|
|
Posted by dorayme on 02/15/06 00:20
In article
<1139922488.716273.158660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > > Unlike many of the others that replied, I kind of agree with you that
> > > the site is neither great or fancy
> > > Your site looks plain and simple (though much better than most) Some
> > > will interpret that as your content is also plain and simple, and go
> > > elsewhere (is there anywhere else to go?)
> > Just think about it, a person goes to the site to look for info
> > on washing machines (because he or she has a problem probably)
> > and he or she takes a look and sees all the stuff simply laid out
> > and he or she does not bother to read any of it, just looks and
> > thinks, "Oh no, this is too plain a site, not enough flashy
> > things, fancy doodle colours, I won't bother to read any of it at
> > all..."
> > Not likely.
>
> Uh, no quite the opposite. And the research shows it. (google it your
> self) Many people base their confidence of a sites contents on the look
> of the site. The stats have been posted here several times over the
> last few years. I believe googling something like "consumer confidence
> stats website design" may lead you in the right direction. As a
> matter of fact there was someone here that did usibility studies for a
> living that posted the stats.
Perhaps. But I find it hard to believe in this particular case.
Perhaps a general study, taking no particular field or
consideration into account, and maybe even vaguely constructed in
the methodology or questions, you get the results you allude to.
But I think we need to be careful before jumping to the
conclusion that here we just have a particular case of a clear
general pattern. To be brief, the pattern may be too general and
vague to inspire confidence in your conclusion, considering that
the difference between the OPs site and a possible flashier
fancier one is not the difference between an amateurish one and a
fancy one.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|