Are some websites just TOO modern and flashy?

[Scott@KarmaContent]

We provide content services to lot of clients with a wide variety of websites, but one thing I've noticed is the increasing number of sites that seem to have forgotten the need to inform, convince and convert users.

More and more sites just seem to be a chance for the web designer in question to show off their skills. They may look very nice and be well coded but so many seem to have forgotten the user experience.

 

[webboy]

Yes the average (Lolly pop business) are more concerned on design rather than good quality content

 

[Paul Murray]

Absolutely, though I can understand a designer wanting to impress/try new things. To be fair though, I've designed a few sites for clients where they've explicitly explained that they need to have a 'feel' to the site, i.e. modern, creative, etc. They aren't actually too concerned with converting content as most of their work comes from direct referrals.

They just need a site that gives a good initial impression to the person who's been directed to them. Chances are they'd get the work anyway thanks to the referral, but looking the part helps seal the deal, especially as the potential client is unlikely to drill down through their content. They just want to see "yeah, they look right for us" before they pick up the phone.

**Edit**

Just to add, I think some websites have TOO much content. Users skim and scan information. The more content there is, potentially the more they will ignore. The key is a good balance between what you want to say, and how much content you use to say it.

 

[UKSBD]

Just to add, I think some websites have TOO much content. Users skim and scan information. The more content there is, potentially the more they will ignore.

I blame Google
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk/special/?p=169

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

I'm not really talking about content, I'm talking about sites where you as soon as you arrive you go "Wow! That's impressive! Err... What do I do next?" and have to work out how the hell to find anything.

 

[Nuno]

Mystery Navigation comes and goes like BBC presenters. The more commercial the site the less likely you will find it, but Artist's (capital 'A') sites still often have it along with weeny grey type, side scrolling portfolios without thumbs and "Artist's Statements", Lord bless their little brushes.

(Content, of course, is omnipresent in the metaphysical nuances of the Artist's site, so just don't ask, OK?)

 

[OldWelshGuy]

My ethos hasn't altered a bit since 1995 when I built my first proper website.

Find out the reason for living, the reason the website exists, and then, at EVERY decision, ask yourself the simple question "is this moving the visitor to my/their goal?" If it isn't, it gets thrown away.

There is an old saying and that is 'you can only sell one thing at a time', this is why the up-sell exists, get the sale THEN sell the second item, as selling more than one thing at a time is difficult.

In a different life we had a team of 30 sales people, some telesales, some field sales. crossing over was a nightmare why> because they were selling different things.

Let me give you an example.

An Email, the content depends on what IT is meant to be selling.

If you intend calling the potential client as a follow up call, then THAT is what the email sells, it doesn't sell the product, it doesn't inform the prospect about the product etc, it ONLY sells the follow up call. e.g. I would like to introduce myself to you as I have something that I believe will be of interest and will benefit your business, I will call you tomorrow (Tuesday), when I can explain better, and, if it interests you, arrange a follow up to give you more information.

Too many people try to sell the product when they should be selling the call. When you make the call, you then sell the next step (be it face to face meeting etc). If at this point (the follow up call) you are intending closing the prospect THEN and ONLY then do you sell the product.

The same should be true of a website, if the page doesn't help in getting to the goal, then it shouldn't even be there. If an element doesn't help lead to a close of some kind, then again, that element has no right to be there as it is a distraction. YES it may entertain the prospect, but if it is all flashy they may well end up enjoying that and be completely taken away from the search expectancy they had when they landed. i.e. YOU HAVE FAILED!

I used a term there search expectancy, THAT is the key to internet marketing. research the keywords, and consider the search expectancy of those visitors. then give them what they want to help them to your/their goal.

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

Great post, thank you!

 

[Paul Norman]

A great number of websites are just the MD on an ego trip. They know little, or nothing, about websites or ecommerce, but because they are the MD they want to get involved in the project. This happens in businesses of all sizes.

 

[Rene Vatz]

Don't get me wrong but some are looking great and are easy to use, but if some percentage of users thinking "how the hell go to X page?" that's a not good at all. If some companies want or do experiment with their online presence it's good idea to have some sort of survey about usability or general feedback about the site. In now a days is lots of site looking the same, well not exactly, but section on pages, same icons etc so being different not necessarily mean bad.

