10 Harsh Truths About Corporate Websites

Advertisement

We all make mistakes running our websites. However, the nature of those mistakes varies depending on the size of your company. As your organization grows, the mistakes change. This post addresses common mistakes among large organizations.

Most of the clients I work with are large organizations: universities, large charities, public sector institutions and large companies. Over the last 7 years, I have noticed certain recurring misconceptions among these organizations. This post aims to dispel these illusions and encourage people to face the harsh reality.

The problem is that if you are reading this post, you are probably already aware of these things. But hopefully this article will be helpful to you as you convince others within your organization. In any case, here are our 10 harsh truths about websites of large organizations.

1. You Need A Separate Web Division

In many organizations, the website is managed by either the marketing or IT department. However, this inevitably leads to a turf war, with the website becoming the victim of internal politics.

In reality, pursuing a Web strategy is not particularly suited to either group. IT may be excellent at rolling out complex systems, but it is not suited to developing a friendly user experience or establishing an online brand.

Screenshot of Zeldman's website
Zeldman urges organisations to create a separate web division.

Marketing, on the other hand, is little better. As Jeffrey Zeldman puts it in his article Let there be Web divisions:

The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… And then there’s all that messy business with semantic markup, CSS, unobtrusive scripting, card-sorting exercises, HTML run-throughs, involving users in accessibility, and the rest of the skills and experience that don’t fall under Marketing’s purview.

Instead, the website should be managed by a single unified team. Again, Zeldman sums it up when he writes:

Put them in a division that recognizes that your website is not a bastard of your brochures, nor a natural outgrowth of your group calendar. Let there be Web divisions.

2. Managing Your Website Is A Full-Time Job

Not only is the website often split between marketing and IT, it is also usually under-resourced. Instead of there being a dedicated Web team, those responsible for the website are often expected to run it alongside their “day job.” When a Web team is in place, it is often over-stretched. The vast majority of its time is spent on day-to-day maintenance rather than longer-term strategic thinking.

This situation is further aggravated by the fact that the people hired to “maintain” the website are junior members of the staff. They do not have the experience or authority to push the website forward. It is time for organizations to seriously invest in their websites by hiring full-time senior Web managers to move their Web strategies forward.

3. Periodic Redesign Is Not Enough

Because corporate websites are under-resourced, they are often neglected for long periods of time. They slowly become out of date with their content, design and technology.

Eventually, the website becomes such an embarrassment that management steps in and demands that it be sorted. This inevitably leads to a complete redesign at considerable expense. As I point out in the Website Owners Manual, this a flawed approach. It is a waste of money because when the old website is replaced, the investment put into it is lost, too. It is also tough on finances, with a large expenditure having to be made every few years.

Screenshot of Cameron Molls Article
Cameron Moll encourages web designers to realign their website rather than redesign.

A better way is continual investment in your website, allowing it to evolve over time. Not only is this less wasteful, it is also better for users, as pointed out by Cameron Moll in his post Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign.

4. Your Website Cannot Appeal To Everyone

One of the first questions I ask a client is, “Who is your target audience?” I am regularly shocked at the length of the reply. Too often, it includes a long and detailed list of diverse people. Inevitably, my next question is, “Which of those many demographic groups are most important?” Depressingly, the answer is usually that they are all equally important.

The harsh truth is that if you build a website for everyone, it will appeal to no one. It is important to be extremely focused about your audience and cater your design and content to it. Does this mean you should ignore your other users? Not at all. Your website should be accessible by all and not offend or exclude anybody. However, the website does need to be primarily aimed at a clearly defined audience.

5. You Are Wasting Money On Social Networking

I find it encouraging that website managers increasingly recognize that a Web strategy is more than running a website. They are beginning to use tools such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to increase their reach and engage with new audiences. However, although they are using these tools, too often they do so ineffectively. Tweeting on a corporate account or posting sales demonstrations on YouTube misses the essence of social networking.

Screenshot of Microsoft's Channel 9 website
Microsoft dramatically improved its image amoung the development community by allowing Microsoft staff to speak out via the Channel 9 website.

Social networking is about people engaging with people. Individuals do not want to build relationships with brands and corporations. They want to talk to other people. Too many organizations throw millions into Facebook apps and viral videos when they could spend that money on engaging with people in a transparent and open away.

Instead of creating a corporate Twitter account or indeed even a corporate blog, encourage your employees to start Tweeting and blogging themselves. Provide guidelines on acceptable behavior and what tools they need to start engaging directly with the community connected to your products and services. This demonstrates not only your commitment to the community but also the human side of your business.

6. Your Website Is Not All About You

Where some website managers want their website to appeal to everybody, others want it to appeal to themselves and their colleagues. A surprising number of organizations ignore their users entirely and base their websites entirely on an organizational perspective. This typically manifests itself in inappropriate design that caters to the managing director’s personal preferences and contains content full of jargon.

A website should not pander to the preferences of staff but should rather meet the needs of its users. Too many designs are rejected because the boss “doesn’t like green.” Likewise, too much website copy contains acronyms and terms used only within the organization.

7. You’re Not Getting Value From Your Web Team

Whether they have an in-house Web team or use an external agency, many organizations fail to get the most from their Web designers. Web designers are much more than pixel pushers. They have a wealth of knowledge about the Web and how users interact with it. They also understand design techniques, including grid systems, white space, color theory and much more.

Post from Twitter complaining about being a pixel pusher
Treating designers as pixel pushers wastes their design experience: post from Twitter complaining about being a pixel pusher

It is therefore wasteful to micro-manage by asking them to “make the logo bigger” or to “move that 3 pixels to the left.” By doing so, you are reducing their role to that of a software operator and wasting the wealth of experience they bring.

If you want to get the maximum return on your Web team, present it with problems, not solutions. For example, if you’re targeting your website at teenage girls, and the designer goes for corporate blue, suggest that your audience might not respond well to that color. Do not tell him or her to change it to pink. This way, the designer has the freedom to find a solution that may even be better than your choice. You allow your designer to solve the problem you have presented.

8. Design By Committee Brings Death

The ultimate symbol of a large organization’s approach to website management is the committee. A committee is often formed to tackle the website because internal politics demand that everybody has a say and all considerations be taken into account. To say that all committees are a bad idea is naive, and to suggest that a large corporate website could be developed without consultation is fanciful. However, when it comes to design, committees are often the kiss of death.

Illustration showing why design by committee fails
Design by committee leads to design on the fly.

Design is subjective. The way we respond to a design can be influenced by culture, gender, age, childhood experience and even physical conditions (such as color blindness). What one person considers great design could be hated by another. This is why it is so important that design decisions be informed by user testing rather than personal experience. Unfortunately, this approach is rarely taken when a committee is involved in design decisions.

Instead, designing by committee becomes about compromise. Because committee members have different opinions about the design, they look for ways to find common ground. One person hates the blue color scheme, while another loves it. This leads to designing on the fly, with the committee instructing the designer to “try a different blue” in the hopes of finding middle ground. Unfortunately, this leads only to bland design that neither appeals to nor excites anyone.

9. A CMS Is Not A Silver Bullet

Many of the clients I work with have amazingly unrealistic expectations of CMS (content management systems). Those without one think it will solve all of their content woes, while those who have one moan about it because it hasn’t!

It is certainly true that a CMS can bring a lot of benefits. These include:

  • reducing the technical barriers of adding content,
  • allowing more people to add and edit content,
  • facilitating faster updates,
  • and allowing greater control.

However, many CMS are less flexible than their owners would like. They fail to meet the changing demands of the websites they manage. Website managers also complain that their CMS is hard to use. However, in many cases, this is because those using it have not been adequately trained or are not using it regularly enough.

Finally, a CMS may allow content to be easily updated, but it does not ensure that content will be updated or even that the quality of content will be acceptable. Many CMS-based websites still have out-of-date content or poorly written copy. This is because internal processes have not been put in place to support the content contributors.

If you look to a CMS to solve your website maintenance issues, you will be disappointed.

10. You Have Too Much Content

Part of the problem with content maintenance on large corporate websites is that there is too much content in the first place. Most of these websites have “evolved” over years, with more and more content having been added. At no stage has anybody reviewed the content and asked what could be taken away.

Many website managers fill their website with copy that nobody will read. This happens because of:

  • A fear of missing something: by putting everything online, they believe users will be able to find whatever they want. Unfortunately, with so much information available, it is hard to find anything.
  • A fear users will not understand: whether from a lack of confidence in their website or in their audience, they feel the need to provide endless instruction to users. Unfortunately, users never read this copy.
  • A desperate desire to convince: they are desperate to sell their product or communicate their message, and so they bloat the text with sales copy that actually conveys little valuable information.

Steve Krug, in his book Don’t Make Me Think, encourages website managers to “Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what’s left.” This will reduce the noise level on each page and make the useful content more prominent.

Conclusions

Large organizations do a lot right in running their websites. However, they also face some unique challenges that can lead to painful mistakes. Resolving these problems means accepting that mistakes have been made, overcoming internal politics and changing the way you control your brand. Doing so will give you a significant competitive advantage and allow your Web strategy to become more effective over the long term.

(al)

Paul Boag has been working with the web since 1994. He is now co-founder of the web design agency Headscape, where he works closely with clients to establish their web strategy. Paul is a prolific writer having written the Website Owners Manual, Building Websites for Return on Investment, Client Centric Web Design and numerous articles for publications such as .net magazine, Smashing Magazine and the Web Designers Depot. Paul also speaks extensively on various aspects of web design both at conferences across the world and on his award winning Web design podcast boagworld.

  1. 1

    This is a fantastic post – I hope it’s read by the worst offenders in the corporate blogging world (though somehow I doubt it). More on this subject:
    http://agitationist.com/corporate-blogs-arent-trusted-forrester-research

    0
  2. 2

    whoa .. that was good. thx sm.

    0
  3. 3

    Great Article. I cannot agree more. These insights will help me battle for a web development department.

    0
  4. 4

    Some interesting views, particularly on redesign vs. realign. Sometimes, I think a site needs a redesign but that realignment should become an ongoing process from there. We need to reclaim the word redesign from the people who think *that’s* the silver bullet, never mind the CMS!

    0
  5. 5

    Wow, these are great rules to live by. We just launched our new site and I think we followed most of them :-)

    0
  6. 6

    this is a very original article with a few interesting pointers as to how to manage one’s online identity, thanks for sharing.

    0
  7. 7

    Great post, really enjoyed it! Unfortunately, I don’t think all of the blame can be placed on the corporations, alone. They’re quite frequently led down the wrong path by their Ad Agencies that convince them social media is a must for everyone, flash is cool, static content is fine, etc.

    Too many agencies have embraced the Web in name only, and lead their clients astray, which causes corporations to have sub-par yet super-expensive websites. I actually recently wrote about how in order to really help their clients leverage the web rather than just racking up huge bills for disappointing sites.

    Thanks for the post and hopefully 2009 is the year this trend starts to change!

    0
  8. 8

    Donald Giannatti

    February 10th, 2009 5:41 pm

    OK… this is about the best damn post I have read in quite awhile. And for you guys, that’s saying something since I am such a HUGE fan. I will print this and laminate it and post it on my wall… big… maybe in, like… Helvetica or something.

    Damn. Just damn!

    0
  9. 9

    What a great article. I’ve experienced every single one of these.

    0
  10. 10

    Brilliant article.

    0
  11. 11

    Absolutely right on. I run into these all the time with clients.

    They tend to forget who the experts are.

    0
  12. 12

    Excellent article Paul, and certainly something that rings true for me.

    Having just left a Fortune 500 for a web startup I can tell you that you have hit the nail right on the head.

    0
  13. 13

    great insight! you hit it on the head with #5. just because social media is the newest thing, doesn’t mean companies should dive in blindly. a smart web manager would first evaluate HOW their audience would use twitter, facebook, or blogs – or if it even makes sense for them to use these at all!

    0
  14. 14

    SM thanks for this post. As an experiential designer (aka pixel pusher) at a large corp. i couldn’t agree more, especially with #7, #8, and #10… i’ll be printing this one out and passing it along to some of the folks i work with. I would email it to them but I’m afraid they wouldn’t know what to do with it. :)

    0
  15. 15

    Very informative article. Thanks!

    0
  16. 16

    to borrow a beat cliche…

    greatest.sm.post.evar!

    0
  17. 17

    You are telling me my life… as (until recently) the web admin responsible for an enormous not for profit website for the last 4 years I can relate to every.single.point you raise. Gave up in the end, trying to turn the ship towards better results/practices became impossible.

    0
  18. 18

    Excellent article. I deal with these issues each day and each day I feel less and less appreciated as a designer/developer. Clients and even some PM’s don’t understand the design process let alone the development process and in the end it’s the site (and the designer) that suffers. Subtle and tactful education of the client and parties involved is the only solutions I’ve come up with but even then it sometimes does no good.

