1 Realigning?

So is this another argument to realigning?

I DID guess the order on the usability. The way the eyes flow etc. I have just been reading a book on usability so im in that mood.

posted at 12:59 am on November 08, 2005 by Zach Inglis

2 Maybe more improvements possible

OK, I think the third option is more confusing because of the two colums. But as far as I see the first one has much better layout – better whitespace handling more readable fonts etc.

So maybe the better impact of v2 is because of the prominent link and the customer statements.

So I would like to see a new test ( :-) ) with the layout of a combined with the link and the customer statements (but not in italics…).

posted at 02:25 am on November 08, 2005 by Kai Laborenz

3 Step by Step is the way to go

With forms and with web sites in general, I really focus on how the user follows the copy in the page. Too much emphasis is placed on jamming as much stuff “above the fold” as possible. I say forget the fold in most cases. If you can guide users through a process with large bold call to actions, and not clutter the screen with excessive information, the experience will be naturally easier to follow.

We can really only deal with one thing at a time – a design should reflect that.

posted at 03:01 am on November 08, 2005 by Rob Goodlatte

4 Free thoughts on the test

I had a few thoughts about the results of the test. The first thing I noticed when viewing v3 was not the two collumns but the word “Free” apearing at the top-left of the page. This one word sends chills down my spine every time. I actually think that that one word could have as much to do with the sales dropping as the design.

To test the impact of the design fairly, the actual content should probably remain. Any changes to copy may have as much to do with the results as design changes. (as was stated for v2)

posted at 03:01 am on November 08, 2005 by Martin Westin

5 Importance of the copy...

I think post #4 nails it regarding the copy. The biggest thing I noted was the v2 design’s use of the big “Click Here” link, something very much missing from the other two versions.

I’d like to see the results again with the same copy in each design.

I actually preferred v3 to the others.

posted at 03:10 am on November 08, 2005 by P. Kasik

6 Untitled

I too think that pageC was the best one regarding page layout. However, it missed immediately visible user testimonials.

PageB had a clear call to action (‘would you like names, ... click here’), wich is why it was successful in my opinion. However, if it were formulated differently, like a short paragraph without too much marketing speak or dreaded ‘click here’ links, it would have been even more successful.

Personally i would have put a short description of the offer at the very top of the page. What is it, what are its benefits, its strongpoints, ... Then a 2 column layout, left hand side the sample report, right hand side a call to action: “You can order a report as shown in the sample of your area. If you like to know if there are sex offenders in your area, fill in the the form below”. Directly under it the form with a clear checkout button. At the right hand side i would have put the narrow sidepanel with user testimonials, like on pageB. Not italicised and formatted like on pageC.

Too bad this cannot be tested :)

posted at 04:48 am on November 08, 2005 by Simon Celen

7 Fluff Article

While I agree that design choices matter and have a profound impact on the overall effectiveness of a site, I can sum this article up in one sentence (instead of thousands of words):

“Design choices matter—we’ve researched it, so be careful.”

And to compare A, B, and C is ludicrous. For proper multivariate or A/B element testing (copy changes, headers, etc) you can’t implement them all at once and hold the pages against each other.

This article offers nothing more than a statement that design choices matter—and who doesn’t know that by now?

posted at 09:26 am on November 08, 2005 by Michael Thompson

8 This is really a matter of information architecture

To be more specific, you’re testing is the IA of the page. What needs to be stressed is that overall visual design doesn’t vary too much, while the information architecture is the main factor being tested.

I also agree with the above comments that by changing the copy, the results are suspect.

posted at 10:31 am on November 08, 2005 by Neil Cadsawan

9 Nielsen wrong again

Want to know why Design B was better? CLICK HERE!!!

posted at 11:44 am on November 08, 2005 by Alex G

10 So how are we to accomplish this exactly?

While I agree with the above posts that this was not a true comparison as regards to design, I did still find the article interesting and a nice reminder of how our design choices might affect the bottom line for companies.

My question is, as a small, one-person design-firm typically working with smaller clients, how would I go about setting up these types of tests? How much does this type of testing cost and how is it implemented?

posted at 11:45 am on November 08, 2005 by Mani Sheriar

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)