However overall I agree that sometimes designers want show off and forgetting about end user.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

More and more sites just seem to be a chance for the web designer in question to show off their skills. They may look very nice and be well coded but so many seem to have forgotten the user experience.




I came across one of those web sites today.

Ridiculously over-flashy and confusing for the visitor.

The navigation header text is the same colour as the background, making it a struggle to find your way around.

Whoever commissioned this site for themselves must have paid £ thousands for a site that
tells the reader just about nothing.

This site seems to be all about how clever the designer is, with irritating whizzo-flasho picture content and it is hard to understand exactly what information the site is supposed to convey.

The days of the easily read information with plain and static text pages seem to have been taken over and the web has become a world wide visual competition place among the young and trendy site designers to out perform each other in an exercise of total irrelevance.

Even worse if the web site owner actually asked for this crap.

http://sbcadcreations.wix.com/b4rt3k5okolow5ki#!bio/c1xfq




.

 

[Nuno]

I doubt they pay thousands. It is a Wix site. They are free.
The functionality of a Wix site is that it works for free, although this could work better.

I don't find it difficult to navigate, although it does have a certain dated, geeky, 'wanna-be-cool' feel to it, which might be more acceptable in Poland, where it is from.

I suspect it is a student's site which 'embellishes the truth' of just how much design work the chap has done. I could find three sites fitting this description on UKBF in 30 minutes, but won't as we encourage the ambitious young, not deter them.

 

[Rene Vatz]

As far I can see this is free Wix builded website, I don't get it why you criticise as this guy is clearly CAD designer and not web designer. Is this because he is foreigner? I agree about anoying background , but I'm sure that he is more technical than creative.

 

[Witlock]

It's almost impossible to find a theme on Themeforest that looks nice and is also fast and practical.
Almost every theme made in 2014/2015 is a one-page theme with flashy useless bullshit like skill percents that load when you scroll to them. Most of those themes lag on above average computers.

 

[Ian J]

far too many websites look identical nowadays with a great big banner taking up most of the screen.

 

[fisicx]

Got to agree with that one Ian. Homepage sliders have taken a back seat (as last), what we get now is a huge image with a CTA in the middle. But I bet the corporate wonks who commission the sites think it's wonderful.

As an aside, this site has always been fun: http://www.websitesthatsuck.com/

 

[liams7]

Hi Guys, Yes design still some times tries to test the boundaries of what UX will work. Some times designers get things wrong and things need redoing. But there is a reason that one page is taking over. The conversion on a one page website is better. Also a large ascetically please image at the top of the page with a CTA also has a proven higher conversion with people being more interested than seeing a tone of text on a white page.

Design is not going backwards its going forward all the time. You will not always like design because some times you are used to the old and in 2 years time you will be used to the new. Everything that evolves is the same.

People are used to what they no. Yes some sites are crap some are just different, Are designers forgetting conversion. Not at all they are just trying to increase it and trying new things.

 

[fisicx]

The conversion on a one page website is better.

Interesting. I would agree that used as a landing page from a targeted marketing campaign they could do well but if you were Bob the Builder showing off your skills with a gallery of projects and lots of supporting content it won't do as well. Or if you wanted to set up a range of landing pages for PPC campaigns the one-page site isn't so good.

 

[liams7]

Now your generalising and saying its one page or multipage which it isn't. I never said that one page sites should be used for Landing pages for PPC campaigns thats a completely different conversation to wether websites are to modern or not.

 

[fisicx]

Liam, it was just your statement that: 'The conversion on a one page website is better'. I'm not sure it has anything to do with being modern, one page websites have been around for years, I remember building one back in the 90s. with a neat JS menu that stayed put when you scrolled down.

 

[Cromulent]

This website is my favourite website out there.

It is fast. Easy to read. Responsive. Simple and extremely clear. Works in all major browsers including versions of Internet Explorer older than IE 6 and does not try and distract the user with flashy graphics or videos. Is 100% accessible to users with disabilities. More websites should look like this.

You'll need to type in the URL yourself because the forum censors it :|.

motherf**kingwebsite.com

I remember back in 1992 / 1993 when all websites looked like this and I was considered to have a fast internet connection because I had a 14.4k modem. Back then every website was responsive.

