"...Could this be just a mask to hook anyone who
wonders in with the free subscription offer "
Comments from reviewers:
"This site has the right idea and is in no need of a complete
overhaul, but a few changes would benefit the company and its visitors."
Our suggestions are:
1) move the animated spam message further down the page
or eliminate it altogether. This is not "busy executive" content.
2) Refine the left navigation column... make it cleaner,
and more narrow.
3) Attempt to eliminate the feeling of 'sameness' to
the article starts. Prioritize. One should lead, the others follow. Select which
should be most important.
So far the most important thing on the whole page is "free subscriptions."
We suspect that if the initial content is important enough, the target audience wouldn't
care about the cost of subscriptions. The same goes for the "free information"
ad. C'mon, don't insult your reader... is there other "free" information
on the web?
Bizsites begins with a nice dialog...
"Bizsites is a practical and easy-to-use tool for corporate
executives seeking to manage their companies' growth when facing... "
blah, blah, blah.
The reader is met with an astounding onslaught of visual pollution encompassed in
over 15 different files loading along with screen after screen of scrolling madness.
__ The animated SPAM message alone is enough to turn
off any self-respecting executive, let alone the four other empty-content, animated
files laboriously loading.
__ The page took an excruciating 29 seconds to complete
at 28.8bps, and the browser had to recall the server more than 36 times to finish
the goal of loading the page. (All at low web traffic times) By this time most executives
have either clicked on an early link of interest, or have left the page all together.
"This site looks professional, however I think they might be providing information
overload on the first page. Too much information dilutes itself as you get closer
to the bottom of the page. "
[ We couldn't agree more! ]
"As with many other sites, the width is off-base. On a 15 inch monitor at 640X480
resolution, the site still needs to be scrolled over to the right to read the text.
A tip? For a Web page to fit perfectly full screen on a 640X480 resolution, limit
the width of the site to 580 pixels across. The graphics are nice, although the
load time on the site took more than some people might be willing to wait (17 seconds
on a T-1)."
[ Here you see the difference between a T-1 line and 28.8 normal dial-up. Actually
the T-1 should have been a lot faster, perhaps 4 to 5 seconds, depending on time
of day ]
Perhaps Bizsites should take a sober look
and ask who their target really is.
If, in fact, it is "busy executives" then the content presentation needs
* The link buttons on the left don't
need color backgrounds or borders, and could be much smaller. This alone would help
clean up the visual staccato feeling. Some tasteful typography would be much nicer.
Several people commented on the amount of text involved to explain these buttons.
We felt that more clearly defined "departments" would be a better approach
and would help clean much of that up.
* The second button is "site selection
tool kit" -- what does this mean? Many of the links are ambiguous like this.
And as we travel down the seemingly endless page (actually we never made it to the
bottom -- for all we know it is bottomless) some of the links seem much more important
than those at the top. Perhaps Bizsites should temper the design with a bit more
__ Overall, the site has a businesslike feeling. The
color scheme is nice and it does communicate a sense of purpose. As we snooped deeper
into the content, the site does deliver a real scoop of valuable info for business.
The challenge here is to make it more obvious at the onset.
In closing, one astute observer said:
"Are we being fooled here? This really isn't a site for busy executives, is
it? Could this be just a mask to hook anyone who wonders in with the free subscription
offer -- thereby increasing readership and ad revenue? Too many sites these days
are masquerading as information sites when in reality they are published ONLY for
the purpose of advertising."
hmmmmmmm. If one reader got that feeling, I wonder how many others do too? See what