Blind leading the Blind in Website design

[Ali-v-8]

A number of times I have spoken to people who have no idea what they want when asking for a website. The come expecting answers to no questions.
Knowledge is power.
Before you take on a web designer think about what your website is for.
Browse and find features that you like. Avoid gimmicks as these grow old.
Take notes of what you do and don't like then discuss it prior to signing any agreement.
Here is the tricky part, when asking any company about what you want start from scratch without mentioning what other companies have offered. This way you will see their capabilities and see a common denominator.
See what gets offered and compare. Its very easy to walk from one meeting to another and carry over information from last meeting and influencing the direction of the next.
It may not always be the best information, but as you are the client the next people you speak to will assume you know what you are talking about.
Website designers are not all graphic designers.
Ask to speak to the creative designer and he will give you ideas on look and feel.
Dont buy flash websites unless you have massive massive Howard Hughs budgets to market your website because your Going need it.

Speak to an SEO as soon as possible to help choose the options.
Good optimisers don't just get you ranked high on google.
They improve your conversions too.

Please feel free to add to thread

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Speak to an SEO as soon as possible to help choose the options. Good optimisers don't just get you ranked high on google.
They improve your conversions too.

Yeah? And how do they do that?

Most can't write copy that's worth a damn. Most have never split-tested.

So I don't see why a typical SEO would know more about conversion than a typical web designer.

Steve

 

[Andy Walpole]

I have a really detailed list of questions that I send to prospective clients and which cover all the main aspects of a job. It helps in giving an accurate quote but also in clarifying what they really want.

At times I think this is too much to ask for somebody - after all, they are still in the sales phrase. I do like to meet prospective clients face-to-face if possible, but some of the questions require a degree of thought and contemplation on the part of the respondent, and they need time to either think about a correct response or to talk to their colleagues.

 

[Ali-v-8]

Ok its complicating the matter and for the record I will say that PPC management Consultants like Steve here will also create pages that will have massive positive effects on conversions.
My point was not to promote SEO but to promote direction of a website.
I am beginning to agree with Fisicx a lot lately.:|
Sites are being built for google.

I will say this. My clients get better conversions on yahoo and Bing. Low traffic but much better conversions.

Yeah? And how do they do that?

Most can't write copy that's worth a damn. Most have never split-tested.

So I don't see why a typical SEO would know more about conversion than a typical web designer.

Steve

 

So I don't see why a typical SEO would know more about conversion than a typical web designer.

Steve

Different ethos ones about making money the other is about making websites.

Earl

 

[InternetMarketingPlatinum]

I see too many SEO consultants driving traffic to poor landing pages. Sort out the web design first or, at least, during or as part of the SEO campaign.

 

[fisicx]

Different ethos ones about making money the other is about making websites.

I'd say they have complementary ethoses (is that a word).

Whilst an SEO can sort out your ranking a good webdesigner can ensure that people actually buy stuff when they land.

Take a holistic view and get the visitors and the conversions.

 

[InternetMarketingPlatinum]

I'd say they have complementary ethoses (is that a word).

Whilst an SEO can sort out your ranking a good webdesigner can ensure that people actually buy stuff when they land.

Take a holistic view and get the visitors and the conversions.

In essence you need the web designer and the SEO to both do a good job or the overall online strategy will fail.

 

[An Oasis]

My clients get better conversions on yahoo and Bing. Low traffic but much better conversions.

I'm surprised that many people know about Bing and as for traffic...We've got pole position for hundreds of key phrases the Safety Scene listing in TES brings in more than Live, MSN & Bing combined - people in the UK don't use any of those engines.

 

[Jeff FV]

I'd say they have complementary ethoses (is that a word).

I think that should be ethoi

reference

pedantically yours!

Jeff

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I am beginning to agree with Fisicx a lot lately.:|
Sites are being built for google.

That's fair enough. If site structure is an important part of SEO, an SEO should be expected to know about that... because it's part of SEO.

However... conversions aren't a part of SEO.

So, while being an SEO doesn't preclude someone from knowing about writing persuasive copy or which layouts, graphics and page elements tend to increase conversion, these things are not part of SEO (which is about getting rankings) so we shouldn't assume an SEO has these skills/knowledge.

Steve

PS Just for the record, I'm not convinced web designers tend to know about these things either. I just don't see why they should know less about them than an SEO does.

 

[fisicx]

That's the whole crux of the matter. Building an effective (ie converting) website requires a number of skills. Unfortunately there is still a belief that a pretty layout is all you need and that marketing is something you can bolt on afterwards.

Research, site planning, architecture, information chunking, copywriting, usability, accessibility, marketing and a whole long list more. The actual layout is the bit you do right at the end.

 

[mobyme]

That's the whole crux of the matter. Building an effective (ie converting) website requires a number of skills. Unfortunately there is still a belief that a pretty layout is all you need and that marketing is something you can bolt on afterwards.

Research, site planning, architecture, information chunking, copywriting, usability, accessibility, marketing and a whole long list more. The actual layout is the bit you do right at the end.