    Thank you for putting it all out there.

    0
  19. 19

    Amen to that! Some very good points here. (WARNING: Copywriter rant! They all apply equally to copywriting too, not just the overall website project.)

    The one thing I’d qualify is the wholesale reduction of content volume. I agree that corporations tend to have HEAPS of content, but that can sometimes be a good thing. Remember, as a rule, search engines like to see a lot of content, so consider that before slashing. I’m not saying you should just put any old rubbish up there. Nor am I saying a lot of that content couldn’t do with an overhaul (how’s that for a double-negative?! ;-). I’m saying consider the search engines before you go culling. Perhaps a ‘More info…’ link is required? Or perhaps the existing content is all valuable – at heart – and just needs to be adapted to something read-and-searche-engine friendly?

    Even if it’s badly written, content generally equates to knowledge, and that’s exactly what you should be including on your website. Especially in times (as we are now) when prospective buyers are required to more comprehensively justify every purchase. (Coincidentally, Joanna Lord wrote an interesting post at Search Engine Land on this today – ‘Tuning Up Your Landing Pages In An Economic Downturn’.)

    And on this note, I actually disagree with your claim that “users never read this copy”. They do. If it’s properly written, and the website’s architecture guides them through the learning/selling process effectively. If it’s low level, FEWER people will read it, but those few people will get a lot of value out of it.

    Anyway, a nice post and some very good points. If nothing else, it’s good to hear some others are suffering! ;-)

    Cheers, Glenn (@divinewrite on twitter)

    0
  20. 20

    Gary Allen Freed

    February 10th, 2009 7:16 pm

    I like the part about less. More white space, less clutter, who is your audience.Yes!
    FOCUS!

    0
  21. 21

    Fantastic post. Great points.

    0
  22. 22

    This is a wonderful, awesome article. Thanks so much!
    Megan

    0
  23. 23

    Great article!

    0
  24. 24

    Oh baby, the folk who think that the CMS works like an old Kevin Costner movie are amazing. I’m a web developer. I’m a writer. So yes, I can implement your CMS, and I can even put together a really lovely doco for your content managers. But I can’t hold their hands or go to their houses and threaten them until they update their content.

    The truth is, they probably won’t. Because primarily, they are their JOB FUNCTION. Realising inherited responsibility for some web content no one cares about – and an expectation to update it – does not a motivated content manager make!

    (Twitter @crinkled)

    0
  25. 25

    Good article. I must say, however, that beyond a certain volume of content, not using a CMS could become quite cumbersome because editing and managing static HTML pages would be very complex and require a huge amount of effort. More importantly, this increases the scope for broken links and messed up pages. So while a CMS is definitely not a silver bullet, it does reduce the headaches and makes website management a lot simpler.

    0
  26. 26

    A very nice article… Keep up the good work… :D

    0
  27. 27

    excellent article. Im going to make all of my clients read this from now on.

    0
  28. 28

    I wish our clients read these articles!

    0
  29. 29

    well actually marketing department can put life in the website. But still you need IT staff to maintain and even to create your website.

    0
  30. 30

    OMG. Thank you for this! My web team & I (in a mid-size, international non-profit) struggle with each of these issues daily. How do we present these ideas to our senior managers without looking like whiners or prima donnas?

    0
  31. 31

    These are strange but are absolutely true. Thanks a lot!

    0
  32. 32

    well just to counterweight the stroke jobs from the rest of commenters, i for one thought this article was weak sauce. harsh truths about this website: who is the audience? newbies? and leading with screens from zeldman and alist? its like you’re admitting this has already covered this. 10 years ago.

    0
  33. 33

    I strongly agree with point 8. “Design By Committee Brings Death” , This process hurts not only design but Irritates the designer too.

    0
  34. 34

    I agree with most of what was said, especially the part about CMSs. Everybody wants a CMS, but they don’t realize that they are just as technically challenging as learning how to make a website from scratch. Take drupal as an example. Sit a client down in front of the admin interface for the first time, and they won’t have a clue.

