The Bivings Report - powered by the Bivings Group

Last week, I wrote a post about Georgetown University’s process for redesigning its website.  As I drafted the piece, I developed a working thesis that university websites are sort of like government sites, in that they have to do so much and serve so many audiences that the designs end up being utilitarian and bland.  This lead me to spend a few hours going through the websites of the 100 best universities in the country, as ranked by U.S. News and World Reports, in an effort to prove my theory. 

Turns out I was wrong.  It turns out that despite all that they have to accomplish, lots and lots of universities have produced websites that are both beautiful, and immensely usable. 

Following is a list of the 11 best best designed websites from the U.S. News World Reports list, as judged by me with input from some of my co-workers here at The Bivings Group.  Please note that I only looked at the top 100 on the list – I’m sure there are websites from schools outside the top 100 that are equally impressive.

Take a look, and let me know what you think in your comments.

(11) Virginia Tech

I like the look and feel here a lot, as well as the use of photography.  It isn’t higher on the list because it is just a little too busy for my tastes.

(more…)

Living in DC, I have a lot of friends that went to Georgetown University, and have been a fan of the basketball team since the Patrick Ewing days.  Given my loose ties to the school, I’ve been watching with interest as Georgetown staff blog publicly as they redesign their website, which apparently hasn’t been touched since 2002 (wow).

I really like this stuff, as being in the web development business myself I learn a lot by reading about how other firms approach things like user research, card sorting, wire frames and defining information architecture.   I also think the transparency of sharing updates on progress is refreshing and healthy.

However, I think things went off the rails a bit when Georgetown started posting the actual comps showing what the new site will look like.  Naturally, after posting the draft designs lots of people weighed in.  And while it seemed like the majority of people preferred one of the options called Clarity (pictured below), the comments were sort of all over the place.  As a result of the disjointed feedback, Georgetown produced a new design in an attempt to respond to some of the criticism that the designs weren’t cutting edge enough.  And this has lead to more opinions.

After reading through the comments, it struck me that asking users for design feedback was probably a mistake, for a few reasons.

• People don’t understand the complexity of the overall site.  There is a reason Georgetown hasn’t changed its site since 2002 – doing so is a massive undertaking.  University sites have to appeal to a number of very diverse audiences (prospective students, students, alumni, faculty, parents, etc.) and have to have sections that adequately represent the university’s various departments and schools.  The information architecture is extremely complicated, and it is nearly impossible for someone not involved in the process to know whether the designs achieve the goals laid out in the discovery process.
• Since most people can’t comment on the site in a substantive way, they focus exclusively on look and feel (colors and typography).  And look and feel is completely subjective.  I personally am a minimalist when it comes to web design, and prefer sites that have a primarily white palette, and which use colors and images judiciously.  That style is not everyone’s cup of tea.  If you ask ten people to comment on a websites look and feel, you’ll probably get ten different opinions.
• People hate change.  While this may not be true of the Georgetown website specifically given its age, every time you redesign a site that is popular and successful there is a backlash.  On the web, design is usability and anytime you disrupt users they will complain, and then forget about it in a few weeks after they adjust.  This concept is demonstrated by every single change every made to sites like Digg and Facebook.

Ultimately, the process of designing a website should not be a democracy.  It is important to understand your users and how they interact with the site, but I’m not sure it is important to hear their opinions on typography and colors.  Some decisions need to be made by a small group of folks behind closed doors.

In all probability, Georgetown is taking all the comments it is getting on the designs with a large grain of salt, and treating the reactions they receive as anecdotes.  And maybe there is some value in that.  However, I suspect posting the actual site designs for public review hasn’t accomplished much at all, beyond perhaps raising the blood pressure of the design team.

In response to the devastating aftermath of the twin earthquakes (on January 12 and then on January 20) in Haiti, Crisis Commons has come to serve as a key forum for the coordination of professional volunteers in the development of rapid solutions to the diverse array of information-based challenges facing the aid effort.

Crisis Commons volunteers are drawn from experts in the fields of geospatial mapping, software development, graphic design,  language translation, NGO and government work, and general logistics.

Teams collaborate most intensively and perhaps productively at live meetings called “Crisis Camps”, which have met and will be meeting in cities across North and South America, from New York to Los Angeles, and from Bogota to Ottawa.

Projects resulting from Crisis Camps include a Creole-to-English mobile app, and a platform enabling the sharing of resources between relief organizations called the We Have, We Need Exchange.

Many other projects have been conceived and are in development.  View the full project list here.

In order to learn more about becoming a collaborator on a Crisis Camp Haiti project, click here.