Excellent post.

 

That's the whole crux of the matter. Building an effective (ie converting) website requires a number of skills. Unfortunately there is still a belief that a pretty layout is all you need and that marketing is something you can bolt on afterwards.

Research, site planning, architecture, information chunking, copywriting, usability, accessibility, marketing and a whole long list more. The actual layout is the bit you do right at the end.

Quite agree but fact is that there are SEO's who may be excellent at getting rankings ,and SEO's that understand the whole gamut of internet marketing.


Earl

 

[cmcp]

That's the whole crux of the matter. Building an effective (ie converting) website requires a number of skills. Unfortunately there is still a belief that a pretty layout is all you need and that marketing is something you can bolt on afterwards.

Research, site planning, architecture, information chunking, copywriting, usability, accessibility, marketing and a whole long list more. The actual layout is the bit you do right at the end.

Not to be pedantic, but that statement is completely wrong. Styling the layout might be the last part, but wireframing is intrinsic to usability and information architecture both of which you've listed as a fundemental building block of a site.

 

[fisicx]

Agree. By layout I meant the production of the stylesheet. It should be possible to produce a functional site without worrying about the colours, fonts, margins, padding and even position of the elements. As you say, usability, information architecture and even UX are fundamental parts of the site design.

 

[cmcp]

UX is colours, fonts, margins, padding. Usability is placement of the elements.

You can't bolt on design any less than you can't bolt on marketing.

 

[InternetMarketingPlatinum]

UX is colours, fonts, margins, padding. Usability is placement of the elements.

You can't bolt on design any less than you can't bolt on marketing.

Allow me to simplify the difference between UX and Usability. If UX is the journey then Usability is the signs. IA is the roads/streets.

 

[Silky]

As a consumer, I first have to find the site (google all the way), it then has to convince me it's not some amateur outfit . An impression is made within the first minute and it's the design that does it. There are so many websites that may well rate well in SEO terms, but look like they've been designed by a school boy in his lunch hour.....sorry, but not convincing and I won't stick around to read the copy, you don't find the crown jewels in a Tesco carrier bag...

Silky

 

[InternetMarketingPlatinum]

As a consumer, I first have to find the site (google all the way), it then has to convince me it's not some amateur outfit . An impression is made within the first minute and it's the design that does it. There are so many websites that may well rate well in SEO terms, but look like they've been designed by a school boy in his lunch hour.....sorry, but not convincing and I won't stick around to read the copy, you don't find the crown jewels in a Tesco carrier bag...

Silky

I agree content and style are equally important. Anyone who says that you can't have both just hasn't found a way yet. Sure all Flash for the main site can be bad but why not have all Flash for a separate buzz site?

 

As a consumer, I first have to find the site (google all the way), it then has to convince me it's not some amateur outfit . An impression is made within the first minute and it's the design that does it. .

Silky

Rubbish its if the site has the what the visitor is looking for.

amateur is very acceptable on the web.

But not satisfying the visitors needs is not.

Earl

 

[Silky]

Rubbish its if the site has the what the visitor is looking for.

amateur is very acceptable on the web.

But not satisfying the visitors needs is not.

Earl

I've explained how I personally find suppliers, it's not rubbish, it's my own experience. IF it was rubbish, why on earth would anyone spend any money on design? I'd have no idea if the site had what I was looking for because I wouldn't be remotely tempted to look further. (I don't disagree about providing the right products by the way, but that's not what this thread is about).

If anything I'm even more critical when buying for business, if a company can't be a*sed to spend resource (time or money) on their own site then it speaks volumes to me I'm afraid and I'd be wondering if the site or company would be still there the next day.

Silky

 

I've explained how I personally find suppliers, it's not rubbish, it's my own experience. IF it was rubbish, why on earth would anyone spend any money on design?

Silky

Because high priced designers tell em to.

Having one of our sites many times been voted one of the worst site on the web by various expert design panels.

I often wonder how it manages to turn over 40 million a year.( but not a lot )

No1 this week.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/worst-business-web-sites-of-2009.html#axzz0nmVFfEnm

Earl

 

[Silky]

Might turn over a lot more with improved design...

The guy behind the Ugliest Site website should think about featuring his own, it's certainly high in the stakes where "bland" is concerned.

Silky

 

[fisicx]

UX is colours, fonts, margins, padding. Usability is placement of the elements.

Disagree here but it may be just in the understanding of what you mean.

User experience defines a sequence of interactions between a user and a system while also satisfying systems requirements and organizational objectives.

Usability is the study of the ease with which people can employ a particular tool or other human-made object in order to achieve a particular goal.

Yes the layout or theme is part of these but not the primary feature.

 

[cmcp]

I thought you were implying that you can get a site up without the colours, fonts, margins, padding and positioning - and suggesting that site would consider usability, IA and UX.

Agree. By layout I meant the production of the stylesheet. It should be possible to produce a functional site without worrying about the colours, fonts, margins, padding and even position of the elements. As you say, usability, information architecture and even UX are fundamental parts of the site design.

