Weblog #9: April 5, 2005

  Don't Make Me Think made me think (sorry!) about the differences between commercial sites, which are the subject of this book, and the kind of historical sites which are the focus of our class. If "Don't make me think" is the first law of usability for commercial sites, I wonder if it applies to sites that are intended to  inform and, yes, perhaps even to make people think about the content. I realize, of course, that author Steve Krug's first law applies mostly to navigation rather than content but would the "consumers" of historical sites be more likely to tolerate confusing navigation than those who are simply looking for something to buy. I believe that they would.
  And this raises once again the issue regarding the importance of design versus content. Based on some of the sites we have examined in class, it would seem that some historians not only don't care about design but actually delight in the poor quality of the design of their sites. This might be carrying "anti-design" too far but it seems to me that, for historical sites at least, design/navigation is not as important as content. If a hierarchy of design-content choices were to be constructed in order of priority, it would look something like this:
                    1. good design/good content
                    2. poor design/good content
                    3. good design/poor content
                    4. poor design/poor content
The ideal obviously is to have both effective design and worthwhile content but if one or the other had to be sacrificed in a historical site, it would be design over content. Krug might argue that "make me think" usability hinders access to the content but, in my opinion, that does not make the hierarchy argument any less valid.

Comments

[James]

I like your hierarchy; it makes sense. A friend of mine is writing a New Media minor field statement called "But I want you to think," and I'm inclined to agree with him.

[Anne Mason]

I agree with you that content is more important than navigation, if I had to choose. I also agree that many historians do not think design and navigation are very important. Just look at the number of poorly designed history sites! But is it self-defeating to already be thinking that one had to sacrifice one or the other?

However, I agree with Krug in the respect, that if your site is hard to use, people will get frustrated and leave, or at the very least, not be able to use a site to its full extent. I think, too, that improper design can also make it hard for search engines like google to find a site, and if no one can find it, they can't use it.

[mlinhart]

Good comment Anne on the fact that bad design will cause people to leave. You are probably right. I do agree with that content is most important but your point is well taken.

[giny]

actually, i've gotten more impatient with badly designed sites. ahh! my (aesthetic) eye! i do agree with wanting to make people think but it should definitely be content rather than scary design. design as seen but not overly noticed, perhaps?