As you probably know by now, CNN launched a redesigned website yesterday.   While I like the look and feel, the thing that really strikes me about the new homepage is how little of it is devoted to news.  As you’ll see in the screen shot above, the far left column that I’ve highlighted in yellow is hard news while the rest of the page, which I have greyed out, is devoted to feature stories, ads and site features. 

As a frequent visitor, it seems to me that CNN site has been shifting for awhile towards feature stories/ lifestyle news and away from hard news.  With less than 1/3rd of the above the fold homepage devoted to national/world news, I think this new design is another big step in that direction.

I’m not breaking any news here by telling you that the Republican National Committee launched a significant site redesign yesterday.  After spending some time going through it, I have mixed feelings about the new site.  While I admire the boldness of what they are trying to do, I think in an effort to develop a strong online brand the GOP messed up some of the basics.  I also know that the best sites improve in an iterative nature over time, so I suspect many of the problems I see will be addressed in the coming months.  With that, following is the good, the bad, and the ugly of the redesign.

(more…)

“Usability” is a word used ad-nauseum in the web development world. Since most of us spend all day navigating and constructing sites, it’s easy to assume just about anyone can be an expert in usability if they’re even half aware of what makes a good or bad site.

Smashing Magazine, however, published an interesting article Thursday on uncommon findings about usability.

The list includes some interesting psychological research results like the fact that people look at images of other people’s faces – and then whatever those faces are pointing at.

Another surprising find was, according to a Jakob Nielsen study, 77 percent of web users do not scroll when visiting a site for the first time. This makes the phrase “above the fold” as important for web designers as it is for print.

Check out the rest of the article for more tidbits and facts, such as why all your links should be blue and why users ignore your advertising.

On the heels of an overhaul of their print product back in October, the Los Angeles Times launched a redesign of their website a week or so ago.  I like the new www.latimes.com a great deal from a usability standpoint.  The new sites prominent, simplified horizontal nav bar is a huge improvement over the more complicated content structure present on the old site.  And while I’m sure some will find the black and white design unexciting, I think the palette evokes the print product and makes it easy for the eye to focus on the content.  This is a nice improvement.

Check out the screenshots below to see how the site has changed.  Click on the images for full before and after shots.

Here at The Bivings Group, we’ve dealt with a myriad of requests for mass emailing services, tools and strategies to help our clients make the most of what is the most powerful weapon in online advocacy. Based on our research and testing, here are some best practice tips for making your email campaigns as effective as possible. Most of these items fit a general theme of narrowing the focus and increasing the personalization in email messaging.

Smaller targets

The smaller the target, the more successful the email open and click-through rate. Emails sent to specific states or even determined areas around specific cities get much more attention than those sent to the whole country. People are generally inclined to get personally involved in local issues rather than national campaigns.

Specific goals

Ask people to do one single, specific thing. Example: “Sign the petition to protect America’s indigenous forests.” When these requests are linked to a form where users could do exactly that, success rates are very high. General requests such as “Support the Environment” with a link to a main homepage result in less clicks and less direct action by email subscribers. Emails that link to multiple items or actions are less successful than those focused on promoting a single action.

Getting to the point

Keep it short and simple. Getting a subscriber to open an email is just the first step. You want them to read and understand your message. Put your message in plain, direct words at the very top. Use short, single sentence paragraphs whenever possible to make the email as easy as possible to get through.

Repetition, repetition, repetition

Once your simple, direct message is at the very top of your email, repeat it throughout the body of the text. Two or three repetitions of the same call to action and link is not too much. Repetition is the best way to drive home a particular point. Repetition is the best way to drive home a particular point.

The visuals

To keep messages from looking like advertisements, it’s best to keep graphics and imaging to a minimum in general. Messages should not look dramatically different from the messages people receive from their friends and family. Some light branding images should be used in the header of the email and to emphasize the actions the email asks people to take. Keep in mind a large percentage of subscribers will only see a text version of the email or will choose not to enable graphics, so make sure all pertinent information in graphics is repeated in email body text.

Special requests

Timing is everything, even email. Give subscribers something to do, the reason to do it, the tools to get it done, but don’t forget to let them know they need to do it NOW. Emails sent surrounding current legislation or events in the news, letting subscribers know about upcoming events, or asking people to help celebrate important milestones, convey more urgency than emails unrelated to a timeline. Time-sensitive emails should be used sparingly, however, because the more you send, the less important they’ll seem.

.. add variation to an even tempo

A successful email effort has to find the right balance between being a consistent, reliable source of campaign news and flooding subscribers’ inboxes. Never let more than a few weeks pass between emails, and we should avoid sending more than two to three emails in a week unless we are in a period of intense activity. Keep in touch with subscribers without overloading them.