I chose the Gates N Fences website and MGBD Parts and Services sites to review for my examples of poorly designed sites. I think it's safe to say that neither comes across as being well designed or with the user in mind. On both sites, there is a lot of clutter: too much copy on the Gates N Fences site and too many icons on the MGBD Parts and Services site.
Gates N Fences has super small text and way too much information on one page (no hierarchy). I don't know what their top services are or how to contact them, and there are about 50 buttons on the left side to access content that probably isn't necessary.For MGBD I would say it needs more breathing room overall and some contrast with the images, colors/typography. There are too many differerent-colored links in there. The typography is blurry and hard to read over the images of the cars. The text also seems to be center aligned. There's no hierarchy on this page either. It takes a while to figure out what they do, and I think a banner image with a few major services and contact info would be better.
There is no ease of use on either site. The eye jumps all over the place and lands nowhere. If I was choosing between one of these companies and a company with a more organized website, I would likely choose the latter. Neither website seemed like they were designed with the end user in mind for the above reasons. I think they thought it would be best to put all their information on one page rather than think about what information is most frequently requested or viewed. Overall, I feel both sites could benefit from cutting about 80% of their copy and/or putting it on additional pages that could be accessed via navigation.
For my well designed sites, I chose the National Park Service and Headhunter Hairstyling. After reviewing the poorly designed sites, these were both a breath of fresh air! Each site has a lot of space and big headers, left alignment, and the names are in the left corner. The navigation is great on both sites, as well. The NPS website has its images in a grid/group on the homepage, which looks nice. And Headhunter Hairstyling has theirs in grids on other pages. I'm also a fan of navigation buttons, which are very action oriented and to the point. I'd say both sites have these. The hierarchy on both sites is great too, with the most essential info at the top. For NPS, that's a search area to find your park, and for Headhunter, it's their services and contact info. I also love that there's very minimal scrolling needed on either site. The additional information is on separate pages.
I personally love the colors of the Headhunter Hairstyling site. It seems perfect for Florida: cool, breezy and relaxing. Their navigation is super easy and streamlined, as well, and the text is left aligned. I actually don't love how the scrolling works on their main page. I do like that they show photos of themselves, since hair care can be a personal service, and you want to know who is going to be cutting your hair/talking to you for an hour!
Both of these sites were definitely designed with the user in mind. For NPS, it's people looking for a park. And for Headhunter, it's people looking for hair services. Because of their professional websites, they look much more appealing to the viewer and as if someone really thought about what the user wants and needs.
I would say going into this I knew websites could be poorly designed or well designed, especially since we do that for our clients. But I had forgotten just how chaotic some sites used to be (and still are). There is one thing I do wonder, however. In certain instances, do these poorly designed sites actually work for people? For example, an older demographic might find them more personally-designed (not flashy and slick) and therefore more reliable... if that makes sense? I am of course speculating and generalizing. But the reason I wonder is because we spend a lot of effort on design and creative for most of our clients--and the majority of the time it is beneficial to their fundraising. But sometimes, for example, at a local animal shelter, people like to think it's actually the Director emailing them and having a stylized format actually hurts. Anyway, food for thought!
I posted on Josephine's blog about the business research: https://josephinecsit155.blogspot.com
For my well designed sites, I chose the National Park Service and Headhunter Hairstyling. After reviewing the poorly designed sites, these were both a breath of fresh air! Each site has a lot of space and big headers, left alignment, and the names are in the left corner. The navigation is great on both sites, as well. The NPS website has its images in a grid/group on the homepage, which looks nice. And Headhunter Hairstyling has theirs in grids on other pages. I'm also a fan of navigation buttons, which are very action oriented and to the point. I'd say both sites have these. The hierarchy on both sites is great too, with the most essential info at the top. For NPS, that's a search area to find your park, and for Headhunter, it's their services and contact info. I also love that there's very minimal scrolling needed on either site. The additional information is on separate pages.
I personally love the colors of the Headhunter Hairstyling site. It seems perfect for Florida: cool, breezy and relaxing. Their navigation is super easy and streamlined, as well, and the text is left aligned. I actually don't love how the scrolling works on their main page. I do like that they show photos of themselves, since hair care can be a personal service, and you want to know who is going to be cutting your hair/talking to you for an hour!
Both of these sites were definitely designed with the user in mind. For NPS, it's people looking for a park. And for Headhunter, it's people looking for hair services. Because of their professional websites, they look much more appealing to the viewer and as if someone really thought about what the user wants and needs.
I would say going into this I knew websites could be poorly designed or well designed, especially since we do that for our clients. But I had forgotten just how chaotic some sites used to be (and still are). There is one thing I do wonder, however. In certain instances, do these poorly designed sites actually work for people? For example, an older demographic might find them more personally-designed (not flashy and slick) and therefore more reliable... if that makes sense? I am of course speculating and generalizing. But the reason I wonder is because we spend a lot of effort on design and creative for most of our clients--and the majority of the time it is beneficial to their fundraising. But sometimes, for example, at a local animal shelter, people like to think it's actually the Director emailing them and having a stylized format actually hurts. Anyway, food for thought!
I posted on Josephine's blog about the business research: https://josephinecsit155.blogspot.com
(Note: my user name is still SDSD for some reason!)
Comments
Post a Comment