The majority of website designers focus wrongly on designing sites that appeal to their clients. This results in internet websites which might be poorly created to serve the wants on the visitor or the client. Immediately after years involved in web page design and evaluating and optimizing web sites, I lately concluded that the vast majority of today's web-sites are no far better created now than they had been 5 years ago.

Yes, internet websites developed in the previous 5 years undoubtedly appear lots superior and have additional wow features like impressive effects, spectacular graphics and clever videos. But that doesn't mean as websites they execute any improved in satisfying the requirements on the visitor or the web site owner. In fact really generally all these effects, graphics and flash videos even though enhancing the visual appeal of the internet site basically make the web page worse in terms of performance. By efficiency I mean how effectively the web page satisfies the objectives it need to have already been designed to meet.

If you are aiming to have a web-site created or redesigned the very first thing you will need to establish is what would be the objectives of the web page?

What's the purpose with the website?

Is the purpose to:

Stun visitors with a jaw dropping graphics and effects? Get excellent critiques for your web page from other web page designers? Inform and educate guests? Attract the right guests enthusiastic about what the website has to give? Sell solutions or services? Capture leads or subscribers? If you'd like evidence with the extent to which web designers focus on the visual appeal of a website rather that being fit to get a purpose, you only have to appear in the dozens of websites that showcase what they take into account to be superior internet site designs.

These showcase web sites for fantastic website design feature 1,000's of web sites submitted by internet designers that get reviewed and voted for largely by their peers, or so it would look. Examples are siteinspire.net, unmatchedstyle.com, csselite.com, beautiful2.com, webcreme.com, creattica.com, divinecss.com, foliofocus.com, cartfrenzy.com and bestwebgallery.com. Some, but not all of these showcase web-sites state what they regard as superior website design in their submission suggestions.

Unmatchedstyle.com are dedicated to acknowledging people who have produced exceptionally gorgeous internet sites by employing net standards and fantastic usability practices.

Foliofocus.com can be a web design gallery that exists to showcase the most beneficial collection of portfolio web sites from internet and graphic designers, photographers, and also other pros.

Cartfrenzy.com is actually a style gallery for one of the most well-designed e-commerce and buying sites.

Bestwebgallery.com capabilities a wide selection of good quality style websites (Flash & CSS). They go on to declare what quality style means to them, which is: Top quality Design = Visual + Technical + Creativity Note here the emphasis is on the visual appearance, technical wiz bangs and the creative merit.

Based on my own experience auditing and evaluating sites and those featured on showcase internet sites like the ones above, is why I have concluded that internet designers concentrate too much on creating excellent hunting internet websites that appeal to their peers.

Case Study

As if to prove the point I carried out a detailed case study of a highly rated web site featured on unmatchedstyle.com. In choosing the web site for this case study I was also hunting for the site of a web design firm since that should represent all that's very best in superior web design. The site received a 9.1 out of 10 rating for great style from the showcase site and a video review.

Following my detailed case study evaluation in the website I determined the internet design and style excellent rating on the home page to become 3.9 out of 10 and the web page as a whole was rated 4.2 out of 10. Of course, I used different criteria for my ratings for fantastic high-quality web design than did the showcase web-site that gave a rating of 9.1.

For the home page I used a checklist that evaluated 12 categories of design and style, with 135 elements of page design and for the whole internet site I used a checklist that evaluated 91 aspects of site design and style.

Any of your 226 aspects of web style that had been not found to become present had been also given a severity rating. This severity rating was based on the level of impact the missing aspect had around the design and style and on the frequency with which it occurred.

The number of aspects on which the internet page or website passed combined with the level of severity was used in a formula to determine a rating of good high-quality internet design.

What was clear from this case study would be the site used inside the study received a high 9.1 rating for excellent design and style from the showcase site based on a quite different assessment criteria to my own, that gave the site a rating of only 4.2.

So, the question is, which rating for very good website design is the suitable one, a showcase site rating of 9.1 or my rating of 4.2?

Nicely, that depends on whether you'd like to base a rating for great net design and style largely on looking excellent, or on a detailed assessment of 226 aspects of fantastic net design I expect to find in a well designed web page.

Deciding on what is a very good website design also depends on whether you would like a website that looks great or one that's designed to get a goal and to satisfy some clearly defined objectives. If you need a web-site that does extra than just look fantastic then you may need to appear a bit much more closely at the design and style of your web page, because just looking fantastic is never very good adequate, at least not for me.

superior_website_design_-_why_seeking_great_is_by_no_means_excellent_enough.txt · Last modified: 2014/03/17 15:50 by sari81
 
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
Recent changes RSS feed Donate Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki