Simplicity = Trust? Options

[limey]

Bored, and randomly surfing the net I came across this article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103823/

It raises some interesting concepts about the way people perceive websites that they just happen to stumble upon... I particularlly like this quote:

People trust simply designed sites. Tired.com's plain-text, unadorned format seems soothing and trustworthy, particularly when compared to the garish, on-the-make look of most sites.

I like that idea It's simple - just like me :shock:

[Tim]

Interesting article, and interesting site! Thanks limey.
Next time I'm up at 3am working I'll head on over to tired.com and tell Mike why.

Simplicity = trust. I think that's so true. I could be a bit biased , but I would trust Cre8asite more than a forum that has tons of ads plastered all over it. It's simpler, and therefore more trustworthy.

[TheManBehindTheCurtain]

For a slightly different opinion on this, take a look at the findings from Stanford's web credibility project, http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html, number six is "Design your site so it looks professional (or is appropriate for your purpose)."

Not all sites that are professional are simple, and not all sites that are simple are professional. I think the more useful criteria is in the second part of the finding, that the design should be appropriate to the purpose. Tired.com wouldn't be credible if it were as highly designed as say, Disney's site. Nor would CNN's site build trust with readers if were as slow and clunky and mediocre as, say, http://www.polder.com. I wouldn't say either Disney or CNN are "simple" but each in its own way is credible. Polder's site is far simpler, but damages what is otherwise a good brand.

Of course, simplicity is a good general virtue, and you can always formulate that something could be better if it were only simpler. But personally I wouldn't formulate it quite so strictly as "simplicity = trust" because life isn't that, well, simple. So many other factors contribute first and foremost to credibility, and appropriate simplicity can play a supporting role in credibility for sure. But I think just being simple isn't enough. Well, at least, not in my case.

[limey]

I guess that I'm taking the idea to the extreme by suggesting that it is as simple as the equation "simplicity = trust" would suggest. I do think however that in the modern world of spinning flash animations, funky music and multimedia web design that sometimes in some situations you can gain an audiance's trust by keeping simple.

[limey]

Oh, BTW Frank - I've read the article that you link to and it raises some pretty good suggestions to bear in mind when designing a site.

Thanks Mate

[radiorental]

Its a known concept in engineering. The principle is that if something looks 'good' then it must be 'good'.

In this case, the brain makes the following assumptions that lead to trust
1)front end looks simple therefore the backend must be
2)If backend is simple then there is less to go wrong
3)if its less likely to go wrong then I trust it will not.

simple = trust

Similarily, Professionalism (or at least slick looking) = trust. I should point out I probably have a completely different back ground and field of work to users of this forum and I expect my views to be contrary. Here's an interesting factiod, a customer will opt for and pay more for a product out of two with equal feature sets if that product has more LEDs on the front. Its human nature to make decisions on first impressions, its why most people feel safer buying a car off a nice guy in a suit versus a scruffy guy in oily overalls, even though the mechanic is going to know far more about what he's selling you than the salesman.

[-Phoenix-]

Interesting discussion. Simple does sell better sometimes and helps communicate trust. Ugly also sells if its not too strong. This also goes back to what radiorental was saying, for commercial sites that tend to use a very polished and nice design it would indicate the the company has a commercial investment in the website. While something more simple and content oriented could help indicate the site does not have a commercial interest, when it might have.

[cre8pc]

Dang it! You all make such great points, I'm going to do the simple thing and just shut up :twisted:

Opinion only - simple designs can be confusing. I've reviewed some sites that are very simple and clean on first impression, but when I attempt to perform a task, problems arise (ususally due to poor navigation or unorganzied architecture.)

Even busy looking sites are good converters if the buy path or click path, or paths to the important stuff are easy to find.

[cre8pc]

radiorental,

By the way, welcome the forums!

Do you work for 3Com???

I used to be the webmaster for a web site called Internetwork.com (no longer exists) for a magazine by the same name (no longer exists) and we covered happenings and products from that company.

Anyway, welcome aboard. It's a pleasure to have you!

[radiorental]

I'm on the inside of 3Com (little input to 3com.com other than when they make stupid mistakes), I manage the various OEM/ODM developments. Make sure they conform to our style guide and apply my version of a usability process to the developments. I guess I'm a little different to the users on this group, I have little itnerest in commercial website development. The majority of my work is based on the web interface to switches, routers, voip and wireless products. Interesting stuff. I have a lot to learn from you peeps and hope to ad my own flavour to the mix. Good resource. So, I'm pretty techincal and I'm not afraid to let fellow usability types know when I think we enter usability overkill. Seems to happen a lot in my experience.

I'm suprised at the number of what I would describe as usability blunders on this site. No offence, you guys are far more knowledgable than me but why is there a Submit button and post reply button staring me in the face right now? (o;

[cre8pc]

The "Submit" button is for the Quick Reply option only - a feature our members requested.

"Post Reply" is the full reply to post option, that also allows for adding smileys and stuff.

The boards came out of the box, so to speak, and we've been tweaking it ever since.

Over in Forum Issues, we take suggestions for improvements. It's an ongoing thing, but we do listen and do apply what we can. Thanks!

[cline]

Although there is overlap, there's also a difference between simple and busy, or simple and professional.

Einstein advised that everything should be made as simple as possible, and not one bit more.

[kensplace]

I love articles, they make sense when you read them.......

But generally they are written by people who just want PR, and have no actual facts that a scientist would regard as accurate.

1, Google is a simple site - its very very popular....
2. Ebay is a very very COMPLEX site, its very very popular, and highly trusted....

Odd really, but goes to show you, never ever believe the press without knowing in your heart what is said is true, or doing your own research to check first. The press just say what sites want published, then please the public second. Not all are like that, some just make things up....
Some are decent, but have to live with the bad reputation others press members cause... But at the end of the day, always do research, dont believe what you read. Most of it is bolloc*s

[suka]

Nicely put kensplace - I agree with the basic idea of simplicity=trust, but think you are right about the publictiy angle.

Thanks for the interesting thread -- I really enjoyed the article and the tired.com site. The idea reminded me a bit of bored.com, tho that is definitely *not* a simple site. One can certainly waste some time on it tho!

-Suka

[limey]

Did anyone check out this site http://grouphug.us/ it's absoloutely mental (it was mentioned in the article)!