I have started to look at the good and bad sides of websites. I first thought about the sites that I like and why I like them.
One site that I use quite a lot is the Apple website (http://www.apple.com/uk ). I like looking at their stuff and what’s new. It is not just because of the cool technical stuff they are showing, but also the way it is displayed and the ease of getting around the site. The opening page is simple and clear and does not feel messy, yet there is plenty of information. I think the white background helps to give the uncluttered look. The pictures of the equipment they show are eye-catching – you feel you want to know more and go further into the site.
No matter how good the website looks or how good its content, it has to be easy to use, to get around and find what you are looking for. Many sites are annoying to use, because they have dead-ends and unclear instructions and links. I think you should be able to find what you want with only three or four few clicks of the mouse at most. I tried this out on the Apple UK site and found I got to the VGA adapter I was looking for in four clicks. So this passes my use-ability test!
Another site that I like is the one owned by Jonathan Pollock (http://www.jonathanpollock.com), a really superb still-life and food photographer. The opening page is so simple, but has a big impact. The photograph of the biscuit box with the biscuits alongside is just brilliant, but then the whole page reflects the colour of the box in the photograph. The simple, clear lettering of his name, contact details and the site contents are just right.
What is really good about the contents headings/links is when you run the mouse cursor over each link, the photographs on the page that you have selected are displayed in a series of mini-photo squares alongside the link. It is preview of what is to come – and you can select from the mini-photos if you wish. Navigation is really easy and interesting.
The Apple site is all about technical equipment and the Jonathan Pollock site all about good photography and advertising images. Other sites I use are just lots of information. So this is difficult to do without the site being confusing and boring, but the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk) I think does it quite well. The opening page has a lot of information, but it is well organised with good images. To see the whole page you have to scroll down, which I am not so keen about, but that is a minor objection. The first thing you see on the opening page is a large colour picture showing a TV programme or a news item, but this picture can be changed by running your mouse cursor over other lead stories shown on the right hand side of the page. Below this are neat boxes for News, Weather, Sport etc – all easy to see and find. It’s rather like an electronic newspaper, complete with articles by leading BBC reporters. Again, the site has a white background, which I think works well if you have a lot of text and stuff. The articles that the reporters write have very simple layouts. It’s just text on a white background in well-spaced lines. The font used is Verdana, which has wide letters that are easy to read off the computer screen. Fonts such as Calibri or Verdana are easier to read off the screen than traditional fonts, such as Times New Roman, used in printed media. Background images, colours and arty fonts may look good, but can you read the text easily and quickly? If the layout and design are getting in the way of reading and understanding the text, then I don’t think it can be good design. In case you are wondering, this text is in Calibri 11pt.
Now we come to sites that I don’t like. I suppose I like well-constructed sites and leave the poorly designed ones alone if they don’t immediately appeal. I would only go further with those sites if I absolutely need information from the site. This says something about the importance of design. If you don’t get the design right, people are less likely to use your site. I don’t have a list of poor sites, but I looked around and came up with an example.
The site looks cluttered without giving much information. It isn’t even immediately clear what the site is about. The black background doesn’t help here. The text on the left is disjointed and not in a screen font. Illustrations are poor. The credit stuff text on the right is a bit small and the background is some sort of repeating (tiled) star-pattern, which looks very poor. I suppose the author doesn’t worry too much about design, he just wants to get his thoughts down. If you are into ‘Outcasts’ you may find the content interesting, but this site wouldn’t grab anybody’s attention if it was down to design alone.
So, what do these sites tell me about what I think makes a good website.
First of all there has to be interesting content – with good images, descriptions and information. Even if your design is great, people will soon tire of the site if it doesn’t have much to say. Then there is design. The layout and illustrations on the opening page need to be good, to give the feel of a user-friendly site with interesting content. You want people to feel they would like to go further into the site. The other pages also want to be well laid out with blocks of text easy to read. Finally there is the use-ability of the site. How easy is it to get around the site and how quickly can you get to where you need to go? Does it pass the four-clicks test?
Of course, all the above is just my opinion about what makes a good website. Someone else will probably have completely different views and think my thoughts are definitely odd.
Websites reviewed
4. http://www.niknaksoldpeculiarblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/outcasts-episode-6-interesting-but-with.html
I'm not sure I agree with you about Mr Pollack's website, I nearly used it in my example of bad design, but thought that was probably going a bit far. But then again it's all subjective isn't it, one mans junk is another's treasure and all that.
ReplyDeleteWhere's my issue of the Fulylove Chronicle?