For example, would a 22 year old professional working in the tech industry expect the same from a website as a 45 year old working in a garage?

This seems such a fundamental concept, but one which is often overlooked.

The Agency Bubble

There exists a problem that I refer to as the “Agency Bubble” whereby a website is developed by experienced web users for each other rather than the end user. Internal testing may occur, but not external. Internal feedback is received, but not external. If external feedback is received it’s often from the client who is usually approaching the website from their own perspective rather than the customer’s.

This approach has more chance of succeeding when the website is aimed at advanced web users, but when it’s aimed at basic users, it’s far too insular.

The Shocking Truth

When a website is aimed at basic web users, user research/studies are often surprising and at times frustrating for designers. This doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

At times, it doesn’t pay to challenge expectations.

So?

Test externally with a group of people that represent the personas the website is being developed for. Test prototypes, test aspects of functionality, test at beta, monitor and review ongoing. You’ll be surprised. Even observing how one person interacts with the site is better than not doing it at all.

Expensive? No.
Valuable? Priceless.

I accept that this may be an odd challenge but here’s how I did with the first site:

Swale Borough Council

The home page shows a lot of promise. Nice and simple liquid layout, inoffensive palette and landscape sitting behind to set the tone. The search field in the centre of the page put me at ease – relax – what are you looking for? I type “rubbish collection” (which didn’t auto-suggest as perhaps it could have done) and get hit with an error page. After resubmitting, it works fine but displays the following results page:

From left to right, I have:

•    Articles relating to rubbish
•    A box that tells me that “no councillors were found”
•    A link to Medway Council’s rubbish collection pages – great if I lived in Medway
•    A blank FAQs box

Nowhere to go aside from up a level, so I try the “Living and Visiting” tab. I am presented with some clear categories which include “Refuse and Recycling”. This takes me to some sub-categories which include “Household Waste” – I am getting somewhere. Clicking this, I reach a further set of options which are:

•    Village Clean-Ups
•    Collection of Bulky Items
•    Wheelie Bins

Hmmm, I pause and wonder what to do - time is running out - I panic a little and click wheelie bins as it seems the closest match. I now have eight options relating to wheelie bins such as “not sure which bin to put out?”.

Time up. FAIL.

And the others…

www.brighton-hove.gov.uk - SUCCESS! 26 seconds.
www.cornwall.gov.uk - SUCCESS! 27 seconds.
www.aberdeencity.gov.uk - FAIL
www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk - FAIL - due mainly to an incredibly slow load speed. The home page was front-loaded nicely however.
www.basildon.gov.uk - FAIL - it confused me. In the screenshot below, you will see a date in the top right hand corner. This is today’s date (at the time of writing). Is it saying that my collection was today or simply stating today’s date? The confusing bit is the text “Today is”. Hmmmm….

One thing for sure though, I do feel enlightened that I know the local MEP. Exactly what I need when I am looking for something else entirely.

www.carlisle.gov.uk - FAIL as it couldn’t find any of the local postcodes I offered up.
www.colchester.gov.uk - FAIL. It offered several pages of content on recycling readily, but it took over four minutes to locate the household waste postcode lookup.
www.medway.gov.uk - FAIL. Possibly the most unneccessarily elaborate and complex interface I have used. Behold…

In summary, I don’t think anyone expects a beautiful life-changing experience from a Council website, but ease of use should be a given. No excuses.

Why not try the Two Min Bin Test yourself and let me know how you get on.

In terms of simplicity, it’s way off. For example, the above is a section of the current home page – why do Power Balls take up so much real estate? Surely I don’t need to see every colour on the home page do I? On the right, I am being told to grab a sports watch and I see that two watches are contained within a box too large for them creating some odd whitespace. The array of starting points on the home page is baffling.

But it’s the right route – clearly. It would be interesting to be a fly on the way at one of their user focus groups when prototypes are being discussed. I would hasten a guess that almost every user present has a bias based around a certain expectation that this website should be messy – it’s the Jumble Sale effect.

