Ask HN: How do you evaluate a web site? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How do you evaluate a web site?

31 pointsjmtame23 comments

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?

Here's mine: simplicity, clear call to action, uniqueness, usefulness (not sure about this one), overall impression

See http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html #16

View on HN

  # 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)

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!)

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.

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.

3. Intuitive ... femtoo.com

I took 'Register to get started' as: 'New user? Press here first' (not filling email and password)

very true, Femtoo is still very much work in progress, but I am trying to aspire to the point on my list! (thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated)

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!

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.

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!

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.

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?

I would put number 11 at the top.

I like to keep the best for last ;)

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.

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.

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

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.

"So what?"

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

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

To the point, uncluttered, whitespace, minimalism

Useful and non-spammy.

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?,~+??~+,~+=~+,~,:+?,~+~+,:=+:+,:+=~++~==?

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://37signals.com/svn/posts/1072-apples-mobileme-drops-su...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com