The End of Web Design
This is the era of the end of Web design.
Let me define what I mean by Web design. This is the presentation of your site - especially your main screen page - with graphics, menus, colors and fonts that are laid out in a way that optimizes the usability of your site.
It seems to me that we fuss with our designs in a very 1990s way. I think we're wasting some of our time. No, not all of it, but some of it. I see the pendulum swinging away from main screen fussing to a more minimalist approach. This is what's happening in the 2.0 world, and eventually it will trickle down to us.
At least as important as design is functionality. And few of our sites have the 2.0 functionalities that would give users what they expect, want, and need from their online experience.
Right up there in importance with functionality is vocabulary. Rather than library jargon, we should be using terms that users can relate to. Databases. Periodicals. Reference. Circulation. Interlibrary Loan. These terms should be limited to internal conversations, and some libraries are doing this to some degree. But this is another topic.
I coordinate the Web analytics program at my library, and I'm in the process of writing my annual report. We've used both WebTrends and Urchin to track the usage of our various Web sites. Over the years, the trends have been pretty clear.
- Less than half of multi-page visits to our site start with the main screen. This year, the figure was 42%.
- Roughly half the visits to our site (minus visits to the main screen) are single page visits. This means that half of our users get to specific pages on our site by using bookmarks, links in e-mail messages, and links from other sites.
At least in my library, the idea that most users begin with the main screen and navigate the site to find content is less than half true. Yet this assumption guides so much of our design work. Our situation makes me wonder about the assumptions that underly usabiltiy studies. Such studies routinely start from the main screen and ask users to find content within the site. The is the bread and butter of usability testing.
I don't argue with the fact that main screens of library Web sites are important as PR tools. They can set a tone of savvy online professionalism. Our main screens need to have a polished look. They do serve a purpose for those users who enter the site through them - even though their numbers may not be nearly as large as our Web developers might believe. What I do argue with is spending an inordinate amount of time designing our main screens, and assuming that this design is vital to the user experience.
Look at popular 2.0 sites out there. When you access YouTube, do you get the feeling that an intensive sequence of usability studies has led to its design? Del.icio.us: it would be difficult to find sites that are simpler than its black-grey-blue text-intensive presentation. LiveJournal: this one has a few clear icons to get you where you want. Nice. The Facebook entry page has no photos of happy people to prove that its administrators care about, well, people. I've yet to hear complaints that this is not a welcoming site.
I'll confess. There are lots of library Web sites that display student photos, and I've often fantasized about a round-robin exchange of these photos among our sites. If you switched photos with another library, would anyone notice? I guess if your visitors looked closely enough at the surroundings, they might. But you take my point.
I'm not against graphics per se. For news, events, archival holdings, and the like, they're useful. Clear icons to designate services can be very effective. Agreed? Now let's move on to the next level.
Whenever I see library job ads for Web designers, I sigh. My feeling is, better to hire a high-end programmer with basic Web design skills than a high-end designer with basic programming skills. What library Web sites need now is rich content that users can retrieve on their own, offered with social functionality, and served from within content management systems. We need experienced programmers to get us there.
But! I can hear you protest. A library Web site is not the same as YouTube, Del.icio.us, LiveJournal or Facebook. Those are not library sites. We have a different mission.
Well yes, of course we do. And this mission, in terms of our Web sites, is changing. What we need to accomplish with our sites, and what we're doing now, gives us a huge gap to fill. It's time to put aside the assumptions we've held for our Web sites for the last decade.
We know that many users don't begin their research on our library sites. What are we doing about this?
I suggest spending less time fussing with our apearance and more time on what's inside. If you can do both, more power to you. But first be sure you actually intend do both. Seeing what I see with 2.0 sites, I'm not convinced that the effort is worthwhile, compared to what really counts with giving users what they need.
If we are to socialize our Web sites, how might our design models follow those of successful 2.0 sites in the non-library world? How might our models be different? What might work for us? These are questions we should be asking.
And while we're asking these questions among ourselves, we should also be asking our campus populations.
Comments
Agreed. I appreciate this, and so many, of your intelligent posts--and find myself referring coworkers to them often. Thanks.
Posted by: Emily Lloyd | July 27, 2007 04:19 PM
Emily, thanks for your kind comment.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | July 30, 2007 07:46 AM
Hi Laura,
In what's continuing to be my role as a dissenter (!) I'm afraid I strongly disagree. As a designer myself I could be biased.. but I rather think that design is in fact more important than ever!
If you haven't read this already article, you really must: http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web-2.0-design-style-guide.cfm
A choice quote: "2.0 design means focused, clean and simple."
