We already know that content quality and patrons' ease of use are of the utmost importance when it comes to an organization's website. But what if the user never even stays long enough to experience a site's functionality? Google recently published a study that identified 2 primary factors influencing users' first impressions of websites: 1) the complexity level of the design, and 2) how typical/predictable the site looks for other sites in a similar category. Long story short, people prefer simple designs that predominantly contain visual elements that are familiar to them. Both of these characteristics, along with numerous others, can be detected and judged by a user in as little as 50 milliseconds...or possibly even less! So, although we have to ensure that our web content is nothing short of stellar, looks can matter even more if we don't want our users scrambling to hit the "Back" button on their browsers.
Since many of us have been entrenched in job searches recently, we are undoubtedly visiting websites for arts organizations even more than ever. Not sure if I'm alone in this (or if I'm just being too persnickety), but I've definitely danced the Back-Button Shuffle a few times based on a website's appearance in my search for potential employers. Since I'm interested in marketing positions and the like, I think it's completely fair to judge an organization based on the visual cues they give. A poorly thought out web presence can speak volumes about not only an organization's artistic character, but the priorities of the admin office as well. It's pretty hard to take a company's work or operations seriously when their site looks (and sounds - **you might want to turn down your volume unless you're a diehard fan of faux-medieval MIDI, a.k.a. faux-MIDIeval, jamz) like THIS. Oh Internet, you are an eternal fountain of top-quality content.
As we discussed in class this week, a website is often someone's first - and possibly only - glimpse at an organization's identity, so there's really no excuse for that first glimpse to be...ugly, for lack of a better word. So dear readers, time to confess: are you prone to quick judgments based on website design alone, or does great content more or less speak for itself? Also, when it comes to branding and first impressions, do website aesthetics carry more weight in the arts sector versus other industries? Feel free to share some great and/or not-so-great web design examples too!
I also have to admit that I judge websites pretty quickly and assume that if the website is low budget, disorganized, not visually pleasing, etc. - so is the organization. My suggestion for low budgets is to invest in professional pictures and place those in a wordpress template.
ReplyDeleteI second that. However, when it comes to our job searches, we shouldn't be too quick to discount those organizations with a sub-par website. These organizations are usually aware of their website flaws and looking for creative youngsters like us to help them revamp their image.
DeleteI agree with your position Michele, it’s really easy to judge the content and quality of an organization based on their website alone. As the website is one of the first portal of communication with audiences, organizations must create functional, user-friendly online platforms for engagement and information sharing.
ReplyDeleteAlbeit a little outdated, this article from the SFGate conducted an excellent exposé of what is and isn’t beneficial for arts organizations’ websites. To turn websites around, here are five key design choices from their research that should be incorporated into arts organizations’ websites.
1. Clearly present what’s going on in the organization, make sure audiences know what the most current activity is
2. Utilize clear categories for organizing the websites’ layout
3. Allow users to hover over for information, eliminating excessive clicking and searching to find information
4. Keep it clean, streamlined and not over designed
5. Continually update the website’s content. (National Arts Marketing Project recommends updating based on analytical reports that identify specific behaviors and participation levels.)
Let’s not forget websites should also be mobile-friendly, have concise calls to action and embed multimedia throughout. I also believe the aesthetics of a website are truly in the eye of the beholder and viewer, but these are some of the systematic design choices that are proven to enhance the online presence and ultimately the audiences’ reactions.
SFGate Article: Best and worst of websites for arts organizations
http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Best-and-worst-of-websites-for-arts-organizations-2477737.php#page-1
I think the Google study is very much correct. I also think that Michelle you're correct about the importance of the website design for the arts. However, what I think is just as important as aesthetics is an arts website that is set up in an organized, similar way to other arts websites (to a point). We tend to form heuristics as a way to take mental shortcuts and a good website should consider that. People are used to a common organization for websites. Straying too far from the usual organization of a website, or having an unclear website design would I think make people not want to use the website. For example, if someone on a whim decides to purchase a ticket for a CLO performance, and they go onto the CLO website to purchase tickets and can't find that tab automatically because it's not in the place that it is for say the Cultural Trust or PPT, how likely is it that the said person will spend time trying to find how to purchase a ticket?
ReplyDeleteThis is of course not to say that all arts organizations should have the EXACT same look. Each arts organization is fairly unique and we know that the website is the first opportunity to show the viewer the brand identity. An aesthetically unappealing website creates a terrible first impression and the organization then comes off as disorganized. I'm referring more to the overall organization and tabs.
I agree. I judge an organization much more harshly if it takes more than two-three clicks to find what I need as opposed to if their website is ugly (but functional). Not to down play the importance of aesthetics, they are definitely extremely important.
DeleteI do think website aesthetics carry more weight in the arts sector versus other industries. The expectation is that if you work in the creative sector, the design of your website should also be creative and visually appealing.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, an arts organizations website should reflect the brand, not make it difficult to find pertinent information, and make tapping to that organization easy, whether that is buying a ticket, making a donation, searching the collection, or finding out about job/volunteering opportunities.
The Brooklyn Museum of Art’s website (http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/) is a good example of a clean (possibly sparse) and well branded site, but in terms of ease of use, I do wish they included the ability to hover, a quality Kelsey brought up, in order to see where selecting “visit,” “exhibitions,”…were going to take you.
