JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2002

PHD-DESIGN 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Sample Newsletter: Determining How Design Affects Branding

From:

Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:39:51 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Ken,

Very interesting. Although I may be preaching to the choir on this
list, I always think it's important to point out two
nearly-inevitable things in this sort of design research: (1) the
specificity of the results and (2) the causal questions unresolved.
My guess is that Jared would agree that these are both important to
keep in mind.

>I know you like to hear about our latest findings. So, here are some
>from our most recent study of 170 shopping expeditions on 13 apparel
>and home goods sites:
>
>1) The more users used Search, the less they purchased.
>2) Users waited, on average, three clicks into the site before
>    attempting to use Search.
>3) The more users used Search, the worse they rated the site.
>4) The more users used Search, the less they told us they'd
>    return to shop on the site again.
>5) The more previous experience a user had with a site, the less
>    they used Search on that site.
>6) Two of the study's best performing sites, the Gap and Old Navy,
>    have *no* Search feature. (And the users didn't notice.)

In the next paragraph he points out the specificity problem: This
study was specifically about apparel sites. Does the no search advice
apply to non-apparel sites? Apparently not.

The subsequent paragraph brings up some questions, though.

>In fact, there are very few (read 'zero') good things we can say
>about Search in this study. Search did better in previous studies,
>where we tested sites selling CD's and videos, but with sites selling
>apparel and home goods, Search seems to fail miserably.
>
>I know I'll get more angry mail from the search engine software
>vendors for saying this, but it doesn't look good for Search. Maybe
>the Gap and Old Navy have it right: don't waste your time on providing
>Search.

Presumably the Old Navy and Gap sites don't have search engines
because their designers thought they didn't need them. I doubt that's
just brilliant organization; those sites are simpler than the Macy's
site they were compared with. (I'm guessing about Gap; unlike Old
Navy, you can't even browse around the Gap site without accepting
their cookies so I moved on.) Old Navy has Mens->Pants and you have
your choices. Macy's has Mens-->Pants-->choice of dress/casual/denim
and then many more choices. With more diverse merchandise and more
offerings in many categories, it's not surprising that the site is
more confusing.

So is having a search engine a negative or is -needing- a search
engine the negative?

I suspect some of his observations about brand impression also have
to do with people's preferences about smaller, well-defined
merchandise sets vs. the classic "department store" approach to
sales. I'd bet that his users impressions of the websites correspond
closely to people's impressions of the sites' respective mall stores.
As a general rule, favorable brand impression corresponds to coherent
brand impression.


Ken, I know that you posted this as a sample of the reports from
Jared and the gang, not as an endorsements of a single piece of
research. And I'm sure most readers of this list don't really care
about the web and/or read research reports carefully. I am also not
meaning to attack Jared Spool, Adventive, or even this particular
study. I think it is interesting and, as Jared implies, is part of a
general accumulation of knowledge, not an end all/be all.

But there's a phenomenon worthy of a folklorist's attention where a
piece of research seems to indicate that under x conditions, if y
then z and soon z is widely believed to be absolutely true and
generally applicable. I've seen it happen with marketing research,
science (particularly environmental and health studies), and public
health/policy issues. It seems to be fed by a combination of
researcher/institutional self-promotion (witness Jared's mild
overstating of the results), bad reporting, and our collective desire
for easy answers.

The research-based legend is a serious problem for design research
and the acceptance of research by designers. I'm not challenging
anyone to a debate or demanding a response; I just think it's worth
mentioning fairly frequently since it's a real problem for all of us.

Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA

+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]

http://www.gunnarswanson.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager