours – there are some who are more technically inclined and there are some who are more business inclined. My career path is taking me down a Business Analyst path – which requires me to translate the technical jargon into something that the general public can understand and vice versa. I agree that there are some technical gurus out there who don’t know how to make a site user friendly, but a lot of them are being educated on how to improve their usability as they realise how important it is.
And for the record, Ling’s site was initially discovered for a Usability activity for high school students. These students firstly questioned whether the site was real, and when they were told it was, they were able to list a lot of different usability errors with the site. These students have had none to minimal experience within the Professional IT sphere and they are still able to identify these errors. It is just not the IT professionals that have an issue with it – anyone can tell that there is design and usability flaws with this site.
Fixing up Usability on Previously Generated Sites
Yes I understand that it will cost a lot of money to make the site a lot more usability friendly. To be frankly honest you created your bed and you need to lie in it. There is always an exponential cost to fixing up broken sites and projects further down the track. Continually making a patchwork of the site will just make it more expensive to fix, but you don’t need to do it all at once. I’m not sure if it was my post that made a difference but you did include alternative text in the new image on your site which is a good first step. If you slowly update the site with good usability features – and make it a habit - then it will feel like second nature when developing the site following the standards. I agree that it is way too expensive to completely redo the site, but maybe consider making minor, with a minimal cost to the business, alterations.
Kitschy and Unique vs Standardised with other sites
We all know Ling’s site has a certain vibe to it, and she has stated that a website “should be an extension of yourself”, which I agree with – but there is a limit to how much uniqueness there can be on a website before you lose the usability and/or functionality. You need to have a competitive advantage in business, and yes Ling has achieved this, but again – are people going to her site primarily for renting a car instead of checking out the website for its craziness? But when people go to a car rental site they want to pretty much find out (and probably in this order as well) what cars are available, find the description of a car, find out if it’s available and if so put a deposit down for it. If there is too much other stuff cluttering the site, it may be harder for people to complete this process.
—
I’m really happy to continue this discussion, so if you have any other thoughts, please post them 
Filed under: Internet, Personal Branding, education | 32 Comments
Tags: brand analysis, functionality, lingscars, linkedin, reflection, usability
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
Alvin stated that “In my experience IT pros are the least qualified group to give an opinion on a website.”
I did qualify that by stating that I do take a lot of notice of the general public as these are the most important people to me.
webdesigners and many other IT pros see things through a very narrow channel based on there own experience and in the main do not concern themselves with how to monetarize a website.
This is the job of SEM/SEO the single most important part of any commercially successful website not designer or developement.
A guide to good design here:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-mistakes-in-web-design-1995-2015.html
Its actually a combination of everyone working together to ensure the site is going to do the organisation justice. Everyone working on the site needs to know the requirements including ensuring that the site generates revenue- the developer needs to ensure that the back end components and interface, the design must be friendly enough to encourage people to want to pay money into the site etc.
The whole point of usability testing is to get the user involved, but general users don’t necessarily have the time to just sit down and play with websites. There is a role called an Information Architect whose sole job is to design the structure of sites so it is pleasing to the user – pretty much their role is to pretend to be in the users shoes. They have to go out and do market research, analyse demographics and work out how people think, and it’s not just going to be based on their technical experience.
A website is not just about making money – sure it is a big component if that is the requirement of your website – but the main part is building a relationship with your customer. It is all well and good for someone to come and just buy one thing off a site, but if your website is good enough and the experience is good enough they are more likely to be a return customer.
Just a suggestion however, you may want to practice what you preach. The link to the webpagesthatsuck actually has a lot of problems that are visible with your website.
Just a suggestion however, you may want to practice what you preach. The link to the webpagesthatsuck actually has a lot of problems that are visible with your website.
Well there you go ,if your talking about the volks site the 10,000 visitors a day and the 20 people who work for the company seem quite happy to me.
As for the other 30 sites I run the public seem more than happy with them.
