The end of brochure sites?

Evil Phil

Title is a bit dramatic true but with www.whatswhat.ie offering SEOed brochure sites for €300 and microsoft giving them away for free is their any point trying to compete. I reckon you can still offer a better service but in the current climate SME's are going to go for the bargin basement solution rather then spend money. What do people think?

heggie

really nothing new. Brochure site's arnt going to dissapear, and if you're offering a custom site it really isnt competing with that in the first place is it

NickNolte

You're not really competing with a template service if you're offering a tailored, on-brand brochure site that serves a specific business need.

Dades

Also, templates, despite Microsoft's creamy "anybody can build one voice", would still be complete greek to a lot of people.

In fact their template designer doesn't look much different to MS Frontpage *shudder*.

Evil Phil

Well I suppose that's good news then. I guess the higher end of the market still want custom designed sites too. One person asked me for a quote for a simple brochure site which was a few hundred quid of work really but came back to me before I gave her the quote saying she got a website from vistaprint for a fiver :rolleyes:

I wonder how good her site is.

heggie

which is why design cannot be quantified by price alone

pauldiv

Even a free template needs working on and requires skill if the site needs a custom look and/or bespoke features.

People with good web design and develpopment skills will will always be capable of offering something way better and different from these 'anyone can do it' canned solutions.

p

heggie wrote: »

which is why design cannot be quantified by price alone

Hrmmm. I'm not sure I get you. You can't put a dollar value on good customer service either but you should try.

I think us designers have a tough time talking in business terms and we tend to think good design = better. We need more to think of design as an investment with a return. Sometimes a long, full process, with user research and evaluation is what's needed, and sometimes something high quality, but working on instinct is fine. We need to find out which the customer wants and try give them what makes sense for their business at the time.

I'd like to improve my ability to quantify design evaluate what makes a design or site a success.

heggie

p wrote: »

Hrmmm. I'm not sure I get you. You can't put a dollar value on good customer service either but you should try.

Of course you put a value on it, but as with customer service price isn't the only factor. You don't fly Ryan Air and expect customer service on a par with Aer Lingus, kinda the same point no?

I never said it was as simple as good design = better either, simply that price alone is a foolish way to evalute design.

NickNolte

heggie wrote: »

Of course you put a value on it, but as with customer service price isn't the only factor. You don't fly Ryan Air and expect customer service on a par with Aer Lingus, kinda the same point no?

Seeing as Aer Lingus' customer service is crap now, it's probably a bad comparison but I get your point.

As well as customer service, let's not forget the value of quality either folks. Good branding, design, usability, etc. is of massive importance and has a huge commercial value. A lot of these 'get rich quick', fly-by-night, incompetent Web designers who are producing rubbish and lambasting real professionals just because we charge more than €500 for a website are actually doing more damage to their customers' brands then they realise.

heggie wrote: »

I never said it was as simple as good design = better either

Good design doesn't always mean better but bad design is always an indication that whoever's behind the wheel isn't driving as well as they should be.

pauldiv

p wrote: »

I think us designers have a tough time talking in business terms and we tend to think good design = better.

You need to be clearer on what constitutes good design.
Any ideas lads?

p

pauldiv wrote: »

You need to be clearer on what constitutes good design.
Any ideas lads?

Well, for a website, a 'good' design could do various things. If it's visually higher quality, then the brand will be perceived as higher quality, more respected trust worthy etc.... Ryanair's design is fairly haphazard, but that works because they aren't a high-value brand.

In terms of e-commerce sites, then a good design could mean effective marketing and increasing sales after a redesign. If it's an online service a good design will be well targetted and increased sign-up numbers.

From a more practical level, good design means appropriate use of style. Good visual elements, nice typography, strong layout, effective use of contrast to highlight important elements, and general attention to the details.

I've heard the term 'beautiful experience' used for product design, and that can apply to web design too. If using an online banking service is a beautiful (and not just in the aesthetic meaning of the word) experience, then it's a a good design.

pauldiv

p wrote: »

I've heard the term 'beautiful experience' used for product design, and that can apply to web design too. If using an online banking service is a beautiful (and not just in the aesthetic meaning of the word) experience, then it's a a good design.

That was a fairly good stab at describing design me thinks. You mentioned the word beauty and that made me want to mention that last night I was reading about emotion in design.

All the design aspects you listed have psychological affects on a user. Apparently people can form an impression within 50 milliseconds of seeing a design for the first time. It seems that there is a halo effect at work and this they say is because the emotional mind is faster than the rational mind.

First impressions are critical and the prime factor influencing the credibility of a site is the look. This then carries on into the interaction and the overall user's comprehension on the site.

Emotions can make people buy from a site IF you trigger the right ones.
You cant design emotions but you can design for an emotion.

