Posted by
Cliff
on from the new-language-on-the-block dept.
martin asks: "Just saw this page on WebML. Looks quite interesting for spec-ing out a Web site and its navigation, how does this compare with the more general UML[?] and WML[?]?"
Re:Vapid Deployment Software Methodologies...
by
DaveHowe
·
· Score: 3
This leads me to believe the working (sale curve increasing) website is one that has a different look and feel to it, thus requiring high degrees of individuality in design.
I would disagree with that strongly. Experience with ANY UI is that users tend to prefer packages that look-and-feel the same as things they already know and use, but with different content - The more consistant your user interface is across different packages in a suite, the more usable it is considered to be (and the more each package adds to the value of the OTHER packages in the suite). There is no reason this isn't valid for websites, and many people already say it is.
If a user is familiar with site a, and does click-pulldown-select-order to get (say) a book, then goes to YOUR site and does click-pulldown-select-order to get (say) a CD, then he will be pleased with himself for how quickly he did that, and state he feels "comfortable" with the site, when in fact he is merely conditioned to the style of the site from elsewhere. If you need proof, think of the time it took to figure out exactly what goes where here on slashdot - then go to any of the Slashcode sites and note how familiar it feels - even though the content and style is different, the interface is reassuringly the same. --
Have you ever tried getting a web site of sufficient complexity working well across several browsers/platforms? It is a nightmare, at least for a perfectionist. IE4/win IE4/mac IE5/win IE5/mac NS4/win Mozilla/win NS4/x etc etc... they all do layout and scripting differently and NOBODY does it right.
There are very few truly good web architects out there, but the ones that are definitely have enough headaches to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
This leads me to believe the working (sale curve increasing) website is one that has a different look and feel to it, thus requiring high degrees of individuality in design.
I would disagree with that strongly. Experience with ANY UI is that users tend to prefer packages that look-and-feel the same as things they already know and use, but with different content - The more consistant your user interface is across different packages in a suite, the more usable it is considered to be (and the more each package adds to the value of the OTHER packages in the suite). There is no reason this isn't valid for websites, and many people already say it is.
If a user is familiar with site a, and does click-pulldown-select-order to get (say) a book, then goes to YOUR site and does click-pulldown-select-order to get (say) a CD, then he will be pleased with himself for how quickly he did that, and state he feels "comfortable" with the site, when in fact he is merely conditioned to the style of the site from elsewhere. If you need proof, think of the time it took to figure out exactly what goes where here on slashdot - then go to any of the Slashcode sites and note how familiar it feels - even though the content and style is different, the interface is reassuringly the same.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Have you ever tried getting a web site of sufficient complexity working well across several browsers/platforms? It is a nightmare, at least for a perfectionist. IE4/win IE4/mac IE5/win IE5/mac NS4/win Mozilla/win NS4/x etc etc... they all do layout and scripting differently and NOBODY does it right.
There are very few truly good web architects out there, but the ones that are definitely have enough headaches to deal with.