[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: re: Re: UKNM: Worst website sins
From: Ben Scott-Robinson
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:07:01 +0100

A not-so-quicky

Am I the only person here who thinks that whether or not a site is ugly actually matters? I know I speak from deep in the wanky design ghetto of this community, but I get this impression that when a serious client (as distinct from a casual browser or a diehard industry buff) is looking at the site of a potential collaborator/associate/supplier, whether it appears to reflect an ethos of professionality, as distinct from something that appears to be designed/laid out/constructed by a four year old with A.D.D. is an issue, if not of importance, then of some concern. Before I get my head bitten off, I'll apply this idea from a slightly different angle.

You are speaking to two potential, and apparently equal, suppliers. One sends you an elegant and clear brochure, and the other sends two mangles sheets of photocopied A4 with barely legible text, which one do you go for? I mean, same quality of information, same prices etc. It just appears to me to be the corporate equivalent of an egg stain down the tie.

Now I really do NOT want to get into any of the arguments for or against Flash/HTML/ASCII art/egg box collages which have been infesting this group recently. Anybody who knows anything about us will be aware that we do products aimed at the potential user... whatever the technology (Anybody who wants a fight over this, I'll happily send them our full url listing for them to make up their own minds).

However, it is of the utmost importance to us that the ethos of the company/product is represented. I get the impression it would be possible to keep on the angelic side of all of the cardinal sins mentioned, and still produce something that gives the corporate feel of a mutilated gecko.

My only reason for mentioning this is that while this is hinted at in the list in two different points, it is never adequately stated, and working currently in a market (the Italian one) which is largely made up of companies that wouldn't understand a well executed design concept if it tap danced across their dinner table, I feel these things need to be made crystal clear.

So.... If you have got to the end of this, and aren't yet snoozing quietly, Jo, I'd suggest:

* No attention paid to the level of professionality expressed within other aspects of the corporate image.

Hmmm. Could be more catchy, but there we go.

That's it. No more. You can go back to surfing now.


> ----- Original Message -----From: Jo Chipchase <joatcan-u-hack-it [dot] com>
> To: <uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com>; <cu-high-submitatpublicise [dot] net>
> Sent: 15 July 1999 13:46
> Subject: UKNM: Worst website sins
> > I'm writing a feature on "The Worst Website Sins" for Internet Money (a new
> > title aimed at small businesses).
> >
> > The sins currently include:
> >
> > * Poor site navigation systems
> > * Pages too slow to download / graphics too big
> > * Too much use of Flash / predictable animations (e.g. boring corporate logos that twirl into the middle of the screen)
> > * Broken links
> > * Design faults - poor use of colours, etc.
> > * Getting your techie guy to throw together a site using Front Page / site
> > out of line with corporate image
> > * Contact details hard to find
> > * Superfluous / useless content
> > * Site never updated

When the going gets weird,
The weird turn pro.

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]