None of them are perfect but nearly all are successfull owing to offering the GBP what they want and being at the top of the search engines enabling the public to find them.
Far more important than any design criterior apart from good navigation.
This is returning to the usability vs functionality debate – as I said before they both go hand in hand, and only having one does impact your ability to do sales – think about it… even though you are getting heaps of hits now, if you made your site easier to use and less cluttered it may assist in getting more sales. Even though you have a list of all the things you offer at the bottom of your page (We currently stock the following car parts), they are in a coloured text so most people (including myself) would expect those to be links to pages for those parts – but it’s just text. Just imagine the extra sales you could garner if people were just one click away from those products.
There are plenty of ways of making a site at the top of Google without it actually being a good site – I’m not saying that yours isn’t 2nd in my rankings (maybe a difference between Aust and UK) for a reason, but you can’t use it as a way to define a good website. Even though searching for ‘Volkswagen Spares’ may get the result you are looking for, not everyone is going to think the same way as you – they might look for ‘volkswagon parts’ (intentional spelling mistake) where your site doesn’t even come into the top ten search results. With that list of parts as well – I’m guessing the reason you have that is to assist google spiders when crawling your website to ensure that those keywords are at the top of your page which is considered to be a dodgy way of going well on Google. However, Google actually ranks sites more on inbound links and referrals so you’re doing yourself a disservice by having it as just text (although in my opinion I think that part should be completely removed anyway because it makes your page messy).
Like I said in my other comment, Information Architecture (IA) is important and includes the good navigation components of design. Peter Morville described it as findability – which describes the quality of a system that makes it easy for people to find things when they need it. Even though people might be able to find your site on Google, what about when they’re on the actual website – you have so many tables and text and logos that even if I was a member of the general public I would probably just leave to something thats organised a lot better rather than just a text dump of all the information. I really shouldn’t have to control-f and find what I’m looking for – the site should be set in a way where people can find exactly what they want just by looking. For example, what is the difference between the ‘ENGINES’ in the parts table and the other parts table? I don’t know if one of them is going to take me to a) the same page or b) something completely different. IA would ensure that the site is streamlined, the links are streamlined, and that there is improved findability for your functionality.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of things that come together to define a good website – there are more technical components such as W3C requirements and usability, as well as more business requirements, such as functionality, which you have discussed.
“There are plenty of ways of making a site at the top of Google without it actually being a good site.”
well I would be most interested in hearing about them for competative markets.?
Our market is mainly the UK for volks parts hence we have held the No1 spot for 7 years.
I suspect you may need to study a lot more about SEO before you can comment on the lack of links from various text and why it is deliberate.
“Google actually ranks sites more on inbound links and referrals so you’re doing yourself a disservice”
I should think long and hard about that statement,there are over 200 factors that determine how a site is ranked on google.
In SEO there are no rules,just the search engines various terms and conditions.
which one is well advised to abide by.
Jess,
Some really great points here, and you’ve highlighted the incredibly common clashes that occur in agencies, organisations and many other website-by-committee groups.
Functionality and Usability, I feel, are completely symbiotic. With regards to design, I think what is also a sound point to bring up here, is different sights appear functional/usable for different cultures, and what we really love here in Australia, mightn’t be loved in say, Japan.
This is because things like design are incredible subjective and built into the context of our cultures and familiarities.
“webdesigners and many other IT pros see things through a very narrow channel based on there own experience and in the main do not concern themselves with how to monetarize a website
This is the job of SEM/SEO the single most important part of any commercially successful website not designer or developement.”
Alvin, really can’t agree with you here that necessarily the majority of webdesigners and IT pros don’t understand commercilisation. Sure, in their juniour years, but I’ve met everyone from marketing directors to ceo’s who still don’t get understand monetisation.
I think monetisation of sites also extends well beyond SEO and SEM traffic. I actually work for a Search Marketing & Social Media agency, and fully conceded it’s but one channel to actually make a site commercially viable.