    0
  35. 35

    Oh I love this article. Moving from a print designer in the marketing dept to a web designer in IT was quite difficult come re-doing the website and keeping everyone happy. I can definitely relate to this article and wish I read it 2 years ago. Thanks. Now I have back up…

    0
  36. 36

    really nice and detailed article thanks you sooo much i have learned alot form this article keep posting :)

    0
  37. 37

    Great! Another article that boosts our morale as web designers in the corporate arena!

    Being bureaucratic has its downside.

    0
  38. 38

    Abdulsalam Alasaadi

    February 10th, 2009 9:34 pm

    Thank you for your valuable information. well written.
    I personally lived almost all the harsh realities you have talked about. I worked for a ministry for two years and now I work in a big telecommunication company.
    Both of the organizations have very strict policies in changing/updating anything in their websites. A lot of people try to interfere and make a design suggestion!

    0
  39. 39

    Absolutely agree. I hate our corporate design (in my company) :)

    0
  40. 40

    clap clap clap

    i couldn’t agree more – especially the part about cms? i swear every client feels that way. and the “death by committee” bit? man…..haven’t we all been there when a client will email you and say, “so i sent your designs to the board….”

    AGH.

    terrible. thank you SM! i appreciate the fact that others understand :)

    0
  41. 41

    #8 is so very, very true.
    After working internally on a web re-design for a auto info service group (the driest material you will ever design for) it started with a team of two.. then three, then every Director, then their Sr. Managers and eventually the CEO. I won’t bore you with the details but the site map alone took 6 months, it was delivered 5 months late and way over budget all in the name of ‘compromise’.

    I can honestly say I never want to go through that again!

    0
  42. 42

    “In many organizations, the website is managed by either the marketing or IT department. However, this inevitably leads to a turf war, with the website becoming the victim of internal politics.” This totally sums up my working life… I’m the web designer between bonehead marketers that think internet marketing is when you put www. on a fridge magnet and an IT department that thinks a 2mb email limit is big enough for everyone.

    0
  43. 43

    #7 is brilliant I couldnt have said it better myself. it makes me glad i dropped pixel usher clients as my vibe with them was very null and blah.http://www.agendaium.com

    0
  44. 44

    I deal with this every – single – day. Especially number 7. Great post!

    0
  45. 45

    Excellent article~!!
    The point that has been made in this article should be realized by far more people than we think in my opinion.

    0
  46. 46

    Before this I have 2 staff. Now I’m one man Army to handle the Web. Have to get my brain to the GYM.

    0
  47. 47

    Craig - Abrishca Digital Media

    February 10th, 2009 11:18 pm

    Great article, it would be great to circulate this to businesses and companies to illustrate the skill, knowledge and professionalism that a dedicated web team can bring to an organisation.

    0
  48. 48

    Rightly said and an apt article….very well the scenario in the place where i am working now…Hits the nail right into the head…

    0
  49. 49

    Really helpful post! Thanks for that, Paul!

    0
  50. 50

    Good basic article – there is some good conclusions, now we just need to find out how to solve the problems ;)

    0
  51. 51

    Great article. One of the best on SM. Congrats.

    0
  52. 52

    After doing this for nearly ten years in our organisation – I completely agree with these points. Managers in the industry need to have, even on a conceptual level – a better understanding of the complexities of corporate web design. This will allow them to be able to better engage with their online clients and their web team, and produce a successfully designed and delivered core site, which people will want to come back to. Kudos!

    0
  53. 53

    Hi,
    wonderful post, and mostly true, from my experience.

    I would be interested to further here your notion about the “committee” issue. I do agree that it may cause painful and odd looking compromises. But what is your solution to that problem?
    Users opinion is just one input for decisions. it cannot fully determine to design of you website…

    would you assign only one or two people to design and build a corporate website?

    0
  54. 54

    Excellent truths, which we do face a no of times. Especially the “committe taking up decisions and brining death” of a lovely deisgn indeed!

    Thanks SM.

    0
  55. 55

    I’d forward this article to my boss if it wasn’t for the fact that we aren’t going to do anything about it until he says so. My company SERIOUSLY needs a slight touch-up of its company site:

    0
  56. 56

    Having worked for the imbeciles at Dixons plc (one of Europe’s largest electrical retailers – how they managed that I will never know!) I can associate with this on almost a word by word basis.

    Great article but if any corporation does anything useful with any of this information (without a series of pointless and ineffective meetings to discuss… and to argue about the multiple alterations to the final reports colour scheme and font size) then I will eat the internet.

