| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
In our experience, there are two basic ways that designers approach the creation of a website:
...
Everyone is happy until several weeks after the site is released. The analytics show that certain parts of the site that expected heavy traffic are getting very little, while the web-feedback channel is choked with users complaining they can’t find this or that on the new site. (They love the new look and feel, but it’s much harder to find things now that everything has changed.) This feedback persists for several months.
"Way too much work to find what I want. Maps used to be all in one place, but now they're scattered all over the place." - a disgruntled site visitor
...
Eventually, a consultant is brought in to do some usability testing on the site and recommend fixes. One of the major issues she finds is that the site is organized in a way that makes sense to the project team, but not to some of their major audiences. Some of this can be fixed with simple terminology changes, but some of it will require fundamental changes to the site structure, which will in turn require a good deal of content rework.
No one (including Tom) wanted this result, but now that they know about it, it can be fixed in release 2 (if they can get funding for it).
"We were hoping to add a stolen-bike registry next, but that will have to wait until we solve some basic navigation issues." - site owner
Maria and the empirical method
...
"Took a bit to get used to, but it's now much easier to find what I want." - a satisfied site visitor
...
Maria, her project team, and upper management are all happy with the new site:
"Great feedback from users, and traffic has jumped too. The committee was happy to give us the go-ahead for the exciting stuff in release 2." - site owner
...
The moral of our story
Don't dismiss this is a straw-man example; over the years we've seen an astonishing number of websites are created using Tom’s single-design genius method (or something very close to it). The Toms of the design world may be talented, but they are often curiously reluctant to use empirical tools to test their designs before the website ships. And the odds of them getting everything right the first time are very low. That translates into a high risk for the organization.
...
We don't have to be geniuses to recommend the latter approach. 
...
Next: Good IA starts with an effective site tree