As mentioned in a previous post, I recently finished reading Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Guide To Web Usability. In the back of the book Steve includes two emails for use by web developers/designers/managers to comabt a couple of the most prominant design disasters imposed from on high:
- My boss wants us to ask users for more personal information than we really need.
- My boss wants our site to have more “pizzaz” (read: splash pages, animation, music, etc., etc.).
I included Steve’s email for answering the first disaster in my previous post. This post includes Steve’s email for combatting the second disaster: a request to add “sizzle” to your website. Enjoy.
—-
From: Steve Krug (skrug@sensible.com)
To: [yourboss@youremployer.com]
Your web [designer/developer/manager], [your name], recently attended one of my web usability workshops and asked my advice about your plans to make your site [more visually interesting/more engaging] by adding [a splash page/some animation/large photos/background music].
I told [him/her] I’d be happy to pass along some of the advice I give to my own executive clients when they make similar requests of their web teams.
Unfortunately, there’s an inherent problem with the way executives are involved in web site design. Given that the site is crucial to your organization, naturally your input is solicited. But because of the way sites are developed, all you’re really asked to comment on is the appearance of the site, based on a few preliminary designs. Given what you have to go on, the only thing you can reasonably judge is “Does it look good to me?” and “Does it create a good impression?”. As a result, CEO’s almost always push for something that’s more visually appealing, something with more “pizzazz” or “sizzle”.
The problem is that except in a few specific cases – which I’ll get to in a minute – web sites don’t really need much sizzle. Yes, looks do count. Yes, it has to look presentable, professional, and attractive. But “flashy”? “Engaging”? Almost never.
Most of the time on the web, people don’t want to be engaged; they just want to get something done, and attempts to engage them that interfere with their current mission are perceived as annoying, clueless, and the worst kind of hucksterism. And attempts to add sizzle almost always get in their way. I won’t bother cataloging all the problems with all the different forms of sizzle: splash pages that signal you as several years behind the times. Big photos that take a long time to load (have you ever used your own site from a hotel room?) and leave less room on the page for what people are looking for. And distracting music and animation that most people can’t stand.
Unless your site gives people the information they want and makes it easy for them to do what you want them to, the main thing it’s doing is announcing that you’re either clueless about the web, or you care more about your image than you do about them.
Of course there are exceptions. There are some sites where sizzle makes sense, sites where what you’re selling is sizzle: entertainment sites (for music, movies, etc.), pure branding sites (for a breakfast cereal, for instance), and portfolio sites for web developers. But if your site is’t on that list, most sizzle is going to be counterproductive.
Think about your own experience: the sites you enjoy using. Is it because they’re “flashy”, or because they have content you want or need? Can you name a site that has content that’s interesting or useful to you that you don’t use because it’s not visually interesting enough?
I hope this helps.
By the way, you’re lucky to have [your name] on your web team. {He/She] really knows [his/her]stuff.
Steve Krug
Author of Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach To Web Usability
We’re currently recruiting beta testers for our new startup — XYDO, a new and engaging way to get news and information from people you trust. If that sounds interesting to you, leave your name and email address and we’ll shoot you an invitation!
