A study done recently on the reactions of web surfers to web pages reveals that visitors decide whether a site is worth looking at or not within milliseconds of seeing the page load. This, of course, is only a component of whether visitors decide to stay on a particular web site. Load times and quality of content still matter, but this is a suitable red flag to web designers, web developers, and graphics designers alike: visuals matter more than you might think.

It’s a little astounding that it took so long for this fact to come to light. It’s well-known in the Web world that you have somewhere around 5 seconds to grab a user’s attention once they arrive on a page, and this discovery doesn’t change that. Certainly, it’s possible for a page to be so monstrously hideous that a user must immediately cringe and recoil; we’ve known that too. Intuitively, we’ve also known that something that doesn’t look clean or professionally done is less likely to sell and be convincing than something that has a great deal of monetary investment and thought. From the physical marketing world, all this is one great big "well, duh"; the realization that visuals control not only impact but level of interest is something that has held in print media for a very long time.

So why does this come as news to web designers?

It indicates an evolution of the web. Whereas before, where we were merely concerned with the code, making valid and correct HTML that is readable across all browsers; where we prized content just as much as design; where we were sometimes more interested in simply providing the information quickly over the quality of the presentation; now, we have a kick upside the head. Again, "well, duh" – or is it? What does this have to say for beginning web designers just stepping into the world of online design? For that matter, what does it tell people like me who are good at layout, content management, and backend programming, but are absolutely clueless when it comes to graphics?

My personal lesson from this is a validation of my personal design philosophy: simple and clean. The key is to strike a balance between appropriate visuals and the information presented. Sometimes, this can mean very minimalistic approaches (I give the Teen Tutoring Project as one of my personal design examples). On the other hand, this can mean something very straightforward, but imbued with a subtle message that is hidden within the layout and design itself. That philosophy has held across all my clients. I tend to match with clients that share this philosophy, but that’s another article.

In the long run, having this information can only be beneficial, but we have to decide whether this is simply one more fact to intimidate web designers into using flashier technologies (no pun intended) or whether this is a broader lesson: one of balance and a warning not to oversell the message through visual impact.

To me, that’s not just another "well, duh".

The New York Times today has an article on its web site entitled "Google’s Shadow Payroll Is Not Such a Secret Anymore".

This is an interesting article because it does discuss AdSense and how people have used the system as a profit resource on forums. The article also speaks more widely to the success of the AdSense program and how that program has grown with the introduction of more fine-grained target advertising.

One area of concern, Mr. Hogan said, was whether the forum’s participants would skew their postings to earn more money. For instance, since advertisers in certain categories, like sexual-performance drugs, pay much more to place their ads on Google and its affiliated sites, you might expect technology discussions to randomly veer in that direction.

“But that hasn’t happened, thankfully,” Mr. Hogan said. “Probably because there isn’t that much revenue in it for them.”

This raises a very interesting point, in my opinion – AdSense is marketed to be somewhat inconspicuous so as not to detract from the content on the site (and, I would say, achieves this fairly well). Certainly, the success of AdSense is driven by pure numbers – like most ad programs, they likely count only unique hits to site rather than total hits. But what happens when (or if) someone attempts to influence the direction that advertising goes by creating content so specific that AdSense can’t help but pick up on it?

This is a philosophical as well as an ethical question. Philosophically, it would make some sense to create this sort of targeting, since you would be drawing keywords from the AdSense network that you might not otherwise see on the site – whether this equates to higher revenue or not remains to be seen, especially since the commenter in the article seems to indicate that this is unlikely. You might also end up recreating your audience for the site entirely as an unintended side effect. But is this ethical? Strictly speaking, this could be construed as a violation of Google’s AdSense Terms of Service. Candidates for such infractions could include subsection 2, under “General”:

You agree not to display on the same Web page in connection with which any Ad Unit, Ad, Link, Search Box, or Referral Button is displayed (a “Serviced Page”) any advertisement(s) that an end user of Your Site(s) would reasonably confuse with a Google advertisement or otherwise associate with Google. If You have elected to receive content or Site-based Ads, You further agree not to display on any Serviced Page any non-Google content-targeted advertisement(s).

This is where it gets a little iffy – it could be said that, by attempting to influence the results of an AdSense advertisement by creating your own content, you are in fact creating something that could be “reasonably confuse[d] with a Google advertisement or otherwise associate[d] with Google”. More than likely, there are other sections of that Terms of Service that might directly be relevant to such an issue.

There is a social stigma, however, that is attached to trying to bypass or subjugate computing systems, so the social norm of most bloggers and forum posters on the Web would heavily steer the group away from this through the power of group dynamics. But the question remains, whether academic or otherwise. Whether there is a final answer to this has yet to be seen.

My good friend Jeff Fisher somehow time-leaped into the future and posted The proper care and feeding of the in-house graphic designer. He has an excellent start, but I’d suggest a few contributions:

11. Ask Questions.

Many times, miscommunication about a project stems from the designer and her client speaking two different languages. Don’t be afraid to ask your designer how they came up with the ideas they did based upon the result you receive. As long as you are open and receptive, there is no reason why a conversation about the final result won’t result in better work later on (and a better understanding of your designer’s abilities).

12. Be Specific.

Closely related to numbers 5 and 7, if you have specific criteria for a project, state them as clearly and openly as you can. All the information in the world won’t make a difference if you wanted apples and got oranges.

13. Learn About You (From a Design Perspective)

Let’s face it – getting people to talk about themselves or their work can lead to a gold mine of information and better interpersonal relationships. Get your designer to talk to you once in a while about the trends she sees in your industry, the kinds of things that she thinks can be improved about your work, and pretty much anything else. An excellent relationship with your designer now pays back in spades later.

Further Thoughts

Sometimes the sad reality of lists like this is that designers have to "train" people to think this way. Beware – such activity may indicate that your designer will be leaving before you know it! Designers like to be in places where they fit in, are provided plenty of nourishment, and are, in general, proud of the work they do and proud of their company.

Something I tell people who are considering hiring a designer is to shop around a bit for a best fit. A designer who is thoughtful and intuitive but often quiet won’t do well in a company full of loud, boisterous employees. Consider not only portfolio work but how that designer interacts with her environment. Following all these recipes should make for a happy experience for all involved!