Overall I think you make some great points, Jess. Really have enjoyed reading the banter. And hey, based on the idea of just getting 10′s of thousands of visitors to a website, I’m sure this has done it’s part for you too.
But like all technology, it still comes down to the fact people are people and our human interactions are what will truly remain top of mind. We can never forget that particular aspect. Websites bring people together. And if you want to make that experience “near enough is good enough” then fine, but I, like you, would love to see the site redesigned – but why?
Because I think if they nailed the design, then those profits that are touted should see some positive returns.
And isn’t that why we’re in the business? All T&Cs, codes, kept in mind, should actually produce higher quality websites – and why doe we have a website? Well, that’s up to the business. So if having a website sells some more cars this month, and actually fixing up the site means you can actually sell another 50% more – then it’s all worth while, and suddenly both the COMMERCIAL and HUMAN aspect of the website increases, as well the the TECHNICAL (SEO/PPC etc) is also enhanced.
We all know businesses have existed well before web sites, and great commercial minds and creatives who actually understand business outcomes will always come out on top.
That’s one of the big lessons I’ve learnt whilst learning about the industry- that it’s all up to the user.
I still remember designing terrible websites in high school with flash menus and absolutely no information architecture at all. I think as people get more techy, they will move from just maintenance of their sites to the initial development and design – where all the designer terms we have been discussing on the posts will be just as important as the commercial component.
Hi Jye
so if this were true:
Alvin, really can’t agree with you here that necessarily the majority of webdesigners and IT pros don’t understand commercilisation. Sure, in their juniour years, but I’ve met everyone from marketing directors to ceo’s who still don’t get understand monetisation.
Why are they not running there own website business’s.instead of pissing about with web design and such.?
It can’t be for the love of money.LOL
Must be an artistic thing.!!!!
Alvin,
From GOOGLE, this is how they generally rank sites: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34432
I know what technique you are employing for your text, but Google will see it in a better light if they’re inbound links to other pages on your site because you still get the text component as well as the linking – which is the MAIN way Google does their search algorithm. And also, like discussed before, it will make your site a bit easier to read, as the usual standard for coloured text is for links.
It’s funny how you state that I should learn about SEO, and then on the next line you state there are no rules to it. Of course there are rules – how else would they standardise it? I may not be an expert on the topic but I do have enough of an understanding to know how it works.
Not everyone wants to run a business from the get go. People have different passions, and I’m still at a stage where I am learning and analysing sites – so I can incorporate it into my future career. And it is always great to have discussions about sites because there are always so many different perspectives and requirements you need to take into account.
Hi Jess by no rules I mean whether you use white,black or grey hat is of no importance,providing you do not break the terms and conditions of the search engines.
I can’t quite see how I can improve on N0 1 for all the things I want,but maybe the engines will bring out a new rank 1A e.t.c.
One does not always want to believe google as they have there own very vested interests,which are in pretty strong contradiction with SEO ,considering there main interest centers around PPC.
Quote
“I know what technique you are employing for your text”
In which case you must know how much damage would be done if I linked to all the lists of components on my volks index page.LOL
SEO is a science and as such there are pretty fixed ways of getting a site highly ranked.
Any SEO that violates the principle of design/content separation is black hat SEO in my books. It’s putting Google rankings over user experience. For example, you should be able to remove the images, stylesheets, and other scripts from your code and your website should look like a logically formatted Word document that could be applied as copy for a brochure, letter etc. In other words, it shouldn’t give away that it’s a website (maybe apart from navigation…)
Spraying your site with keywords etc, while it does help rankings, violates this principle.
Call me a design idealist if you want, but I just can’t stand so-called SEO wizards who don’t give a shit about screwing with their site for a higher ranking on Google.
@Alvin: because businesses still need good ideas, market conditions and a demand? Then there’s saturated markets, financial conditions etc. – there’s plenty of reasons on the commercial side they’re not or failing.
People don’t simply “piss about” with web design, some creatives do actually have a passion for design and visual expression. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing?
@Daniel: Agreed.