    0
  57. 57

    I love point 8 ! It’s always the same. Design or ergonomy should but can not be collectively decided…

    0
  58. 58

    The best article I have seen on here – I have sent it to several managers in my company…

    0
  59. 59

    Additional note: This should be read and understood by anyone considering a career in an in-house design position. At least they would know what they were getting into then!

    0
  60. 60

    Nice article. Very usefull and detailed. Thanks for posting SM

    0
  61. 61

    Great article. Its like you work at the company I do. Pretty much all those statements ring true for me personally!

    0
  62. 62

    Those points are 100% true. All of them!
    Who knows, maybe one day those things will change and evolve.
    A design&corporate change we can believe in :)

    Great article, thanks!

    0
  63. 63

    All true!

    Greetings,
    Dusan,
    Web manager.

    0
  64. 64

    AMEN! Experiencing #7 & #8 as I type this. This post is so perfect that I don’t even have anything to add… Plus I’m sending it around to every designer on my team.

    But it is sort of sad that we all agree but know there is no quick fix around this stuff. At least we should all be aware what we are getting ourselves into with corporate projects/jobs.

    0
  65. 65

    Point 7 really struck a chord for me; in fact I’ve just changed jobs for that very reason, I felt my skills and experience were being completely wasted

    0
  66. 66

    Richard Spencer Davies

    February 11th, 2009 1:36 am

    Great Post!

    0
  67. 67

    These are good points. Redesigns are a bit of a soap box issue for me. I wrote a post about this particular point a while back:
    http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2008/11/do-you-really-need-to-do-that-redesign/

    Jared Spool also wrote about the quiet death of the major re-launch:
    http://www.uie.com/articles/death_of_relaunch/

    Another point I’d make is that your web team should not be looking after your intranet. They never give it the attention it deserves. Usually because they don’t have the resource to.

    0
  68. 68

    Michael Schwarz

    February 11th, 2009 1:43 am

    Give those employees managing a corporate website’s content more freedom, some training (maybe even – wooo – let them learn and use some html basics) and then trust them to do the right thing.
    I mean, I’ve seen hundreds of thousends (euros :-) ) vanish in rather useless (often customized) CMS solutions, nobody is happy with. They build templates after templates with dropdowns, tons of choices, totally restricted for the person using it daily. These people have to literally study how the CMS works, how each template works. And everytime they need to create a piece of content, they have to ask for a new template or functionality, wait for weeks to get it, while the company spends alot of money ordering it. Plus, it might take for ever to get some content up and online.

    So, why not postulate some guidelines about what sort of content, what look and feel is wanted, let the employees in charge fill a given “content area” with the appropriate (x)html. Teach them to validate and quick check in different browsers, trust them to do the right thing, let someone preview and approve and then publish that content. Man, it’s not so hard.

    I believe the misconception is that someone with virtually no web-knowledge should copy and paste word content into a 250-thousend-euro system. Why? Does anyone in an office, creating worthwhile content for their catalogue/brochure lay that out in word, indesign or whatever and send that out for printing 2 million copies? No – it’s been layed out by professional designers first.
    And imagine the total cost of ownership: Cut away 200 thousand. How long and how well could you pay someone to “just do it” with that money.

    0
  69. 69

    Great article. Thanks for that.

    0
  70. 70

    These are all very true observations, in my experience – and very well expressed.. But then, it’s not new to say “design by commitee is bad” – we know this – what does it do to tell each other things we all have to put up with all of the time?

    It seems business-types care about their BMWs and their expensive suits and their bonuses. They don’t care about the quality of work if it doesn’t relate directly to what their boss thinks, or how it makes them look, or how much money can be made out of it. They’re driven by greed, and envy, and laziness – that’s why they’re business types.

    I get the sad feeling that those of us who genuinely care about producing good, creative work are like those Japanese soldiers left behind on pacific islands after WW2 – still trying to fight a war that was lost years before.

    0
  71. 71

    i dont often read the whole thing.. this was good!

    Smashed it

    0
  72. 72

    Interesting post and discussion. Its important to recognise that many organisations have real difficulty in making the most of the web and to try and set some misconceptions straight.

    However, I’m not sure that the article really offers any strong conclusions, or helps to identify the root cause behind these problems: in order to help people offer better experiences online we have to identify problems but also to offer concrete solutions.