When I think Amazon, I think millions of products at discount prices. How often have you found a traditional bricks and mortar shop offering a similar service which has every product stacked neatly in clear sections?

If web design was simply a case of working with potential users to prototype and produce the simplest online experience possible, it wouldn’t be that tricky really.

It’s easy to get into the mindset that to increase sales, you need to increase your call to actions. In fact, by allowing users to browse comfortably without flooding the page with eyeball grabbing “killer” messages you can guide them through a gentle decision making process. The more they interact, the more likely they are to buy in and the more likely they are to remember you. The more comfortable they feel, the more likely they are to interact.

If you are offering a service, use the web to allow potential customers to get under the skin of your business. Create a level of transparency. Be open. Tell them about your people and your talents. Be honest. If you’re cheap, say so. Don’t be excellent and cheap though - it doesn’t wash.

Also, evidence is more important then ever. Avoid hollow statements. Use testimonials (ideally in a visual way) and for B2B service providers mention who you work with.

Build trust. Be honest. Be open.

Here’s 5 ways to improve your copy:

Keep it simple.

Write as you speak. There seems to be a misconception that to appear intelligent you need to use complex terminology. Not true. The aim is to engage with the reader and to make them feel that they are involved in a dialogue. Overly elaborate language will wash over them and leave them feeling like they have attended a lecture. Ask yourself – do I talk like this?

Tier information.

Most users will not read more than a few lines of text before attention wanders. I bet your getting bored already right?

Write brief key messages in header areas and if you want to ensure maximum impact, ensure that other elements on the page do not compete with them. Where is your eye drawn to on here: www.cabedge.com. Perfect.

For more detailed info, use clear headings like this: www.cabedge.com/methods/plan/strategy. I suspect you just scan read the headings, but some users may wish to read the copy under a heading that has a particular relevance to them.

By tiering copying in this way it caters for different requirements.

Guide attention.

If you are looking to guide the user down a particular path then explain what they are going to get should they decide to click. Never assume that that they just will.

Providing a clear path through the site allows you to create a logical dialogue. Have a look at how Contrast achieve this: www.contrast.ie or for something even more innovative and engaging try The Truth About Smart.

Understand context.

When looking at copy on internal pages, think about the decisions that the user has already made to reach that copy. Deliver copy which is tailored around these decisions.

Create an image.

When we read, we imagine. As Socrates put it, make an impression.

Over the last few weeks I have been considering Martin Lewis’s downshift challenge technique. Basically he is encouraging us all to downshift a brand level - e.g. if you currently buy manufacturer’s brand like Kelloggs Cornflakes, you should try to downshift to the supermarket’s own equivalent.

I admire the man, I really do. I am sure he has nothing but good intentions and he is dedicated to helping the UK save some pennies. However, he has overlooked something fundamental - human nature. Why do we buy based on a brand name?

Let’s take a look at Maslow’s:

As a rather crude example, whilst shopping online this week, I suggested to Mrs Shield that we could downshift two levels on toilet roll (from manufacturer’s brand to a no-frills brand). The answer was “No! I would be embarrassed when we have guests”. That statement aligns itself nicely with the green zone above…

If I were trying to encourage those who had (or believed they had) the cash to buy premium brands to downshift, I would make it cool. E.g. take the approach that it’s quite trendy to save money. I have already heard some people describe it in this way. Proud to shop at Aldi etc… In front of their peers, they would feel wise and I am not just talking about Volvo drivers either.

www.skittles.com

Good idea or bad idea? In my opinion it’s an awesome idea but a very risky one.

It will attract massive publicity and is already the talk of the town and it’s not like the last website would have been particularly useful anyway - what would you be visiting it for?

Transparency is the sign of a confident brand - “say what you will about us - we want to know” approach.

Risky of course as it’s open to abuse (and is already being abused). E.g. “I found a bug in my skittles”. To minimise risk they will need to be on the ball with their responses before it gets out of hand.

Good luck to them.