There is not much research in this area because UI gurus mainly focus on physiological factors.

Interesting stuff.

p

I think you'd be surprised about how much is being done in that area. Design doesn't usually have much formal research but there's a lot of talk about it. I've recently returned to college to do a Postgrad in Interaction Design, and all those elements are discussed. It's especially true of product design.

Do you know about the book Emotional Design, by Don Norman, it discusses this quite a bit I believe.

pauldiv

p wrote: »

Do you know about the book Emotional Design, but Don Norman, it discusses this quite abit I believe.

I did Human Computer Interaction as a semester in my degree year but there was nothing that I recall on designing for emotions.

Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things was heavily touted and I have it on my shelf. It is a good read but it does not really tell you anything that you don't already know though your own experience and common sense.

Thanks for the tip off on the book you mentioned. I will look for it on amazon but I dont think that reading books will make anyone a good designer.

I worked with electronic gear a lot in the past and learned how things should not be designed just from using them alone. I would often think 'what eejit desinged that' - I could do it better myself. Everyone knows that feeling.

Just look at a 1980s video recorder and you will see a contraption that will get you into an emotional state alright but the kind of mood in which you want to trash the thing with a hammer.

An original 1982 Sony walkman however was a joy to use because it was slick and simple. That is what made the design so good in my experience. People like simplicity and this very site proves it. It's Simple and fun to use.

At the end of the day you need to design for simplicity and see what people say about the design after they have used it. Then it is step wise refinement until the design is polished.

My HCI lecturer also admitted that good design is about having a natural ability for guessing what people will enjoy and that is something you either have or you dont. Books cant teach good design but empathy can.

p

Check out the course i'm studying - you may be interested in it> It's all about ow to make interesting, successfull and well designed products & services. It's all about high-level design thinking, startegy and comunication: www.ciid.dk One of things we've learned is that it's very easy to see a product and see faults in it. It's an entirely different think to design something from scratch and make it work well.

Lots of other 'interaction design' courses around talking about this stuff.

I'd also recommend the 'designing interactions' book by Bill Moggridge.

pauldiv

p wrote: »

Lots of other 'interaction design' courses around talking about this stuff. I'd also recommend the 'designing interactions' book by Bill Moggridge.

These courses and books are interesting from an academic point of view.
You can take the best bits out of each and add them to your core notes that you will use in real design work. The rest is boring and full of fluff.
At the end of the day you design for a purpose, make it as simple as possible and test it.

Common sense is dying out these days because there is far too much theory stuffed inside people's heads. There have always been great products that could not be bettered - like the bicycle - that were invented by men in garden sheds. They didnt study interaction design principles but still made great products that worked.

All the theory is interesting but you are allowed to criticise it and form your own opinions. Sometimes you can even throw it out of the window.

p

pauldiv wrote: »

These courses and books are interesting from an academic point of view.
You can take the best bits out of each and add them to your core notes that you will use in real design work. The rest is boring and full of fluff.
At the end of the day you design for a purpose, make it as simple as possible and test it.

I think you've mistaken ID course for something like Media Theory, and you've hit a little nerve with me. I don't know if you looked at the link I sent on, but it sounds like you didn't. If you did you would see that it's far from theoretical. It's all about generating ideas, testing assumptions and making as rough a prototype as possible, as early as possible to see how things do work in the real world, just like you say.

Common sense is dying out these days because there is far too much theory stuffed inside people's heads. There have always been great products that could not be bettered - like the bicycle - that were invented by men in garden sheds. They didnt study interaction design principles but still made great products that worked.

Are you seriously suggesting the bicycle hasn't been improved in the last 100 years? It's been changed massively. Indeed, the bicycle only became really feasible once pneumatic tubes were invented, and it's been iterated over ever since and incrementally improved.

Anyways, I think you're missing the point. Of course lots of people design great products on their own. The challenge is designing things that can't be done by a 'sole inventor'. Also, you don't interact that much with a bicycle. It's an elementary mechanism, like a door handle. Interacting with a website, or a photocopier or a digital camera are all far more complex interactions. Common sense is useful, but I've seen plenty of people with common sense design very poor things. Just look at products on th market, you know how bad many are. Having a process is pretty important, and can definitely avoid that.

All the theory is interesting but you are allowed to criticise it and form your own opinions. Sometimes you can even throw it out of the window.

Exactly, which is why interaction designers practice the idea 'Fail early and often'. Which means don't hold onto your precious idea, but generate lots of ideas and concepts, test them quickly, and then throw out the ones that don't work. Most companies these days don't work like this, and have one idea and try force it to work.

pauldiv

p wrote: »

I think you've mistaken ID course for something like Media Theory, and you've hit a little nerve with me.

So I see. You sound like a very serious person. It also feels like I have been smacked over the head with a large tome of Interaction Design papers. Thank you very much.

