

Ask HN: How do you evaluate a web site? - jmtame

If you had to gather a list of words or criteria to describe
the most important aspects of a web site, from a design and user experience perspective, what would they be?  What words would you use to judge a web site?<p>Here's mine: simplicity, clear call to action, uniqueness, usefulness (not sure about this one), overall impression<p>See http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html #16
======
apsurd
Neat, organized, simple, clear, understandable, scoped, engaging.

\-- Neat and organized.

Messy and chaotic looking websites turn me off. Everyone has their idea of
"style" but if it feels like I have to make _effort_ to digest any kind of
content, its a huge turn off. Being organized and tidy solves this problem
more times than not.

\-- Simple, Clear and Understandable.

Language is beautiful. Conveying concepts whether in words, pictures, video,
etc, is _hard_. Websites that don't give a crap about the quality of their
message turn me off, if they don't care, why should I?

\-- Scoped.

I have mentioned how important scoping is in a couple of "review my website"
posts. It has to do with how organization is displayed and sorted within your
website. A nice example of proper scoping is stack overflow, and it takes tons
of work. Stackoverflow has a "global" page where questions from all categories
are sorted by votes, time, and responses. Drilling down into a specific tag or
category narrows the _scope_ of the information you see. All the filters and
sorting work on a unified interface but only the _scope_ changes. Lots of
websites have scoping problems. Why are weirdo arbitrary global
links/functions contained on a side navigation when I am in a particular
subset of the site/data?

Headers, footers, left/right panels can all be designed to reflect proper
scope. Maybe you want global stuff present everywhere. Well make the container
clearly and consistently represent a global interface. Don't use things for
both just for the hell of it.

\-- Engaging.

Hard to explain possibly, but I like to think that a website has its doors
open and it looks like people are actively enjoying themselves inside. You
would not paint your local ice cream shop entirely black, board up all the
windows, close the door, and expect people to feel welcomed.

I personally like minimalistic design, but that does not mean I don't use and
like sites like <http://wufoo.com>

Ok thats all!

------
tcarnell
1\. Purposeful

2\. Coherent

3\. Intuitive

4\. Responsive

5\. Distinctive

6\. Enjoyable

And more or less in that order. It's certainly how I have designed
<http://www.femtoo.com> (sorry about the obvious plug!)

~~~
ottbot
I also didn't get the "Register to started" link.

I found the FAQ linking to "There are no FAQ" kind of odd.. Then why have a
link to FAQ?

Also, when clicking the "ask a question" link does anyone want an alert
telling them to register then use the contact form?

Unless this is just beta stage stuff, I think there are better ways to do
this. You could take them to contact form and offer to chance to register
there as well.

~~~
tcarnell
Very good point. I've been toying with different approaches to the front page
- I think you're spot on, and yes Femtoo certainly IS beta! I am trying to
follow the points on my list...honest! thanks for your feedback, much
appreciated.

------
genieyclo
1\. Intuitiveness of design

2\. Simplicity

3\. TOS/Privacy concerns; Can I delete my account and data with it? Who
controls it? Who gets to look at it?

4\. Use of open space in design of pages

5\. Speed

6\. Novelty factor

7\. Connectivity with OpenID/Google account

8\. Types of ads running on it

9\. Customer service in case of problems; response time and vibe from site
owners

10\. Active development, new features, public API with decent documentation,
and a good community around it

11\. _Does it fill a need that I have adequately/better than competitors?_

~~~
oscardelben
I would put number 11 at the top.

~~~
genieyclo
I like to keep the best for last ;)

------
robgough
Honestly, in the first second or so it's all about adverts. If an advert is
the first thing that catches me eye, then usually I'm gone. I'm particularly
sensitive to moving adverts.

After that I'm looking for an about page. If I see generic marketing spiel
then I'm outta there (either on the home page, or about page). If there's a
simple, plain description of what the site is/provides then I'll stick around
and explore.

edit: I'm not against adverts, I'm against sites that have a little content
that is solely used to pad out the adverts.