Following a fierce auction, Toys R Us have just paid $5.1 million for the domain name www.toys.com. Was it justified?

Search Engines. The top 6 toys-related searches are:

1. Toys
2. Learning Toys
3. Baby Toys
4. Kids Toys
5. Play Toys
6. Action Toys

In terms of Google.com, Toys R Us already dominate for toys. For baby toys and kids toys they fair well, but for the others they don’t. They also don’t always do well for product specific long-tail searches like - Barbie Blooming Thumbelina Doll. Will the purchase of Toys.com help? It depends on what they are going to do with it, but if they just point it at their main domain - it won’t.

To rank well for less generic searches, they could easily improve the main site’s URLs, currently they look like this:

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3018529 rather than http://www.toysrus.com/kidsbikes/greenmachine3

The UK site has better URLs on its product pages: http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Learning/Books/In-The-Night-Garden-Flap-Book(0034228).

The main site has over 250′000 inbound links. I didn’t check every one but the majority of these are linking using the brand name in their anchor text, rather than linking to specific sections using less generic anchor text (for example “learning toys”). It wouldn’t cost $5.1 million to contact some of the websites that link to them and ask them to change this.

Also, it’s not as if visitors who find toys.com will be totally unaware of Toys R Us unless they have been living in a cave.

Brand. I read an interesting study of the Toys R Us brand and these days everything about it says brand leader. Does a brand leader need to own generic domains names relating to their products or services? I don’t think so. Tesco doesn’t own food.co.uk or .com. It manages just fine.

Toys“R”Us values all children and families. Toys“R”Us is the only retailer to offer a toy selection guide for parents and friends of children with disabilities. Now in its 14th edition, the Toys“R”Us Toy Guide for Differently- Abled Kids features specially selected toys that promote the development of children with physical and cognitive disabilities.

Now that is the work of a brand leader.

The Competition. Did they consider what would happen if it fell into the hands of a competitor? Perhaps the fear factor played a part here. For the above reasons, I don’t think it would have made any difference to market share if it did.

On the plus side, the US toy market is worth around $25 billion which puts $5.1 million into perspective. Also, a domain name is an asset. So it isn’t actually a huge risk for them. I just think it could have been spent a little more wisely.

Surprisingly though, so few are taking this approach. Here’s two examples of where audience engagement has worked recently:

The film Tropic Thunder, produced by Ben Stiller, revolves around a group of prima donna actors making a Vietnam War film. Their writer and director, at the end of his tether, drops them in to a Vietnamese jungle which forces them to play out their roles without the creature comforts of a film set. To promote the film, an official website was launched. However, they went further by creating a series of sites based around each of the fictional characters - e.g. if you Google the name of Ben Stiller’s character “Tugg Speedman” you will find a whole site dedicated to him (which is clearly a pastiche of Tom Cruise’s website). Same applies for the other fictional characters such as Kirk Lazarus. in fact you find yourself searching for other related fictional topics such as Tugg Speedman’s official charity, the Panda Relocation Foundation - and guess what?

The journey of discovery concept can also be applied to VCCP’s Compare the Market campaign. You may have seen the ad. Crux of it is that a Meerkat is telling us not to get confused with his own website Compare the Meerkat. Of course, this website has been established as VCCP knew that it would create a buzz. The Meerkat character has created quite a stir too with his own Facebook page:

You may have noticed that the little fellow has 219′577 fans. There are even unofficial fan sites cropping up. To top it all off he has a catchphrase of “Simples…” which is also doing the rounds.

Engage with an audience by delivering content they will actually want to interrupt their lives with and you have a recipe for success. More memorable, more interactive, emotive cross-media marketing.

So much so, that I found myself buying a pack last week. I am not sure if I am on my own here, but the concept of natural ingredients swayed my sweet decision making process in their favour. Other popular jelly based brands felt dirty and unhealthy.

The problem is that, in my humble opinion, the comical snakes and bears that inhabited the packet tasted like someone had been holding them under their armpit - seriously. The experience just wasn’t all it cracked up to be…