Interesting article that changed my outlook
Great Homepages Really Suck, by Christian Moll.
I always thought that less is more. Period. End of story. All the overfed layouts are terrible examples of what a web page should be. Too much on the screen gets confusing. Yes? Well, maybe not. Moll points out that the purpose of the home page is to draw the user into the site. Therefore, it's important to have stuff on the front page that users will want to click on. Provide options, and they'll move forward.
I still think it's important to present things things well. I also still think that people put too much useless junk on the home page (see pretty much any nuke site). Despite all that, I now examine home pages from a different perspective. Is the junk on the home page useful? Will it draw the user further? Or is it still just junk?
Just thought I'd share I don't know how I missed this article when it was first published over a year ago. I do check Sitepoint but I almost never see anything of use there so maybe I just glossed over it...
It also sort of ties in with Zeldman's latest blog entry talking about how the most unique and original design isn't always superior to the accepted industry template. Showing off the content is most important.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 14:36 — 23rd June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
I missed it too. Good article.
Suzanne posted this at 15:15 — 23rd June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Very interesting -- for most sites I work on I desperately try to get more information on the main page -- just not whole articles!
It seems like it's a constant struggle to get business owners used to the idea of the newspaper -- BIG article, bunch of smaller starts of articles, sections. They either want one thing and one thing only, or everything on one page.
*tearing at hair*
Thanks for the article, I like to collect "ammo" as it were. Also a very timely reminder for me as I embark on two major redesigns of my main sites... Whoo! Thanks Megan!
Roo posted this at 20:44 — 23rd June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
HA! And I struggled for so long with my own sites trying to be good and adhere to 'less is more'?????!!!!! (It was a loooooooooooong journery, and I still have to sit on my hands to stop myself)
I finally get 'clean' down, and now what I want to do naturally is good???!!!! What I struggle *not to do* is good????!!!
Arrrggggggggghhhhhhh!!
Actually, I think there is middle ground here.....somewhere........maybe?
Roo
Roo posted this at 21:00 — 23rd June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
After thinking about it for about three minutes, my comments are geared more to navigation.
I have always felt the *all* of the sites links shoud go on the homepage. While I have come to accept and totally agree with breaking a site down into sections, to me simply having a lead link on the homepage leading to an interior 'section' that contained sub nav just has never seemed right. It's an extra click to get to something.
I think there should be a main navbar on the homepage, but also a sidebar that acts as a site map and contains *all* interior links, broken down under subheadings of course.
When it comes to content on the main page, the idea of a paragrah with more>>>> works exceptionally well. But I think these blocks of text should include everything on a site.
I mean why go into a cave without a flashlight?
Roo
Megan posted this at 13:28 — 24th June 2004.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
See, what I got out of this article is that what goes on the home page needs to be relevant to the user. It needs to "suck" the user into the site. There is a lot of stuff on many sites that isn't directly relevant to the user. You need to be very selective about what to put on there. Coporate policy statements aren't relevant to the user. Products and key levels of interaction are.
Here's a site that was posted for critique a few weeks ago that I thought did a good job of this:
http://www.styleshowcase.com/
The products take center stage. Nice pictures make me want to click further. There are also additional browsing options on the right side so I have multiple ways to get into the products. I want to click. At first I thought this home page was too cluttered, but after reading Moll's article I've seen the light. Notice that the company policy stuff (not directly relevant to the user) is linked quietly at the bottom. It's there if you need it, but it doesn't play a key role. Becuase it doesn't suck
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Suzanne posted this at 23:44 — 23rd June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
lol, I think that it's perfectly fine not to know what's in each section entirely. That's what the sitemap is for. At least with big sites. I think having section "indices" is ideal in that case. Or an archive list for each section, if that's the sort of way you go.
Suzanne posted this at 00:14 — 24th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I just realized I made absolutely no sense there.
To recap -- site navigation doesn't need to be complete on each page, but each section should have a complete listing of what's in that section available, even if that's in the sitemap.
Is that better? It still seems a little murky to me, I'll have to rethink what I'm trying to say.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 00:49 — 24th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
lol, I don't think it's anything to worry about. To me, all that article demonstrates is that most design rules change relevance depending on the amounts of information given, needed, the user wants, the user knows. The general principle I derived from that article is the 'bottom-up' process, where you begin with your smallest unit(s) of information first -- note that this implies starting your design with your content. If you do that, you should be fine.
If, otoh, you do as many have got into the habit of doing, and start with a template and filler, without having considered its content, well... :alien:
Being content-centric will also only work if you've understood the content, obviously. The article merely suggests that you know what you're presenting, and, know what the user is getting.
'Less is more' still applies, Imo. You might be delivering more information on the home page, but that should only mean you get more heavy-handed with the scissors. Without compromising content, you could remove design redundancies like artsy backgrounds or extraneous widgets... simplify the interface.
Just to expand on that point a little...
Again, if the user has prior knowledge of your site or type of information, well then they've got a flashlight stuck on their helmets already.
eBlush_Hector posted this at 02:51 — 24th June 2004.
He has: 51 posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Depends entirely on the site in question!
From 'The Design of Sites':
Top Ten Signs That Things Are Going Badly
1. "Our Web site is intuitive and user-friendly."
2. "We need to start doing some usability tests before our launch next month."
3. "We can use [XML/SOAP/ insert other buzzword technology] to fix that."
4. "If you stop and think about how the interface works for a second, it makes complete sense."
5. "How can our customers be so stupid? It's so obvious!"
6. "Well, they should RTFM!"
7. "We don't need to do any user testing. I'm a user, and I find it easy to use."
8. "We'll just put an 'Under Construction' sign there."
9. "Shrink the fonts more so that we can put more content at the top."
10. "We need a splash screen."
I'm an advocate for this book:
http://www.designofsites.com/about_the_book/index.shtm
http://www.eblush.com/
Where you can get personal, online!
NEW: Honor your heroes at ThisIsMyHero.com!
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.