TIME Mag and CNN.com Part ii

Ok, I am a big fan of CNN.com, to me they have one of the most intelligent (with mostly biased content, let's admit) websites I've ever used---and boy, that's a lot. The design is excellent and the technology is very user friendly. My last boss always said that when she designed/developed websites she would have her mother navigate and if she couldn't figure it out, she had failed at her job. I have always had that in the back of my head, and I think I will never forget. What makes some websites annoying to people?

Often as designers we forget to think about the needs of the user. We (self included) focus so much on the product and its functionality that we forget to test and make sure that this product is actually friendly. A website could be beautiful and functional, but is it user-friendly? Many times the answer is no. Take a look at Time Magazine (www.time.com), they have a lot of lists (and gosh I love lists!) and articles that are globally read every single minute (by millions) yet their site is so annoying! Personally, I am there simply because I find the lists and articles useful, not because it's convenient or easy to navigate (like CNN is). It is annoying and probably discouraging for people to spend time on there waiting for the "next" button you've clicked to load. I've compared the two for a long time, and always come to the conclusion that even though they have some kind of partnership, the designers are most definitely in the opposite side of the page, or they took a vacation to New Zealand.

It is so frustrating to know that I myself could fall into that group--making websites and design products that are functional, intelligent and clean to my eyes, but hard to use for the regular audience. How many times have I created something that has failed to meet the needs of those that use it? Probably many, many times. Isn't this sad for such a widely used website though? Is TIME Magazine running out of money to pay good developers to make their page work properly?....

For smaller pages, I think the key is to involve the audience (and client, even if it hurts) more in the process of design. Involving them and going through a trial with the audience (not the client) during the process is vital, instead of delivering a finished product and fix/change to their liking in the end without even taking in consideration the audience. I guess that's what beta sites are for. But have you ever seen a small company's site doing a beta test? I haven't.

For bigger websites, maybe beta testing is not an option. Maybe they are so far along that such a thing would require a huge amount of recourses to be able to make anything better.

I am hoping TIME Magazine will update their website very soon.

LESS IS MORE!