------
mitchellh
1\. Clear goal - If I don't know what the website does from the first look at
the home page, I close that tab and move on with my life.

2\. Clear feature set - Just a basic overview. But once I see the goal and it
matches up with what I need, I look for features.

3\. Conciseness - As little text as possible while still conveying a point.
This is key. Images are good as well, but taken in moderation.

4\. Easy to find demo/trial/signup button - Seriously? I don't understand how
websites get this wrong. If you want me using it, flaunt it!

------
rubinelli
I think you can't talk about general criteria for web sites, just like you
can't talk about general criteria for automobiles. Is a truck better than a
family sedan? It depends on what you plan to do with it. You can say that a
site that goes down almost every week is obviously bad, but what about Twitter
during its first, shaky growing phase? Or to use a more common example, web
copy brevity is usually good, but long sales letters convert well.

------
JosueTorero
1\. Lack of visual clutter; looking at something that is simple and does not
tax my concentration makes me feel relaxed, and thus makes me want to visit
the website again.

2\. Any kind of news about the website that does not seem like a press
release.

3\. Advertising that is relevant to me, or none at all; monetisation is bad
(teeth whiteners, Acai berries, etc.), while relevance is good (local
restaurant informing me of today's lunch special).

4\. A "Contact Us" page that has multiple methods of contact, instead of just
a submission form that might go who-knows-where.

------
ankeshk
1\. Ease of use

2\. Accessibility of information (no one wants to click 8 times to find what
they're looking for)

3\. The mood the design creates (colour / spacing / layout / font)

4\. Uniqueness

------
notauser
Credible.

If I hit a road block (such as having to register) before I feel that you are
going to deliver on your promises then I move on without bothering.

For example: I won't register for your new social network, because I feel
there's a very good chance it won't change my life for the better (not even
enough to justify a 30 second registration). However after vising your blog
and reading your articles I might sign up for your newsletter because you are
now credible to me as a source of interesting information.

------
kuldeep_kap
I think we should also add point 'Memorable'. I think it should leave an long-
lasting impression, which should sub-consciously lead a user back to the site,
repetitively.

------
synnik
"So what?"

If the site doesn't quickly answer that question for me, it fails. All other
criteria are simply components of that answer.

------
edw519

      # Metric            Formula
      - ----------------  ------------------------------------
      1 effectiveness     sum(EffortExpended) / OriginalGoal
    
      2 efficiency        sum(EffortExpended) / sum(ValueReceived)
    
      3 speed             "0" or "1"
                          (TimeToLoad < TimeWillingToWait)
    
      4 readability       "0" or "1"
                          (AbilityToRead == 1)  
    
      5 comprehensibility "0" or "1"
                          (TimeNeededToUnderstand < TimeAvailable)

------
ErrantX
#1 An introduction to the site (aka what your doing and how to do it)

------
uggedal
To the point, uncluttered, whitespace, minimalism

------
davidw
Useful and non-spammy.

------
Freebytes
tcarnell, I went to see what jonsen was saying about Femtoo.com, and well, I
think we should add compatibility to that list. While I dislike IE6, there are
many users still forced to use it.

Internet Explorer 6 is not supported.
???????????I?,~+??~+,~+=~+,~,:+?,~+~+,:=+:+,:+=~++~==?

~~~
pxlpshr
What's the likelyhood that an IE 6 users is also an early-adopting web-app
user? I think it's very low, and certainly doesn't seem to bother 37signals.

[http://productblog.37signals.com/products/2008/07/basecamp-p...](http://productblog.37signals.com/products/2008/07/basecamp-
phasin.html)

[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1072-apples-mobileme-drops-
su...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1072-apples-mobileme-drops-support-for-
ie-6)

The big issue I see is time vs. return. In most cases when you're a small team
and trying to move fast, I believe the decision comes down to support IE6 or
push iterations faster. I pick the latter.