 

[liams7]

The one page comment was started by witlock who stated "Almost every theme made in 2014/2015 is a one-page theme with flashy useless ******** like skill percents that load when you scroll to them" which is where my comment came from.

 

[Steve Alphabet]

Parallax looks great, but is often bad for SEO. Having said that, I love the Sony one (I can't post URLs yet but if you Google "Sony be moved" you'll see it)

 

[liams7]

Now thats incredible.

 

[Scott@KarmaContent]

Wow, that Sony site is just the sort of site that made me start this thread in the first place.

 

[Nuno]

Wow, that Sony site is just the sort of site that made me start this thread in the first place.

Absolutely.

 

[UKSBD]

Yes, but that's not a traditional website, it's a showcase.

Saying that it is too modern and flashy is like criticizing the Honda or Cadburys adverts.

 

[liams7]

I think you maybe getting upset as people don't want masses of content any more. What sony have done there is interactive, fun and informative and does make me want to find out more. If you think thats over designed you are massively mistaken.

 

[fisicx]

I think you maybe getting upset as people don't want masses of content any more.

Who says? Some peple might not want masses of content but Wikipedia seems to do OK as does the BBC and UKBF. An Social Media sites are stuffed full of content.

 

[Nuno]

Yes, but that's not a traditional website, it's a showcase.

A Showcase? Sort of like a brochure site then?

 

[liams7]

Seriously, Your quoting Wikipedia, UKBF and the BBC against business websites and sites that aren't to flashy. The BBC website is one of the most forward thinking, Design testing UX websites in the world in which they chuck hundreds of thousands of pounds. WIKIPEDIA is the largest encyclopedia in the world. Why don't you just compare it to danny and the giant peach. These comparisons are ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that every website is different and some test the boundaries of design and do things differently. To say they are to flashy because they don't have tons of content or use content in a minimilast way and use there design to get there point accross is ludicrous. Yes some sites are poorly designed but this is surely a different conversation about designers simply being rubbish. Are sites being to modern and flashy off course not. Are they testing boundries off course they are but we wouldn't have stepped on the moon if we didnt push bounderies. Technology, UX, Interactivity will move forward strides because of these modern and flashy websites.

 

[fisicx]

Now you have got the rant off your chest, I was responding to your specific statement that: "people don't want masses of content any more.".

I didn't say morden and flashy sites are bad, I just opined that content rich site are still popular and necessary. Can you imagine the NHS website taking their lead form the sony site?

 

[liams7]

Yes i think it would be a fantastic way to show how to put an inhaler together or some other piece of kit.

 

[UKSBD]

A Showcase? Sort of like a brochure site then?

No, a look at us, we're Sony site.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

When I'm doing conversion rate optimisation work for my clients, I often have to battle against this type of thing. Far too many web designers prioritise aesthetics over usability and conversion performance.

One of my biggest gripes is when they make the copy a light colour (such as light grey) against a light background. It looks nice, but it makes the text far more difficult to notice, read and absorb. It's like no attention was paid to conversion performance whatsoever.

 

[fisicx]

Just done some more usability testing on the Sony site and tried to buy a product but ended up on the US site. Also tested on an iphone - UX isn't good as the processing power needed is high. Tried on a 3G newtwork and it just ground to a halt. Try scrolling down, it just doesn't work at all, you have to wait for each animation to finish before it lets you move to the next screen. And it's not even that novel, I've seen sites likes this many times before. Xerox tried it a while back using an office environment. It lasted about a month before it was pulled.

 

[UKSBD]

Just done some more usability testing on the Sony site and tried to buy a product

That's a bit like saying I went to http://www.tescoplc.com/ and couldn't buy a kilo of carrots.

Do you really think that section of the Sony site is built for consumers?

 

[Nuno]

Do you really think that section of the Sony site is built for consumers?

Who is it built for if not consumers?

 

[sirearl]

As an aside, this site has always been fun: http://www.websitesthatsuck.com/

Yup been in it for years,worth a fortune in advertising.

The rules of the road for web design.

http://www.websitesthatsuck.com/biggest-mistakes-in-web-design-1995-2015.html

 

[UKSBD]

Who is it built for if not consumers?

I would hazard a guess at tech journalists