I have years of work experience designing electronic test equipment. Before all this ID theory came about I did more of less exactly what you are suggesting. I was the sole Electronics guy in a team of research Chemists who all had doctorates and honours degrees but knew absolutely nothing about electronics equipment. The one thing they did know was that they needed something yesterday anbd that it has to be fast and simple. The simpler the better.

I watched them work, talked to them and found out what they needed to do their jobs. I took notes that drove the design blueprints for the equipment which they later used. They were much happier with the new equipment because we had discussed the limitations of the old and made a huge improvement with the new. It was a happy camp alas.

Have you got much practical design experience? I take it you have because you seem to have read lots of books on the subject and know everything there is to know about ID. I guess a man with 25 years work experience is much less qualified to talk about these things because he does not have a masters degree. That is typical of the modern workplace and I have seen guys with MSc degrees who were a danger rather than a help. Too much education made them clueless in the face of workplace realities.

QUOTE:
"Are you seriously suggesting the bicycle hasn't been improved in the last 100 years".

The conceptual model is what counts and it aint changed one little bit. What you are talking about is quality and yes, the materials have improved, not the model.

QUOTE:
"The challenge is designing things that can't be done by a 'sole inventor'."

Try to keep the conversation to a level that can be understood by other people reading this. They are interested but they dont eat ID book for lunch.
What do you mean? What is wrong with sole Inventors?

QUOTE:
"Interacting with a website, or a photocopier or a digital camera are all far more complex interactions".

No they are not

QUOTE:
"I've seen plenty of people with common sense design very poor things."

Who and what.

QUOTE:
"Which means don't hold onto your precious idea, but generate lots of ideas and concepts, test them quickly, and then throw out the ones that don't work."

I dont have precious ideas. Like I said above I have experience in designing for other people and delivered what they wanted. We just used our common sense in the end..

p

If I appear serious it's because you insulted me, and continue to do so.

I was hoping for an interesting discussion, and I'd be more than interested in learning from you, but you seem more interested in getting sly digs at someone you don't know and grinding an axe you have about formal design education.

jmcc

pauldiv wrote: »

I have years of work experience designing electronic test equipment.

That seems to be the difference. On one side you have people with artistic backgrounds and on the other engineering backgrounds. The important thing is that with engineering, something has to work or it is a failure. The failure lines are not so clearly defined for those approaching it from an artistic point of view. From the artistic point of view, the failure of an interface design is subjective because some people might be able to use it. Engineering design is, to a large extent, geared towards function.

Regards...jmcc

pauldiv

I think we can still have interesting conversation about ID and can all contribute something without stepping on each others toes.

I feel offended when anyone challenges me with the phrase 'are you seriously suggesting...' because it smack of highbrow snobbery and gives the impression that the person is looking down on you. I met enough snobs in academia over my time that use language that is too smug and overbearing for people who have not worked outside the comfy confines of the ego factory.

If I offended any of you guys then please accept my apologies for that.

Interaction design is a very interesting subject one I would be more than happy to chat to you about. As this is a web design thread then maybe we could talk about web site interaction and leave conventional engineering aside. A lot of people working in the design and development of web sites are very busy and need to take in too much information as it is. This is where you ID guys can be helpful.

If you read the books and then extract and summarise the most important information that applies to web site design then laypeople with be glad you did so. For example, Jacob Nielsen has a 10 point summary guide on the
design of home pages:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/

The link above takes you to a nice collections of articles by one of the leading exponents of web site usability.

The site looks like it was designed in the 1990s but for a web designer who is needing information fast it is perfect.

Busy people need their problems solved quickly and this guy knows how to provide just the right amount of info in a digestible format.

Another great resource for people who are designing user interfaces is Jared Spool's site http://www.uie.com

Spool's home page looks simple yet alive because, apart from the ads, it provides examples of real content right there in front of you.

It has been designed to appeal to different user groups - new visitors and regulars. You can immediately see that the site provides articles and podcasts on the subject of web site usability.

This is great for busy designers who need certain info on, say, paper prototyping. They get the benefit of the experience gained by Spool and Nielsen et al for free.

With regard to all the books that are written on the subject of Interaction Design I am sure you would agree that taking in and retaining such a large amount of information is beyond the capability of most people.

That is why it is a good idea to create your own library distilled for use in your profession that contains seriously pared down versions of everything you read in the books. You then have your personal reading structured in a pyramid format with the most important info easily accessible from the top layer working down to the bottom layer that contains the full texts.

If I was doing a post grad in Interaction Design I would be concentrating on a particular area of implementation that interested me personally and home in on that. With the way the economy has gone you need even more focus now because a lot of businesses will feel that employing an Interaction Designer is a luxury that they can't afford.