www.lytis.com/v2/

WebDesignDatabase · #1 (**permalink**) 05-21-2004, 06:17 PM

Hey guys, this site is nearing it completion. I just want to know what I should change and what I should keep. Its not live so please critique accordingly. You can be as brutaly honest as you want. I can take it.

http://www.lytis.com/v2/

<Mod edit to comply with Site Review Rule #1 - Masterpeace>

Dcrux · #2 (**permalink**) 05-21-2004, 07:37 PM

The site certainly looks good. The Flash animation header is gratuitous, an oft cited usability peeve. The expectation based on the type of site is animation would be better used. I note the tagline "Web Designs That Work" is different than "Creating Usable System Solutions" on popup examples.

I took the liberty of intitiating the excruciatingly long IPod download. It rotated nicely. ...What's it for?...Who's it for?!

Again, based on the premise of "user centered" design, I expected things would be a little more infographic, like this. Undoubtedly familiar with the talk, the walk raised a lot of questions in my mind. Cognitive friction is the formal term in the lingo of the discipline, I believe.

Take a blurb from another popup "PAC needed the new site to be more easily updateable and to provide a fresher look and feel." This is standard tech and graphic design speak -- not interaction design. What's missing from this "user centered" picture?

The site has a good look and certainly uses key terms. There might be some room for adding the persona storyboards, basic information, and the other standard features one expects from this kind of site. I look forward to a site which plows new interaction design ground, has a clear vision of the service offered, and talks about the benefits of the service instead of features.

WebDesignDatabase · #3 (**permalink**) 05-21-2004, 09:13 PM

First let me thank you for your comments they were insightful and well thought out.

In the past it is true that Flash sites were generally considered to be bad... useless in fact. However, there have been many large steps forward in flash design principles (Jakob Neilsen's studies etc.) and the need for Emotional Design concepts to meet with usability design in a proper balance.

In our case this is exactly what we are trying to do, find the balance between form and function (emotion and usability). It has become apparent to us that companies want both sides of the coin, whether they know what usability is or not. It is our hope that we will be able to provide usability to companies of all sizes, in an as affordable way as possible. Most small companies don't know what UCD is, nor do they want to pay for it. All they want is prettiness. I guess, in a way we are trying to trick them, our process is centered on usability. No way around it. If you don't want to have a User Centered approach, you'll have to go elsewhere.

Regarding the lack of UCD jargon and more "standard tech and graphic design speak:"
1) Not all of the copy is complete (hence the site isn't launched)
2) Jargon speak quickly alienates those who don't understand it and it tends to make them feel as though you are speaking over their heads.

We plan on having other sections of the site that will help enlighten our clients/potential clients in what usability is and how we plan on using it to help them.

In the future we also look forward to providing clients with case studies outlining our process, and the benefits of Usability. Being a company that is in its infancy there are many things we have not yet had the opportunity to do, but we look forward to the chance. We are hoping this site will help bring these opportunities to us.

The "what our site does" tag line confliction is an error on our part, carry over from our past site/logo and I thank you for reminding me of it.

The 3D iPod was just what it said it was... merely to show that we can create 3D objects. Perhaps, not that impressive, but I did warn users how big the file they were going to be downloading was (file size 4359kb). And I provided a loader so they would have some feedback that something was at least happening.

Again, thanks for your comments, please keep them coming. I'll try not to be so argumentative.

Jammy

Dcrux · #4 (**permalink**) 05-21-2004, 11:05 PM

I don't consider it argumentative to help me understand your design decision process. It's the only way for me to figure out where the design is headed.

"Emotional Design concepts to meet with usability design in a proper balance." Yes I saw the "Joy of use" article. This is called desirability design. And the point about flash still stands, even more so from the perspective of desirability. Aesthetics is one small dimension of desirability. Keep the Flash, but demonstrate the principle with it.

You seem to equate graphic design with a larger set of interaction design principles. Graphic design is simply graphic design.

You are quite right, "Jargon speak quickly alienates those who don't understand" There is technical jargon all over the site, including the UCD kind. Feature lists with HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Photoshop, Forum Design (DB included). As I pointed out, the jargon you use is tech and graphics based, not plain English. Further, although listed as features, they are not features. They are simply technologies. Once again, I suggest rewriting this as user centered benefit statements. Not technologies. Not features.

I look forward to the updated version of the site.

WebDesignDatabase · #5 (**permalink**) 05-22-2004, 03:38 PM

I haven't actually read the article you mentioned, I was thinking of the "Emotinal Deisng" book by Don Norman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846). But I suppose it's on par with what you were saying. The point is that Visual Design, Interaction Design and Usability have to come together in a nice balance. People like to use sites, systems, or gadgets more when they are pleasurable or pleasing to the eye. Many studies show this, from Israel to the US. Our goal is to create systems with this balance in mind. At least that is what we are striving to do, are we successful, well, I guess that remains to be seen. But, we are working on it.

There is no doubt a need for us to clean up and re-organize some of our verbiage on the site. Your comments are well received.

However with the use of certain words that we deem as "Key Words" or "Buzzwords" even, we feel that certain people need to see them in order to think respectably of our company. They may also be necessary for marketing purposes as well (search engine).

Thanks again for your comments. Incidentally, where did you study HCI?

Dcrux · #6 (**permalink**) 05-22-2004, 04:40 PM

Good luck with your site. My side of the UCD puzzle is from the Kansei/engineering side. I've always thought the various camps (Alan Dix, Fogg, Ivrea, etcetera) would get together with your guys (Norman group).

You know, maybe go bowling some time, unify the disciplines. You may want to google "desirability design" some time.