The Cleveland Musuem of Art’s website (http://www.clevelandart.org/) has a nice consolidated home page, they allow for hovering, and they have the expected tabs, as Rebecca brought up, one would be looking for, but they also have these dynamic images in the center that throw you off a little because you aren’t sure of the rhyme or reason, but it makes for an interesting experience because some change individually, while others in tandem with their neighbors.
Oh I totally judge an organization or company based on the look/design of the webpage and the access of information. I like to see something visually pleasing (clean, legible text, good use of space and size). Also I like to be able to find the information I need, i.e. contact info, address, menu, program descriptions, etc. If the site is difficult to navigate--forget it! no matter how pretty it is...
ReplyDeleteSuggestion: www.wix.com for website templates. I've found them really simple and very easy to customize.
I used Wix about 4 years ago to set up a new website for my sorority - at the time I would not have really called easy to customize, however in looking here ( http://www.wix.com/sample/website) it looks like their level of customization has come a long way.
DeleteAnyway, I agree - wix is amazingly easy to do - you don't need any technical training. And it looks like compared to several years ago, it may even be an option for a professional organization!
I just made a website with Wix, and my only complaint is that is not responsive design capable - so people who access your site on tablets or ipads don't see a pretty website, they see the web version. This is a serious issue as the world has gotten aggressively mobile with its internet.
DeleteI think that judging arts organizations based on the aesthetics of their materials goes way beyond websites. Certainly, websites should be attractive and functional, but looking back over the past 7 weeks of marketing content, the same is true for all other media.
ReplyDeleteWhile I admit that I am probably a harsher design snob than many (I won't read things if I don't like the font in which they're printed), I hold art organizations to a higher standard. We are in the business of making the world a more beautiful place, and we should carry that responsibility into everything we do.
I agree, since an organization's website isn't the only type of media that current or future patrons can view, a decently branded and well managed web presence is key. I was skeptical about the 50 millisecond statistic until I read Kate's post.
DeleteI also agree with the assertion that arts organizations especially, even though most arguably may not be selling a product or service like a for-profit company, they still need to maintain a professional and orderly appearance to attract business.
For these days, When people want to learn about the organization, they will probably first search the organization and then go to their website. Website maybe the first image the organization can give to people. For the websites of some organizations, you can tell that their websites are made and designed by volunteer or may be by their non-IT staff. There is no format or design for their websites at all. When I visit these website, I do doubt the quality of their product or program and their capacity as an art organization.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, you mentioned something that is a HUGE pet peeve of mine: any website that plays music the second it loads. Music clips can be useful on a website, but please, for the love of [insert your choice of dorky celebrity here i.e. Brahms], make it optional. Give the viewer the choice to listen to the music.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually so funny. Earlier this week on @Techinthearts I asked small arts orgs to send me good examples of websites and SOMEONE SENT ME ONE WITH MUSIC THAT PLAYED AS SOON AS IT OPENED. I was so mad. I called them out on it and said it was like Livejournal circa 1998 - they didn't seem concerned.
DeleteI think your last sentence there opened up an even bigger issue: they didn't seem concerned. I think that problem comes up a lot with organizations, they either aren't concerned or don't care about the fact that they're making a horrible impression with their website. Someone needs to sit down these organizations and explain to them why they need to start caring.
Delete@Rachael: Just creeped on the TITA twitter archive to read said exchange for myself. Yikes. Indifference does not a successful brand identity make. Take heed when the real-life focus group (i.e. your actual users/constituents) has spoken! It seems so obvious, and yet...
Delete@Dana: I think you mean, "Someone needs to hire a new MAM graduate to sit these organizations down and explain to them why they need to start caring." Am I right?
I judge everyone by their website. If a business or organization doesn't have one, then I don't bother with them. Be it a doctors office, restaurants, any business, or arts organization the first impression of their website means a lot to me. To me it can portray how serious and detail oriented the organization is. That being said, the most important to me is how easily it is to find what I am searching for. If there isn't a clear way to access the information and if they don't have easy links at the bottom of the main page, I am done with the site/organization and move on (unless they have something that other organizations are not offering). I think it is imperative for arts organizations to have great websites...there are just too many other options for a person to move on to.
ReplyDeleteI see the function of an organization’s website as a great tool to strengthen its programming and marketing. So I think contents are also critical part of a website. One day I looked at Chatham Baroque’s website to get more information on that day’s performance, but you know what? They had nothing put on their website on that event. In that moment, my favorite organization became a question mark.
ReplyDeleteHow did that story end, I wonder? Was the info on their social media outlets or separate online listings? If so, it might indicate that different people/departments are handling maintenance for social and the website, and they failed to line up their update schedules.
DeleteYou're right, Michelle. I am the same kind of person as you are. If the first impression of an organization's website doesn't look good, I doubt the capacity or ability of the organization's business as a whole. Also, there is the opposite case. I'm easily enticed by a well-designed webpage regardless of its true nature, and I found this rule applies especially for online shopping. I want to add to the Aimee's comment above that content-less could be a problem but too much content without proper navigation or classification is nothing better than content-less.
ReplyDelete