I was pointing out that colours, fonts, margins, padding all make up the UX, and positioning is key to the usability.

It might be my misunderstanding of what you meant first time round.

 

[bdw]

amateur is very acceptable on the web

This may be partly true on B2C websites but certainly not on B2B websites. Having said that, I personally would not deal with any business with a crappy, amateur website. To me it is a tell tale sign.

Incidentally I am not saying that a website needs to be flashy and futuristic (esp in B2B). A simple, plain design is sufficient in most circumstances.

 

[fisicx]

Define amatuer website?

If the local plumber has a old van with his clip art logo would you ignore him in favour of the flashy fleet of wrapped vehilces?

Why do we have double standards when it comes to online activities? If you base your opinions of a business on the quality of its logo then you are a salemans dream, swayed by the slick presentation rather than the quality of product or service on offer.

 

[Mike1986]

Define amatuer website?

If the local plumber has a old van with his clip art logo would you ignore him in favour of the flashy fleet of wrapped vehilces?

Why do we have double standards when it comes to online activities? If you base your opinions of a business on the quality of its logo then you are a salemans dream, swayed by the slick presentation rather than the quality of product or service on offer.

I'm not entirely sure that we do have double standards.

You make an interesting point, but the sad reality is that many people would ignore the local plumber in favour of the flashy fleet of wrapped vehicles...

... And that's not the only analogy we can make. Think of the places people do their shopping - why would somebody shop at Waitrose instead of happy shopper? Both stores will sell exactly the same brands and products, yet most people would far sooner get their groceries from Waitrose.

The Waitrose shop assistant may be mean spiteful, whereas the guy in happy shopper could be the friendliest person on earth - it won't change anything. People will go with what's easier on the eyes (if they can afford it)...

Just one of those things I suppose.

 

[bdw]

If you base your opinions of a business on the quality of its logo then you are a salemans dream,

But I don't.

 

[fisicx]

Then why does the quality of their website matter? If they offer the product or services you want at a reasonable price does it matter if they have a cutsy animated picture of a bunny in the corner or use comic-sans and have acounter in the footer?

For some people the layout of a website is more important than the content. They will pay more for a product becuase the website look nice. As you said:

" I personally would not deal with any business with a crappy, amateur website. To me it is a tell tale sign."

Tell tale sign of what?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If you base your opinions of a business on the quality of its logo then you are a salemans dream

If you're saying the "quality" of a logo - which I guess must just mean "the logo" - doesn't matter, then the best advice re. getting a logo must be to get the cheapest logo you can get.

swayed by the slick presentation rather than the quality of product or service on offer.

If you're buying something you've never bought before, how do you know what "quality" it has?

For example, if you're searching on google to find an accountant, then you're not going to contact the best accountant. You're going to contact the accountant who does the best job of convincing you they're the best.

i.e. you're buying into the way they present themselves.

That's why the most successful accountant in town is rarely the one that's the best accountant. It's far more likely to be the one that's the best salesman/marketer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: people don't buy because of your product or service, they buy because of what they believe about your product or service.

Which is why you can take the same product or service, the same price, the same t&c and, just by re-writing the sales message, increase sales by 100%, 200%, 500%, 1,000%.

Steve

 

[bdw]

Well said Steve.

Tell tale sign of what?

Standards.

 

[fisicx]

@Steve,

I get what you are saying and agree 100%. But even a slick presentation will fail if the copy fails to convince. People will forgive an iffy layout if the content is convincing. If your headline can convince them that the service is worth considering the eye candy no longer matters.

@BDW

What standards? Yours are different to mine. Does the inclusion of a JS rollover menu indicate professionalism or an amatuer?

 

[bdw]

You asked the question and I replied. What more can I do? We don't have to agree on this you know. It's just a wee debate.

 

[fisicx]

I get that. Its just that if I asked you the difference between an amatuer and 'professional' site what would your answer be? What are the standards that define the quality of a website?

 

[bdw]

There are none. It is totally subjective.

 

[InternetMarketingPlatinum]

It's comparative with other websites in a given genre or industry sector I'd say. You only really need to be slightly better than someone else from a business perspective.

 

[Dawg]

People will forgive an iffy layout if the content is convincing

People won't read the content if the layout is bad. Subjective, yes, but unless some credibility is instantly gained by colour, shape, font size etc a proportion of viewers will click away before examining content.
Layout and design are in effect packaging, packaging a website, and packaging does work: it increases sales.

The core product has to be OK too, as does the SEO, the copy, the price, the perceived value etc. But the design is not a poor cousin* to all this, but an equal partner.

*Despite the endeavours of some 'designers' to use the modish and the gaudy rather than the attractive and the effective. God bless their little hairless chins and visible underwear...

 

The core product has to be OK too, as does the SEO, the copy, the price, the perceived value etc. But the design is not a poor cousin* to all this, but an equal partner.

hardly laddie more things in heaven and earth to make a successful online business.

hence design is a very small part of the cost of creating a business thats earning a few bob.

marketing will be 100's of times the cost of a website in many cases.

Earl