Hi Jye every webdesigner developer on the planet will probably agree with you.
and every finacier on the planet will probably agree with me.lol
Alvin, the whole point of these discussions is so everyone can understand each others perspectives. As much as web designers need to know the financial component, business people need to understand that sites are more than just about the functionality.
I know a lot of us here are learning and understanding the business component and it’s a bit of a shame that you won’t really open up and understand the other perspectives that come with building a site.
Oh well I do what I do for a living.
I mean we are talking about web sites not painting the Sistine Chapel or sending a rocket to the moon.
With a little help from Adobe any 15 year old can sling a site up thats fit for purpose for 98% of users.
I find it a bit hard to get excited about an electronic newspaper.?
Not sure what you mean by open up.?
But after many years I do suspect I might know a tad about what works for a website.lol
Great discussion so far.
Just came across this
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6105.html Harvard Business School Case study and thought it might be interesting to share.
Hi Lukas are you implying that Ling uses some similar elements in her marketing technique.?
We do try to keep the site a tad different from normal and based mainly around Lings rather acidic humor.
Seems to work well with the public,who may well be sick and tired of the slushy smooth manor of main stream design.
Oh, so you work for Ling? I’m not sure that was widely known. But might offer a lot of context to your arguments.
No Jye I do not work for anyone.
I work in partnership with various companies as an SEO/SEM consultant.
I would find working for people does not allow the freedom that is needed to achieve what is needed.
Plus I am an extremely grumpy old git ,that takes orders from no one.!!
So do you work *with* Ling?
Alvin advises me on SEO stuff and we don’t always see eye to eye. He is indeed a grumpy old git but my God, he knows how to pull visitors in. I have never physically met him, but I understand his business experience dates from somewhere well before the time the Imperialist Aggressors illegally attacked the brave defenders of the Korean Peninsula.
Alvin does not build my website, but has suggested (ordered) some brilliant tweaks and made a big difference to visitor numbers, and also things like bounce rates. He is immensely wise. Many wetsrn people do not draw on experience as much as they should. He has earned more money from his expertise than most here can dream about.
However, my biggest objection in these discussions are some of the *opinions* written by people who have never ever actually created a website that moves £££millions, like mine or some of Alvin’s. Really it is patronising to give opinions as if you (you as in people who trot out these theories) know better than people who actually *do* it and make websites turn over multi-£millions in goods or services.
I will keep saying this, if people think they know better than (eg) Alvin (who has some very un-pretty but VERY profitable sites that support BIG businesses that simply lead their sector), then PROVE THIS BY BUILDING A SITE AND GENERATE YOURSELF A MILLION POUNDS. I really can’t see why such experts here don’t simply do this? Why on earth not? For all the reasons and excuses seem pretty tame, if you really know best.
I appreciate those comments don’t apply to everyone, but really, people should tag alongside their “wise” and “correct” opinions this health warning:
***HEALTH WARNING: THESE ARE THINGS I HAVE LEARNED BUT HAVE NEVER PUT INTO PRACTICE TO GENERATE A SUBSTANTIAL INCOME***
At the end of the day, don’t be sure you are so correct with your opinions, all you students and book-readers who can trot out a good bit of advice copied from an Idiot’s Guide. The truth is, it doesn’t matter one bit how it is done, as long as you do it and it feeds your family and your employees’ families. The rest is mental ma5turbation, I’m afraid. Just theory.
Ling
LINGsCARS
Besides the fact I’m not a student, don’t you ever dare to assume you know anything about me, or what websites I’ve built, ran, managed or consulted to.
Jye,
I don’t need to presume what websites you have built.
You could so easily just tell us. But you won’t.
This is like learning how to do heart surgery from medical students. I’m sure you (plural, not personal) have read all the books and can explain it in exact detail, but I doubt most people who offer opinions have ever saved anyone’s life by doing it day in and day out.
What I am saying is that everyone can prattle on, few people simply get on and practice what they preach and build a business where lots of peoples’ financial lives depend on it.
