design

What’s More Important to Startups: Design or Utility?

By Mark Evans in Social Media, Startups 3 Comments Tags: , ,

Over the past few weeks, there has been an interesting debate raging about design versus utility for startups looking to capture the spotlight.

The key issues are whether the look and feel of a service is more important than how it actually works. If a service looks crappy, does it impact its appeal, or can a service be compelling even with bad design?

The issue was thrust into the spotlight when entrepreneur and developer Jon Yongfook Cockle published a post that “design is horseshit”. At the core of his thesis is the belief “design enhances value, it does not create it”, and startups that create a sparkly products that don’t solve a problem aren’t creating value.

It was not surprising to Cockle’s post struck a chord given how enamoured we’ve become with design – a trend stoked by our good friends at Apple. It explains why there are posts such as “Silicon Valley’s New Secret Weapon: Designers Who Found Startups” and “Did you know about billions worth of value created by tech startups with designer co-founders?”

To me, there has to be equilibrium between design and utility because one can’t thrive without the other. For startups, it’s a tough balancing act because consumers are fickle and time-strapped so first impressions (aka design) are important. At the same time, consumers are also quick recognize if a well-designed Web site offers little value (aka putting lipstick on a pig).

Yes, I’m fence-sitting but design and utility are important to startups. But if I were to choose I’d go with utility over design. Why? There’s so much competition that startup need to do solve a problem, make something easier, or delight. Otherwise, people will simply move on to the next service.

If forced to choose, I would politely suggest a valuable service with  a modicum of design has a better chance of resonating than a beautiful service that is little more than eye-candy.

Of course, the best startups not only offer something of value and good design but strong messaging, creative branding and a flair for positioning themselves with target audiences.

What do you think? What’s more important? Design or utility?

For more on design vs. utility, check out this blog post on .Net.

Six Ways to Make Your Web Site Rock

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , ,

After Seth Godin did a post recently about how to analyze a Web site, it got me thinking about some of the mistakes companies make with how their Web sites are structured and designed.

Far too often, Web sites fail to perform because not enough thought has gone into what it’s supposed to do, the audiences it needs to serve, and the ease in which visitors can do and get what they want.

Here are some fundamentals for any company – be it a startup or large organization.

1. What’s the role of the Web site? It’s a simple question: when people visit the Web site, what do you want them to do? Far too often, it’s a question that doesn’t get addressed because most of the focus is on the look and feel. A Web site can be beautiful but if visitors don’t do what you want, it doesn’t matter.

It means figuring out the Web site’s role. Do you want people to buy products or services? Do you want to provide visitors with information (case studies, whitepapers, blog, videos) to move them along in the buying process? Do you want them to contact you? Do you want them to follow you on social media? Whatever the goal, a Web site has to be designed to make it easy for people to do?

1A. Determine the target audiences. Is it potential or existing customers? What about partners, investors or employees?

2. Navigation has to be simple and intuitive. Let’s face it, most Web users are lazy. They expect everything they need to be served up quickly and easily because they’re not willing to do much work. If a Web site isn’t easy to navigate or makes it a challenge to do things (e.g. find information, make a transaction), many visitors will give up – and they’ll give up quickly.

3. Avoid information overload. It’s surprising to see Web sites that seem to include everything but the kitchen sink. Rather than being useful, they’re unwieldy. It’s like opening a closet door to discover a whole bunch of stuff crammed onto the shelves rather than having everything neatly organized and easy to find.

4. The homepage must perform instantly. It needs to tell visitors what your company does and how what you do benefits its customers. In other words, it needs to answer an important question: “What’s in it for me?”. The structure of the home page needs to be intuitive with clear messaging and easy navigation. The goal is getting visitors hooked so they decide to get more information.

5. Don’t ignore your “About Us” page: Often, “About Us” pages are after-thoughts slapped together without much effort. But, in many respects, I see them as the most important page on a Web site after the home page. “About Us” pages tell visitors what you do, the history of your company, and who’s involved. Done well, they validate your company and provide it with credibility.

6. Have a design that reflects your company and industry. The design has to support  a Web site’s role and target audiences, as well as being user-friendly, accessible and easy to navigate. Not every Web site has to be flashy with lots of bells and whistles, it just has to do the job – whatever that may be.

What are the other things that should go into a Web site?

