

Thin Websites Sell More - pg
http://www.softwareprojects.com/resources/building-content/t-make-money-thin-websites-sell-more-1340.html

======
ed
I'm reposting my argument from the blog comments:

"Given the screenshot you posted, I wouldn't really buy into your conclusions
because you never really adjusted your designs to fit the varying widths. I
think I can agree that have a landing page take up 100% of the available width
is a bad thing, but it's not because the user is spending time turning their
head to read content (that's a pretty poor argument); rather it's because
users like to see visual boundaries -- where the content of the site begins
and ends. Your widened versions appear to do a poor job of managing the space
and as a result look more amateur than the thinner, more condensed versions.
There are multiple problems that I can spot right away with your widescreen
version -- for example, the user preferred width of a column of text is 3.5",
and the right-hand utilities section of the header appears to be disconnected
from the rest of the page. Problems such as those, stemming from the design of
the page (independent of its width) are probably more than enough to explain
the difference in bounce rates.

"Furthermore, are you arguing that the decision made by CNN, Digg, CNet (et
al.) to switch to a native 1024x768 design was wrong? I think the conservative
argument you make in your post is quite backward -- online store owners would
do better to expand their site designs and provide an enhanced experience for
customers."

~~~
MikePeters
Thank you Ed for the excellent post!

While it is true CNN, Digg, CNet and others have chosen to switch to 1024x768,
these sites target a different profile of users than the target demographics
for our study.

SoftwareProjects is in the business of building websites that "sell". And by
sell I am referring to the ability to convert an anonymous website visitor who
is visiting a new website for the first time, into a qualified lead and then a
paying customer.

Users frequenting Digg and CNet are in a completely different mindset, than
someone looking to get a mortgage quote, or a user who is surfing the net
looking for a new bookshelf.

For these type of websites, promoting a specific product/service, it's been
shown you typically have 4 seconds to convince the user to stick around,
before they hit the BACK button.

Our research conversion data shows users were more comfortable with buying
when presented with a thin website.

If you examine popular retail sites targeting the average Internet user,
you'll find they all follow a similar paradigm: Overstock.com, Target.com,
BuyOwner.com, WalMart.com etc. - are all designed as "thin" sites,
deliberately not utilizing the entire width of the page.

~~~
ed
Hi Mike, welcome to the site!

I feel like this is getting fairly pedantic but the question "what width
should your site be?" is flawed -- there is no single correct answer. It's
alot like asking the question: "which browser should I develop for?" Clearly,
user environments vary. The developing team must take this into consideration
and work accordingly.

I think the best answer you can give to someone asking your question is the
following:

If you can only design a single layout, use whatever resolution allows you to
maximize available screen real estate while supporting the largest subset of
users. (Note that this does not necessarily mean you should design the site to
take up the entire width of the browser.) However, if you have the resources
to evaluate multiple user environments (and I'd make the argument that
EVERYONE does), then do so and provide conditional formatting. So, for
example, a user with an 800x600 display will see a design optimized for that
resolution without compromising the design used for others with larger
screens.

~~~
MikePeters
Bravo! Couldn't have said it better myself.

BTW - I love what you did with PhotoFlock.

------
dood
The scope of the experiment is so narrow that I wouldn't draw any conclusions
based on this, unless I was making a cheaply-designed, SEO-driven, diet-pill
selling website. Even then, the difference could be attributed to poor design
(irrespective of width).

~~~
MikePeters
Dood, thank you for the kind words.

It's been working (big time) for us ever since we switched all landing pages
to a "thin" design.

And no, we don't promote a cheaply-designed diet-pill website. SEO-driven,
yes. Money-making, yes.

~~~
dood
Sorry if I came across as overly critical - I wasn't suggesting that your
conclusion is invalid, but that the experiment would only apply to a fairly
narrow class of website (e.g. "mortgage-leads... business-leads... diet-
pills... and ringtones"), and that you may not have varied the design
significantly (screenshots would have been great!). The 'cheaply-designed'
thing was uncalled for, and for which I apologise; I think I was trying to
suggest that a different 1024 design style may make a big difference, but it
came out snarky, probably because I'm working on something frustrating.

------
mynameishere
29 percent of visitors are using 800x600 resolution?

Hmm...just over 1 percent of visitors to my site have 800x600. Very different
markets, perhaps...

------
ashu
i think it would be interesting to see how much of it is dependent on content
_columns_ being thin vs. the entire site being thin.

~~~
douglasf
If the entire site is not thin then your eyes still have to wonder side to
side right? I actually think this makes perfect sense

------
rachel27
Is this true for all industries???