You can be as indignant as you want. Which website have you built and run (and taken the risk on) that has been significantly financially successful (ie quite profitable), if it failed would put quite a few people out of work? Do tell us. Do point the mouse.
Nothing personal, but you did react and the most indignant usually blow the most hot air.
Ling
LINGsCARS
Now Jye I don’t see any mention of your name.
I suspect Ling was just making general observation about the reality of life on the web.
My response was balanced and took in account everything that was said. It neither agreed nor disagreed with the author of this blog or your company or Alvin.
My view is simple: the site could be converting at higher amounts, if usability and design were given greater attention.
Jye I think you mean might.
It also might convert at a lower rate if certain elements were changed.
Sure.
Although I may a student – I still have an understanding of how things should be run. Although I may not have as much experience as Ling or Alvin in the business area – I have developed and maintained websites and social media schemes before so I do have a bit of an idea of how things work. I may not be an expert, and I have continually said that I am not, I haven’t been learning about this area for no reason. Just because I am a student, my views shouldn’t be discounted – as it is still a view, and it is a shame that Ling and Alvin cannot see that most of the other people who are posting are trying to help them fix their site up.
I also do not appreciate the competitiveness of ‘who has the most experience’ and ‘who has the better website’ – not all websites are set up in the same way as the e-commerce website of Ling – there are many different facets and requirements for developing sites. One of the websites I developed was for a non-profit charity as an information site, so how can you compare the business benefit there? It’s all apples and oranges, and Ling and Alvin – you need to understand that there are other site types out there.
Yes there is always a risk with changing a site, but usability is one of those things that is proven to improve the relationship between the customer and business. If they are able to use the site, they are more likely to engage with it – which is key to building any type of website; Lingscars wants more paying customers and my charity site wanted more people understanding the charity. Both of these sites need engagement to work.
If you don’t want to take the advice provided, then that’s fine. But stop retaliating to everyone else’s views. Just as much as you are entitled to your view, they are entitled to theirs.
“If you don’t want to take the advice provided, then that’s fine. But stop retaliating to everyone else’s views. Just as much as you are entitled to your view, they are entitled to theirs.”
I really want people to give their views and opinions, Jess. Just stop trotting out your opinions on how to ride a bike without pointing out that you have never stepped off your own tricycle.
Whereas in truth, few people have experience of running a website which supports many employees and creates jobs. Anyone can make a website for fun, or get a job working for a website… but few people actually do it themselves.
It’s as if you are thinking “These *weird* websites work in practice, I just can’t figure out how to make them work in theory”.
These websites work. Whether you *like* them, or know *why* they work is a different matter. Alvin and I know why they work, and it’s simple: it’s because the Great British Public LIKE them. Remarkably, using the opinions of Information Technology and Web Marketing students are not the best ways of keeping a business afloat.
No offence
Ling
LINGsCARS
Jess
“Yes there is always a risk with changing a site, but usability is one of those things that is proven to improve the relationship between the customer and business. If they are able to use the site, they are more likely to engage with it – which is key to building any type of website; Lingscars wants more paying customers and my charity site wanted more people understanding the charity. Both of these sites need engagement to work.”
why fix something that is not broken.?
Afraid your analogy with charity sites does not work,unless you really don’t want paying customers to contribute.?
Cause if you really only want people to understand the charity,then afraid that will not feed the worlds starving.
I suspect most websites want paying one way or another.
Alvin, you need to change it because all the books and conventional wisdom says you need to change it.
It does not matter if the website is working and making good money and turning over $$$millions – all the design and marketing students say it MUST be changed, to comply with convention and usability studies written by people who write books. Pay attention to them!
You are a nit, Alvin! You should pay attention to the people who know the theory back to front! If it doesn’t work IN THEORY then they are correct! Your 90 years of experience are showing your naïvety in making money and business. If you went back to school and read more books, you would know you should junk everything that works and pays your bills. Nit.
Ling
LINGsCARS
Ling you are a bad angry person who can’t accept constructive feedback.