    The thing about large organisations is they are complex, and you can’t point at any one single individual to responsibilty for communicating online.

    In my opinion, the key issue here is about leadership – its up to “top management” to set direction and everything follows from this. The challenge for us as a community is therefore how do help companies understand what’s involved in being successful online and engage decision makers in the right way.

    Paul McKeever
    FRONT / follow me on twitter – @paulmckeever

    0
  73. 73

    Darren McPherson

    February 11th, 2009 2:26 am

    email this to every organisation in the world, especially if they have an inhouse web team.

    0
  74. 74

    knowledgeble informative and excellent article !

    Thanks Smashing Magazine !!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
  75. 75

    I am a critical bastard and as such can be told nothing due to an artificially inflated self-worth and a blatant desire to rule the world in my underwear.

    The sagacity of this article unveils my kinder, gentler self; I now desire to frolic on a midsummer’s day through fields of clover and cavort to the tunes of robin and sparrow.

    …that just looks fcking weird.

    Anyhoo, well done. Well done. Excellent wisdom here.

    0
  76. 76

    A good article. Having been responsible for looking after public facing websites for large companies in the past I have seen a lot of these points first hand and you have hit the nail on the head.

    0
  77. 77

    Very good article indeed, the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from Smashing Magazine. These truths are all spot-on, especially here in my country where the corporate mindset is still very old-fashioned. Most companies just want to put up a website, then they don’t care whether it gets updated or not. Oh, and everyone is strangely obsessed with Flash sites that serve absolutely no purpose. Go figure.

    0
  78. 78

    That’s a good read! Thanks for the all the information on those harsh truths.

    0
  79. 79

    Anonymous Coward

    February 11th, 2009 3:08 am

    It’s like you work where I do. Brilliant article, but they all seem so familiar to me!

    0
  80. 80

    Izabela Bogdanovic

    February 11th, 2009 3:08 am

    You are right Paul Boag, you are right… but!
    I really don’t feel any better after this article. I was just reminded about all the things I have to put up with in course of my work.

    This article is completely wasted on the population who reads? Smashing Magazine. You can’t change the people, you just accept them for who they are. If you constantly try to make them feel like idiots because you know more you are, indeed, on the wrong path.

    0
  81. 81

    My thought exactly. #11 should have been, Thou Shalt Not Flash! (Not if you want to reach the new mobile user.) There are some sites that are so bad in this regard, that I actually *prefer* to access the mobile site alternative on my desktop, when it’s available!

    0
  82. 82

    A must-read for all corporate directors.

    0
  83. 83

    Very good and very pertinent to the project I am currently working on.

    Have forwarded on to my line managers and fellow developers ;-)

    – Lee

    0
  84. 84

    “It’s like you work where I do. Brilliant article, but they all seem so familiar to me!”

    Yeah, I’ll second that one! I’ve printed the article out and plan to discuss some of the points with the people I work with. Thanks for the great article, Paul!

    0
  85. 85

    Simple, but brilliant.

    Now make EVERY client read that now. And again. And again. And again. And again.

    0
  86. 86

    jonathan popoola

    February 11th, 2009 3:39 am

    bang on mate ! been in similar situations over and over again – “can u just move this over here” etc. and all design commities should be shoot

    0
  87. 87
  88. 88

    WOW! Spot on!

    I used to work for a “client” organisation, but went back into development about a year ago. I headed a redesign project of the company’s website and reading this article was like reading the manual that should have been around back then. I could identify myself and/or the company in almost every point made here.

    In the hope that there are lessons to be learned from this to improve the company’s web design process in the future, I sent this to my former managers (g’day if you’re reading this ;) ).

    Cheers!

    0
  89. 89

    I have to say you have got it spot on. Evereything you have said rings so true with my experience as a web designer.

    0
  90. 90

    Wonderful and unique article that is going to make me look at my web site at this moment.

    0
  91. 91

    About point 10#:

    There is no such thing as TO MUCH content, you can never have enough. It just the way people display the content that is wrong.

    What you speak of is BAD content. The amount of content has nothing to do with that.

    0
  92. 92

    I wish there was someone like the author working at my previous job.
    All those mistakes where a fact for me and the reason to leave.

    0
  93. 93

    There is over a decades worth of knowledge wrapped up in this glorious post. Thank you!