Note: Don’t use my Web site as an example. It’s in the midst of a redesign, which I hope to unveil in the coming weeks.

Web Sites Aren’t Cheap or Easy to Create

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , ,

I’m in the midst of a redesign and quasi-pivot, which involves the redesign of this blog and corporate site.

It’s a time-consuming process that involves many moving parts and, of course, the fact Web design can be a very subjective exercise. In that respect, I’m probably far from the ideal design client because I have – or think I have – a strong feel and knowledge for good Web design and usability.

As well, building or reloading on a Web site is not a cheap process, although admittedly there are ways and tools to create an inexpensive, no-frills, down and dirty Web site. But for people and companies who want to build a Web site that looks good, that’s easy to navigate, meets the needs of users, and has some or many bells and whistles, there is a solid investment that should be made. I’m not suggesting blowing your brains out financially to build and design a Web site but making enough of an investment to meet your short and long-term needs.

This is something that has been lost in the mix as online services make it easy to do things. There’s a tendency to believe Web sites have become commoditized products in which prices are continually being driven down. While costs are definitely lower than they were five years ago, I strongly believe in the adage that you pay for what you get. For a minuscule budget, you’ll get a functional and basic Web site. For anything that has more features, better design, beautiful graphics and intuitive navigation, you obviously have to invest more.

Understanding the different approaches is important because far too often cost is front and centre, particularly for smaller businesses. The downside on being too focused on price is you may get something that may not meet your needs in the best way possible.

Function and Structure Are Key Issues

The other key consideration when building a Web site is taking the time to figure out its function and structure. Who are the target audiences? What kind of information do you want to provide them? What do you want visitors to do? Is the goal to get more information, make a transaction, ask for quote, check out cases studies? These are questions that need time to get your head around before starting the process of building and designing a Web site.

The “cost” to build a Web site boils down to time and money. And the challenge for many businesses is determining how much to invest in each “pot”. The more time spent on what a Web site should do, function, who it should serve, and what kind of content to provide, the easier and more efficient its development and design.

Some interesting links:

- A Web site that caught my attention recently for good design was VanCity Bride.

- A makeover guide/infographic on Pushing Social.

 

 

 

 

 

The Value of Digital Simplicity

By Mark Evans in Startups No Comments Tags: , , ,

I’ve been spending a lot of time recently looking at Web site messaging and usability, spurred on by Steve Krug’s book, Rocket Surgery Made Easy, which provides terrific insight into DIY usability problem solving.

When you read about usability, it makes complete sense: the easier it is to do something, the more likely that someone will actually do it. That something could be making a purchase, completing a form, reading content or watching a video.

But the strange and fascinating thing is how difficult and challenging many companies make their Web sites. All the work that happens behind the scenes goes unfulfilled because the product isn’t accessible or user-friendly. The big question is: why? How does a good idea get developed but fail to take into account the end user’s ability to use them? As the famous usability expert Winston Churchill said: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.

My thesis is the people who develop Web sites don’t spend enough time getting perspective from the outside world. Many Web sites are built in a bubble, which means little or no feedback – constructive or otherwise – is allowed to seep in. And if there are alpha or beta users involved, many of them are friends or family, who are biased to provide positive feedback rather than the blunt truth. As a result, many Web sites have serious usability issues that could easily be resolved if there was real real-world testing.

The challenge is that getting people who build Web sites and online services are often reluctant to open the kimono before everything is ready for public consumption. There is a fear of competition or someone stealing their idea, or an unwillingness to launch something that is half-baked, which could attract criticism.

The reality, however, is if you want a user-friendly, accessible and intuitive Web site or online service, it’s better to get external perspective sooner rather than later. Some of the things that an outside might pick off immediately as a problem or issue could easily be missed by the people building the Web site or service because they’re so close to the fire, they lack any perspective.

While no one wants to be told their idea or Web site sucks, it’s better to get a hard dose of reality than launch something that fails to resonate – not because the service isn’t valuable or compelling but due to the fact the design, messaging and structure makes it difficult, if not impossible, for users to “get” what they’re supposed to do. If that happens, it’s lights out pretty quickly.

More: Another good read within this topic is Mark MacLeod’s blog post on clarity of vision.

The Bottom Line for Startups: Delight or Die

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , , ,

ImagesI spend a lot of time working with start-ups, particularly helping them with content, communications and, increasingly, their Web site usability needs. It involves a lot of focus on making sure they are telling the right stories to the right audiences, their messaging is clearly articulated and users quick “get” what they do, and their Web sites are accessible and easy to navigate.

