Giraffe Forum

A “web redesign is a last resort”? That is absurd! The internet (or web) is constantly evolving and so are its users. Are you telling me a successful website in 1994 is still going to be perceived the same way today? No, it will be looked at as archaic, dated and “static”.

A redesign is always a good idea and everyone should go through one on about every three to four years (for the most organizations). The web as it is today won’t be the web as it will be tomorrow and is far from the web as it was yesterday. Everything is evolving — the users, the technology and distribution; to not keep up with that is suicide.

A redesign is a great idea. I do agree that you shouldn’t be doing “touch-up” work — don’t add gradients to all of your content boxes because you think it is trendy for example. A redesign is motr like a home renovation, not like re-painting the bedroom. If you’ve still got an outhouse in the back, I highly recommend a renovation — so much has changed since the dawn of indoor plumbing. So, yes, buying a $5,000 gold plated toilet isn’t going to help you — but having a toilet in-doors will change your life!

I absolutely agree that a “redesign” is more often cosmetic than substantive. That was certainly the case here at my company. Several years ago I was tasked with making our old, cobbled-together intranet more functional. I put together a cross-departmental team. We used surveys, personal interviews, examined successful websites, and worked on defining how our intranet could better meet our business needs. We drafted a strategic plan for the intranet, outlining our goals and how the redesigned site would meet them and become a useful daily tool.

We hit a brick wall when we asked for funding to work with professionals to design the site that would meet those needs. Fast forward a few years. IT and PR contracted with our advertising agency to come up with a new “look and feel” that addressed ONLY cosmetics–a lovely new format, created by the agency without any feedback (before or after) from the power users, the content providers, or anybody else talking about what would make it a more functional tool. We still have the same stale, unplanned, haphazard intranet–but it’s really pretty!

I would never argue that an intranet or other website shouldn’t be constantly evolving and changing. Of course it should. But that evolution should be based on examination of business purposes, not cosmetics. And, as Gerry stated, that requires a web STRATEGY, not a knee-jerk reaction.

Websites need to maintained religiously and fine-tuned regularly. However, at some point too many little changes here and there are distracting and a big-bang approach (ie. redesign) may be less painful for users in the long-run.

Though I do agree that most redesigns don’t fix the underlying issues - which gets more to your point of fixing the processes.

“Evolution, not Revolution”?

Good article, Gerry - I think I’ll keep it to present to any of my clients who want their site “redesigned” or “overhauled”. The only reason they want to radically change their site is that they’ve got bored with it. It still attracts customers, turns clicks into cash, and even gets positive feedback from customers - often without prompting. But the site owners are bored, and want something shiny and new, especially if they suddenly acquire a budget to pay for it.

Of course, I’m depriving myself of lucrative work by telling clients not to scrap their old site and have me build a new one, and maybe that’s another force in the redesign of websites - web designers touting for more work!

Websites, like data, are business assets, and require ongoing maintenance - just like that house.

Google homepage is not the correct example in this scenario.

My blog reaction:
http://www.suggestusability.com/2007/08/response-blog-bad-thinking-web-redesign.html

thanks & regards,
Rajesh Anandakrishnan
http://www.suggestusability.com

Sizzle No Longer Sells the Steak
The idea that “sizzle sells the steak” has dominated print and TV promotional efforts since the advent of mass media. Advertising agencies refined its form in the 50’s with full colour ads and TV spots which dazzled, charmed, and distracted viewers. It mattered little that the car’s design and appearance, not its mechanics or safety features, were being promoted. Sizzle sold the steak.

In the web world, the steak has become a site’s content. And with the Internet audience being a most impatient and demanding one, the steak had better be tasty or it will be spat out in the form of premature site abandonment: all in under 10 seconds.

However, outdated paradigms, or ways of thinking, still dominate the majority of organizations. Since websites are visible, they are frequently targets of the wrong kind of attention. Instead of being seen as the first line of contact a company will have with its potential clients, the emphasis is placed on sizzle.

That might be glitzier graphics, a needless Flash presentation or a more elaborate menu scheme. The needs of its users, visitors, or readers are forgotten in all the rush and ceremony. A common result: The company obtains a trophy that is placed where trinkets like this end up: behind glass or on a mantelpiece. In a web context, the site is infrequently read and or fails to garner the attention of possible new customers.

A shame, really as a website can be an incredibly powerful marketing machine, if it approached with a content first mentality. Content = focus on the client.

Our culture has been weaned, wined and dined on visuals since television achieved mass acceptance. Emphasis on “the look” and overall aesthetics equate in many well meaning and influential people’s minds as the ‘actuals’; an extension of their company’s branding.

An equation describing this perspective:
Looks = visuals = sizzle = actuals = buzz = ABC company meets with advertising/creative types in elaborate offices, both harboring a belief that visuals and images communicate desired message while words and context are of secondary importance = the familiar = comfort = tunnel vision = exclusion of any conflicting data = ego-drives = bragging rights = ABC company’s salespeople driving nice cars = ‘they’re doing well’ = our product/service is great = customers love us = revenues and profits are up = you should also buy from us too.

How many times have you heard that someone buys/bought this or wears that for their image (of success)? An impressive “looking” company website becomes part of the image/visual fixation or complex, and it is based on thinking and philosophy from 50s to the late 90s - and maybe even beyond.

Should a website re-design be only about content? Of course not; all parts should be in synch. However, before work begins on the grand re-design, the problems need to be defined. What happens during that inquiry process, who attends, who contributes, what input is accepted and acted upon will determine if change will take place.

We are in a transition period between ‘visuals being viewed as actuals’ and visuals working in concert with content and context, with user surveys confirming the wisdom of changes made. How soon will this happen? Will this process, as I have suggested, even take place? I don’t know. What I do know is that the Internet’s users are increasingly demanding.

Perhaps those companies whose management adopts the requests/recommendations of their web intelligentsia will discover a new revenue stream, a niche market, increase customer satisfaction by 20% or achieve superior brand allegiance but in a different way. They may become market leaders - by stealth.

A good point. But one should not dismiss redesign totally. If you’ve ensured good management, organization and content, design is a key factor for success. But it has to be design based on user behavior and not design aesthetics. No use to have good content produced by smart and well organized staff if people can’t find it on your site.