Crucially, what this style does is help elucidate the functionality within. And the branding is strong.
In static, "1.0" type websites, you didn't need to point the user to features, you just needed to point to content for them to read. Now you do, and this new trend of "2.0" styling is the perfect fit.
As for your examples: YouTube, like MySpace, was designed to have a scrappy, messy design on purpose to give it an unfinished feel. This is deemed to encourage users to add content and contribute to the "finishing" of the site. Delicious is a very unusual website because it really does nothing except for fulfil a very specific function. As such it necessitates having almost no design work to distract from its utility. Facebook, along with flickr (take a look at their homepage when you're signed out) are great examples of the new "focused, clean and simple" 2.0 style.
I also think that 2.0 design best accommodates your observation that people are no longer "coming in through the front door." The people that reach your homepage are those that probably haven't been many times before, don't know so much about you, or have come from a search engine. As such your branding needs to be strong and your USPs/features have to be centre-stage to keep hold of these fickle visitors! 2.0 design does this perfectly. Not only that, but I think it's the best way to get around your second observation of high bounce rates (single-pager visits), since you are most efficiently communicating what you have to offer the visitor.
Insightful article from you, as always!
All the best
James
Posted by: James Brown | July 30, 2007 12:19 PM
James, I count on your role as dissenter!
I'm a Web designer, too, and have been for a decade. From what I've seen, librarians spend more time fussing with the appearance of their sites - especially their main screens - than addressing what they are attempting to accomplish in the 2.0 era of openness and participation.
Simply put: a 2.0 design does not produce a 2.0 Web site.
"Focused, clean and simple" are fine goals. But design goals are only a means to an end. I don't believe that a particular type of 2.0 front door, or any front door, will necessarily bring people to our sites. I've lost faith in this point of view.
I realize that, at a certain point, you can't separate design from content and functionality. This being the case, I would rather that librarians rethink their sites before going through yet another round of redesigns with the same underlying approach.
On a local note, and somewhat related: the high bounce rates for our site are due, in large part, to the fact that we manage a site that is quite varied - three libraries, a special collections unit, subject resources, information literacy tutorials, public services pages, etc. I expect many of our visits to make a beeline for what they want, bookmark it, and that's it for their interest in our site. If we don't offer anything very new or interactive or participatory, there is not much motivation to come back for more. A great 2.0 design will not make a difference.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | July 30, 2007 04:10 PM
Almost disappointingly (ha!), I'm going to have to now agree with you wholeheartedly: you're quite right to say that design isn't a means to an end.
I think I had taken it as read that you weren't going to be putting the design first - absolutely you must re-think the ideas behind the site and your service before even thinking about design. As I said before, the best design elucidates these features. There are examples out there of 2.0 design for 1.0 sites (unnecessary) and 2.0 sites with 1.0 design (inefficient). You need the 2.0 2.0 match (optimal).
As such, I can still disagree with your opening statements: "This is the end of web design .. presentation in a way that optimizes the usability of your site."
Once you've sorted out your 2.0 features, your 2.0 culture, and also your new 2.0 marketing (if you see what I mean!).. you need the 2.0 design to optimise usability of the site that enables interaction with the service.
As ever,
James
Posted by: James Brown | July 31, 2007 05:09 AM
James, As we come closer to an agreement, I'm beginning to get a little dizzy!
Your last paragraph, especially, is a gem.
My remark about "the end of the era of Web design" is meant as a signal to librarians to rethink their Web site priorities and leave behind the notion that a handsome main screen and good usability are the sole focus of site redesigns. Such sites become exemplary brick walls and not much more. If librarians really did rethink things in this way, it would be the end of an era.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | July 31, 2007 08:15 AM
Good job on the analysis!
Cross-linking in a logical way is what I love about a website. If you can get me from A to B in a few steps without me having to guess what to do next, I'm one happy browser.
Starting at the front page is what novices to a website will do, but I think the culture is maturing enough to have people bookmark favorite links -- of course we then see people with bookmark overload and bookmark rot because they don't cull them or check them more than once a few years.
Posted by: KC | August 3, 2007 11:00 PM
Livejournal is not a site, it's a portal, that's why it doesn't require any specific graphic or excellent visual presentation. But I/m sure that personal sites (for example, a site of web design company) must be a work of design art to attract new customers. But this is only my point of view.
Posted by: Design Guru | December 10, 2007 08:05 AM
Hi, Laura!
Thanks for sharing your great thoughts about web 2.0. Looking forward for your new articles. I became your rss subscriber.
Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2008 01:38 AM