Are Websites Judged In The Blink Of An Eye?

I enjoy discussing viewpoints that oppose my personal opinions. While not completely opposed to what I believe, the article Are Websites Judged In The Blink Of An Eye? by Gerry McGovern (wasn’t this guy a presidential candidate once?) could be used by some as justification for making what I feel are incorrect decisions with regards to the aesthetic appeal of a website.

I figure I should write something about this since I posted recently about how visitors judge websites and I agreed with the article that stated that design was what mattered most.

FYI – The original study upon which Gerry is commentating is The Importance of Being Pretty in Wired Magazine.

Gerry’s main point that I want to focus on is comes from these five paragraphs:

Not many people would say that eBay is a pretty website. Nor would many defend the visual appeal of Amazon, MSN, Yahoo or AOL. Skype.com would hardly win too many design awards. I remember the original Napster website looked like it was designed on the back of a beer mat.

If first impressions are so important on the Web, then why have all the above websites been so successful? Perhaps the answer is that the look of the website comes second to the function of the website.

Aer Lingus, Ireland’s national airline, used to have a very pretty website. On the verge of bankruptcy, it was forced into a radical restructuring of its entire organization. The new management described the Web as “the business”. They created a very ugly website that had a hugely positive impact on their online sales.

It is not advisable to ask anyone to judge the visual attractiveness of a website until you have discerned their opinion in relation to how the website allows them to carry out basic tasks. What do they want to do when they come to the website? Were they able to do that simply and quickly? Only when those questions are answered positively should you focus your energies around the visual appeal.

Function and visual appeal do not have to be in conflict. However, it is clear that the websites that are making the most money are focusing much more on function than visual appeal.

My points in response, and I expect that upon more detailed discussion Gerry and I might actually agree on these points, are:

1. Design might matter more for a relatively unknown site, vs. Ebay, Yahoo, or Amazon.

2. Design probably matters less for sites that focus on ecommerce. The statement “it is clear that the websites that are making the most money are focusing much more on function than visual appeal” is probably very true for businesses like Ebay or Amazon, but this shouldn’t necessarily be taken as justification for focusing more on function than design if you’re an ad agency designing you’re own site, nor for any other service-oriented business that depends on its website for lead generation.

—————————

While I do believe that design matters, I think it matters more for some websites than others. I think each case needs to be addressed individually, and there is no set rule for all websites, or even groups of websites. You might say “Any online bookstore should focus almost exclusively on functionality” but we might be surprised someday when a bookstore becomes popular based almost exclusively because of branding. And we might as well be surprised when a web design firm with a horrible website becomes one of the largest design firms around.

From what I can tell from Wired’s limited coverage of the study, it appears to be somewhat flawed. The study referenced by Wired merely states that certain sites were rated higher than others, but upon what criteria? Just looking at websites for a fraction of a second? If the study had asked participants to compare two auction sites for 15 minutes each, I’m sure the auction site with better functionality would win out, even if the design were sub-par (assuming the design weren’t so bad that it affected the functionality). As a matter of course a study that asks participants to rate websites based on what they see during a split-second is going to result in results that show that aesthetics matter. What else can be judged so quickly?

That’s why I would take statements in the original article like “If the first impression is negative, you’ll probably drive people off.” with a grain of salt. This might apply more to sites that are unknown and found through a web search, but most people don’t find MySpace.com by doing a web search, they’re invited or referred by friends. MySpace.com is, in my opinion, a somewhat ugly site that looks like it was hacked together by some high school students. It’s also wildly popular. Yes, part of that has to do with functionality, but it also has to do with word of mouth marketing, timing, and other factors that have nothing to do with either functionality or design.

My overall point is that design matters, functionality matters, and other things matter, and each situation must be looked at with all the relevant factors. Those who focus too much on any one aspect to the exclusion of others have a greater chance of failure.