Megan — Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:28:14 +0000

Roo wrote: When it comes to content on the main page, the idea of a paragrah with more>>>> works exceptionally well. But I think these blocks of text should include everything on a site.

See, what I got out of this article is that what goes on the home page needs to be relevant to the user. It needs to "suck" the user into the site. There is a lot of stuff on many sites that isn't directly relevant to the user. You need to be very selective about what to put on there. Coporate policy statements aren't relevant to the user. Products and key levels of interaction are.

Here's a site that was posted for critique a few weeks ago that I thought did a good job of this:

http://www.styleshowcase.com/

The products take center stage. Nice pictures make me want to click further. There are also additional browsing options on the right side so I have multiple ways to get into the products. I want to click. At first I thought this home page was too cluttered, but after reading Moll's article I've seen the light. Notice that the company policy stuff (not directly relevant to the user) is linked quietly at the bottom. It's there if you need it, but it doesn't play a key role. Becuase it doesn't suck

eBlush_Hector — Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:51:16 +0000

Depends entirely on the site in question!
From 'The Design of Sites':

Top Ten Signs That Things Are Going Badly
1. "Our Web site is intuitive and user-friendly."
2. "We need to start doing some usability tests before our launch next month."
3. "We can use [XML/SOAP/ insert other buzzword technology] to fix that."
4. "If you stop and think about how the interface works for a second, it makes complete sense."
5. "How can our customers be so stupid? It's so obvious!"
6. "Well, they should RTFM!"
7. "We don't need to do any user testing. I'm a user, and I find it easy to use."
8. "We'll just put an 'Under Construction' sign there."
9. "Shrink the fonts more so that we can put more content at the top."
10. "We need a splash screen."

I'm an advocate for this book:
http://www.designofsites.com/about_the_book/index.shtm

Abhishek Reddy — Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:49:15 +0000

lol, I don't think it's anything to worry about. To me, all that article demonstrates is that most design rules change relevance depending on the amounts of information given, needed, the user wants, the user knows. The general principle I derived from that article is the 'bottom-up' process, where you begin with your smallest unit(s) of information first -- note that this implies starting your design with your content. If you do that, you should be fine. If, otoh, you do as many have got into the habit of doing, and start with a template and filler, without having considered its content, well... :alien:

Being content-centric will also only work if you've understood the content, obviously. The article merely suggests that you know what you're presenting, and, know what the user is getting.

'Less is more' still applies, Imo. You might be delivering more information on the home page, but that should only mean you get more heavy-handed with the scissors. Without compromising content, you could remove design redundancies like artsy backgrounds or extraneous widgets... simplify the interface.

Roo wrote: I mean why go into a cave without a flashlight?

Just to expand on that point a little...

Again, if the user has prior knowledge of your site or type of information, well then they've got a flashlight stuck on their helmets already.

Suzanne — Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:14:17 +0000

I just realized I made absolutely no sense there.

To recap -- site navigation doesn't need to be complete on each page, but each section should have a complete listing of what's in that section available, even if that's in the sitemap.

Is that better? It still seems a little murky to me, I'll have to rethink what I'm trying to say.

Suzanne — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:44:44 +0000

lol, I think that it's perfectly fine not to know what's in each section entirely. That's what the sitemap is for. At least with big sites. I think having section "indices" is ideal in that case. Or an archive list for each section, if that's the sort of way you go.

Roo — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:00:56 +0000

After thinking about it for about three minutes, my comments are geared more to navigation.

I have always felt the *all* of the sites links shoud go on the homepage. While I have come to accept and totally agree with breaking a site down into sections, to me simply having a lead link on the homepage leading to an interior 'section' that contained sub nav just has never seemed right. It's an extra click to get to something.

I think there should be a main navbar on the homepage, but also a sidebar that acts as a site map and contains *all* interior links, broken down under subheadings of course.

When it comes to content on the main page, the idea of a paragrah with more>>>> works exceptionally well. But I think these blocks of text should include everything on a site.

I mean why go into a cave without a flashlight?

Roo — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:44:44 +0000

HA! And I struggled for so long with my own sites trying to be good and adhere to 'less is more'?????!!!!! (It was a loooooooooooong journery, and I still have to sit on my hands to stop myself)

I finally get 'clean' down, and now what I want to do naturally is good???!!!! What I struggle *not to do* is good????!!!

Arrrggggggggghhhhhhh!!

Actually, I think there is middle ground here.....somewhere........maybe?

Suzanne — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:15:21 +0000

Very interesting -- for most sites I work on I desperately try to get more information on the main page -- just not whole articles!

It seems like it's a constant struggle to get business owners used to the idea of the newspaper -- BIG article, bunch of smaller starts of articles, sections. They either want one thing and one thing only, or everything on one page.

*tearing at hair*

Thanks for the article, I like to collect "ammo" as it were. Also a very timely reminder for me as I embark on two major redesigns of my main sites... Whoo! Thanks Megan!

Abhishek Reddy — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:36:41 +0000

I missed it too. Good article.