|
|  |
User Experience (Usability)
322 hits
| Oct 22, 2003 4:33 am |
|
re: BK.com |
Rebecca St. Martin
 | |
Lots of big corporations contact out their web work to their ad agency.
> Derek Loranger wrote:
> >Since you can't buy food from BK.com this statement is most likely true, but if a site like this had a shopping cart feature I'd be interested to see the conversion rates (I bet they would be lower than a static site like wendy's).
>
>I totally (My Californian shining through) agree with you on this. Absolutely. But they don't sell anything really, online.
>
>>I think the cost of building a flash site like this far exceeds the cost of doing usability testing. BK looks like they spent a fortune on the development alone. I wouldn't be surprised if they spent triple what Wendy's spent for their website.
>
>You'd be surprised how likely that, very quickly, one of these Flash jockeys, who was probably already on the payroll, put the site together to wow his/her manager. The jockey probably spent late nights (of salaried time) putting it together. (I am playing Devil's advocate here, rather than user advocate...)
>
>For those of you who have done web design, it is usually more difficult to deal with browser issues than it is to make a flash movie, which will be exactly the same in every brower.
>
>>Which is why we should encourage function over "flashliness".
>
>Well, in this case, we would have to define what the function of the Burger King site is. As I can see it, as a company, my main function would be to enable users to find a location so they can buy food. Check.
>
>Secondly, as necessary by law, I would have the nutritional information available. Check 2.
>
>Lastly, I would design it to make people hungry about my brand. It even has a kids section to do this for the young. Check 3.
>
>Does it succeed in functionality while still being flashy? I think so. My front door is blue. Does it need to be? No. Does the flashy blue keep people from entering? No.
>
>If I thought that the flashiness of this site prevented people from getting the information in any way or prevented people from buying BK products, then I would agree whole-heartedly.
>
>>Some sites, like BK, are only about branding and providing info and not about dollars and cents (BK is not an ecommerce site). This is why we definitly have to care about the user experience. A frustrating experience on a company's official website will reflect poorly on the company, which effects the branding.
>
>I guess I would have to say that testing would have to be done in order to determine if 2 versus 3 clicks on BK.com would have people running for Jack in the Box. I honestly believe that BK.com is not a battle I would not take without a little testing. Probably I wouldn't even do that, until the BK.com was an e-commerce site. The branding is accomplished through TV, radio and at the stores themselves. My gut tells me that the site has little influence on anything at all, except, as I mentioned, getting people to the stores.
>
>The rest of the users are only curious and won't be negatively impacted if it is a little funky.
>
>OK, I am done. I agree with advocating the user experience, but if I worked at BK.com, I wouldn't bother, unless I could prove I was saving the company money.
>
>Derek
>Private Reply to Rebecca St. Martin (new win) |
|