    Lets up hope this message reaches the right people :)

    I’d also like to point out, this applies as much to SMB market as it does to larger corporations.

    0
  94. 94

    Great article, sadly to much rings true. If only I had the bottle to send to the boss ;)

    0
  95. 95

    nice post.

    0
  96. 96

    I’m a web designer for my company. I have 2 bosses, one in IT and one in marketing….

    0
  97. 97

    Voila. Compulsory reading for about 70% of our clients

    0
  98. 98

    This is the Jerry McGuire Mission Statement for Corporate Web Developers! This hits the nail on the head for just about every problem my company is facing right now. I just sent it to my colleagues… Hopefully I won’t suffer the same fate as Jerry McGuire!

    0
  99. 99

    What an excellent read – this article definitely made me step back and rethink my company’s website, and certainly has some points I want to bring up with the team.

    I especially liked #5 – many companies feel the need to use social networking tools, so they just start posting without any thought or good ambition.

    0
  100. 100

    Excellent article, 100% true.

    0

  1. 1

    A week ago, I quit my job as Web Manager of a major Canadian charity, mostly to pursue my own Web design business full-time, but also because I got fed up with the obstacles that you’ve so perfectly presented here. One thing I might disagree with though:

    Tools like Twitter are indeed intended for person-to-person contact, but I think the fact is that many people are using those tools to stay updated about things. You could argue that email is intended for the same purpose, and that if you want to learn when a new blog entry is posted, you should be using RSS. But offering email subscriptions as an alternative to RSS is one thing that made Feedburner successful. Power-users understand RSS, but everyone understands email.

    I think a lot of Twitter users use Twitter as a means of staying up to date on things, so I see no problem with an organization creating a Twitter account for posting upcoming events, for example. Sure it misses the point of what it was *originally* intended for, but it provides non-technical users with a means of connecting with that organization in a way that they didn’t before.

    I remember when people used their MSN Messenger handles the way we now use Twitter. Someone’s handle might be, “Jim – Trying to finish this project before Lost starts.” MSN Messenger is not for that purpose either, but people used it that way.

    I would further argue that when people only used Twitter for it’s original purpose – to tell people “What you’re doing right now” – it was mind-numbingly boring.

    So you can create new technologies with whatever purpose you want, but ultimately, the community will decide how they’ll get used.

    +3
  2. 2

    It’s not just corporate — the SAME challenges are in non-profits … and we’re experiencing them now — EVERYONE around me right now is quoting this article and giggling. As a “pixel pusher” you are preaching to the choir. Thanks for the article!

    +2
  3. 3

    Hi
    This post made me feel kind of sympathy. Because I can see others are encountering these kinds of issues ( like 4,6,8 ) too.
    Are we just pixel pushers ? !!!

    +2
  4. 4

    In large organizations, design-by-committee is often difficult to avoid. As a web project manager, I have found the best way to break through the design approval process is to: 1) Get each customer around a table or on a conference call and gather the minimum requirements from each one. 2) Give the developer the requirements to create ONE layout, then 3) present the layout to the committee, identifying each of the requirements that have been met, then asking each customer if they love, like, can live with or can’t live with the design to move forward. If the vast majority is in the love or like category, you’re done. If there are no love or likes but everyone is in the “can live with” category, then you might want to get feedback on how the design could be improved. If anyone can’t live with the design, ask them to give specifics on how that relates to the requirements they provided. Best of luck!

    +2
  5. 5

    Patrick Samphire

    February 11th, 2009 8:28 am

    “Somebody has to spoil the party, sorry.”
    Really, no, they don’t. Don’t like it? Think everyone else here is a loser? Then go somewhere else and stop wasting your time.

    +1
  6. 6

    One thing I find for a lot of company websites is that they don’t provide ‘enough’ information on certain things. I don’t get why it is so hard to tell me how much DVR is for my cable service

    +1
  7. 7

    I really like #7 about not getting value from your web team. I have clients that will add this and take this out and I’m left designing a site completely different from the original proposal. It’s ridiculous. I guess this also has to do with the design buy committee one also. When they start getting input from partners and other people it just becomes a big confusing mess and is really hard to deal with. Thanks for the post. A lot of great points.

    +1

Leave a Comment

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic! Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. So, please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name, or it will be deleted. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation instead. Thanks for dropping by!

↑ Back to top