The one thing that we never want to hear in the world of web design is that the design is not user friendly. As Nielson points out, problems become severe when they fall under three main factors: Frequency, Impact, and Persistence - each of which has various levels of severity. Additionally, Neilson scales the problems into main problem categories that are frequently encountered by users; of these categories, the main 6 are: Search, Find ability, Page Design, Information, Task Support, and Fancy Design.
Contrary to Nielson's argument that "As much as web designers love to discuss the importance of elements such as graphics and layout, page design is not that important for people's ability to use web sites." I feel that deign has everything to do with the user's ability to interact with a site. You could have some really interesting content (text), but the website would not be user friendly/impactful/use able if it consists of poor design.
What is interesting to note about Nielson's findings is that all of the problems he outlines tend to lend themselves to a single problematic idea - design has impact on the outcome of the user experience. Poor design equals poor usability. If something is not easily search able, then it can easily be blamed on the design , because object/categories/subjects are not properly grouped together. Similar assumptions may be mad in relation to Find ability, Page design etc...
What we can learn from design is that asthetics is key to an excellent experience. You cannot create an aw--inspiring experience if the user's sensory is not fully intrigued by the design.
-Bryan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can totally agree with you that Aesthetics is key to websites appeal. What do you think can change in the future with the appeal of websites? What will make them standout even more then they are now?
Post a Comment