I think because my generation has grown up with the Internet, we inherently know when a website is good and when it is just bad. Sure, we don't always agree on the purpose, content and design of every site, but aren't there basic "rules" for producing an attractive and easily navigated site? And how do authors of websites adopt, interpret and translate these rules onto the "page"?
WORST WEBSITE:
This is laughable. Don't ask how I came across it, I honestly don't remember. But seriously, a boat insurance website--at least that's what I got from the limited, badly organized, random lines of text--is trying to attract customers through a bizarre layout and blinding color scheme. It looks like an abandoned attempt to create a profitable business site.
My main issue is with the content, specifically the lack of heading/title. All the viewer gets in the way of an introduction is "W.H. Insurance Consultants" set in front of an annoying sun icon. There is no explanation of who this company is run by or what it does. Scanning down the page doesn't give the reader anymore clues, just a phone number, office hours, boat icons and broken text that concludes with a bolded and underlined catch phrase: "communicate with people who know about boats and understand your needs."
Beyond the content, or lack thereof, is the sad design choice. Placing bright yellow icons on a bright blue background doesn't make for easy scanning. Nor does the occasional blue text on blue background scenario. Besides the boat icons, there are no images. Wouldn't a boating company jump at the opportunity to hire a photographer and show photographs of boaters at sea? Essentially, there is no anchor for the eye (no pun intended). The images and text seem sporadically placed and constructed without thought.
Navigating this website is even harder than looking at it. Clicking on the boat icons--it took a while to realize they were the links to other pages--led me to a form that I was supposed to fill out regarding my interest in the company. The form looked as amateur as the site and didn't inspire much confidence. Beyond the form, there were no secondary or tertiary levels of the website to explore. I was left lost and confused...but still laughing.
BEST WEBSITE:
Now this is what I call a website. I visit Style.com at least once per day...not just because I am obsessed with all things fashion, but because I think it is a very well structured and organized space with lots of images and interactive possibilities. Where the worst website (above) failed to either attract or sustain my interest, Style.com succeeds.
I think the main strength of this site is that it is updated multiple times a day in order to give viewers the most recent fashion/beauty news. Although frequent updates are more typical of a blog, the ever-changing world of fashion demands this treatment. These updates are often published in the blog on the right side of the homepage before they are expanded into full articles that appear on the site the following day. One major success of this website is the quality of writing. Although the articles and blog entries are written in a timely manner, they are always well-written, fun and full of interesting details that keep me coming back for more.
The architecture of the site facilitates the amount of information that is added to the website on a daily basis because the homepage links to deeper levels of content, video and photograph archives. Also, the site has been designed to attract readers who like to play with interactive media. Two of my favorite options are the "lookbooks", where visitors can create their own "books" of favorite fashion show images, and the "look of the day" feature, which asks readers to vote on what their favorite fashionistas are wearing.
The design of this homepage is especially important for featuring the content of this specific site. Style.com tells its stories primarily through images. The off-white background allows photographs and illustrations to pop out and grab the reader's attention. Furthermore, while there is plenty of text on each page, the font is elegant and proportional to the images, and is consistent with the aesthetically pleasing format of the site. While the content of Style.com has remained consistent over the years, the current design is a result of a recent redesign that allowed the creators to showcase their writing and images in a more accessible format.
Images:
www.dinghyinsurance.com
www.style.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, what an amazingly bad website. Dingyinsurance looks like some middle school kid designed that in the early 90s. The odd placement of text was disorienting and the icons seem like they were designed in Microsoft Paint. In all I agree with your assessment that it must have been an "abandoned attempt to create a profitable business site." But it doesn't look like they were interested in profit if they designed a website like that.
ReplyDeleteAs for Style.com, one could only hope they would be able to pull off excellent aesthetics. I can't imagine how quickly their reputation would tank if they entered the web-world with a half-assed website. You bring up an excellent point about refreshing the website to keep readers coming. In class, when we get asked what the difference is between a blog and a website, many often point out how one changes more than the other. But really the line seems rather fine in this case, as we see websites develop. Readers always want new content. But how often is often enough to be considered a blog? You gave me something else to think about.