But, in many ways, this work is irrelevant if the underlying service doesn’t delight the user. I like the word “delight” because it succinctly captures the essence of whether a start-up will “do or die”. We live in a multi-tasking, attention-deficit world so if a service fails to quickly strike someone as useful, valuable or compelling, it’s game over.

This may seem overly dramatic but, frankly, this is the challenging landscape in which start-ups operate. Most people don’t give themselves enough time to truly evaluate whether a service has merit or not. They want immediate gratification so it’s crucial for a start-up to provide users with a service that is easy to understand and does the job well.

If a start-up doesn’t delight, they’re dead in the water because a user will dismiss them in a heartbeat, and move on to the next service.

Now, delight consists of different components.

There’s the messaging that surrounds a service, providing users with information about the features and benefits, and answering the crucial question: what’s in it for me? There’s good design and a navigation structure that needs to be intuitive and dead simple to use – everything from the home page messaging and the FAQ to the About Us page and the registration process.

And then there’s the service itself, which has to meet a need or a perceived need the user may not think they have until someone points it out to them. The service doesn’t have to be complicated or particularly feature-rich, it just has to delight. A good example is Dropbox, which makes it easy to share files online. Dropbox isn’t oozing with features but it is useful and easy to use.

One of the biggest mistakes made by start-ups – aside from unclear messaging, bad story telling and incomplete business models – is the belief that more (features) is better. Rather than making their service useful, they make it so complicated that users don’t know where to start or they get so frustrated trying to figure out what they’re supposed to do, they walk away.

A key part of the problem is when a start-up has developers, creating more new features is seen as the obvious way to keep them busy. As a result, the feature line-up continues expand rather than ensuring that users enjoy, leverage and make better use of the existing features.

In other words, the service becomes un-delightful.

It means the focus must be on meeting the needs of the user in a way that’s accessible, easy to understand and a breeze to use. In other words, you need to delight them.

Of course, it’s easier said than done but if a start-up can crack this nut, their chances of success are greatly enhanced and you might even convince them to pay for the service, which is another tale for another day.

The Importance of Stupidly Simple Web Sites

By Mark Evans in Advertising/Marketing 5 Comments Tags: , ,

When it comes to Web site design, there is one important rule to remember: Keep it simple, stupid.

While simple may seem unsophisticated, uninteresting or frill-free, it is also an approach that drives a Web site’s accessibility, usability and effectiveness.

Since starting my consulting business, it has been amazing and troubling to see many Web sites feature too much information, poor navigation and ineffective messaging that they make it difficult, if not impossible to be used.

Rather than pulling in people to read more content, get more information, register or make a transaction, these Web sites drive people away because they they seem too complicated, intimidating or not user-friendly. In other words, they don’t make things simple for people to use.

So why does simplicity matter?

The harsh truth is Web users are lazy and time-strapped. As a result, they want Web sites to be delivered on a silver platter. They don’t want to think about what they should do; it has to be blatantly obvious and intuitive. And it needs to be obvious with seconds, otherwise people will quickly click to the next Web site or search engine.

Many companies fail the “keep it simple, stupid” approach because they buy into the idea that by showing or telling as much as possible, it will provide visitors with a variety of options to make a decision.

Unfortunately, this approach doesn’t work.

It’s like going to a Denny’s restaurant with a menu featuring dozens of choices. It can make ordering an agonizing process. An easier option is going to a diner that only has a handful of items on the menu. It’s easy and quick for people to order because less (fewer choices) can be more (quicker choices).

So how can a Web site be simple yet effective? There are three key considerations:

1. The overall design, which takes into account the use of colours and whitespace, graphics and icons, etc.
2. The navigation, which needs to be intuitive, dead simple and obvious. People shouldn’t have to think about what to click on next; instead it has to be straightforward and easy.
3. Messaging, which means having text that effectively articulates what a company does and its benefits, as well as nomenclature that is easy to understand and intuitive.

Coming up with a good-looking, well designed and easy to use Web site can be a major challenge, which explains why so many Web sites are, at best, mediocre. In many cases, it comes down to money because effective Web site isn’t a cheap proposition.

But I believe that it’s an attractive investment that involves short-term pain but long-term gain.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2