Web users judge sites in the blink of an eye, A new study, references inside Options

[eKstreme]

There is a news article on news@nature about website-user interaction. Its title:

Web users judge sites in the blink of an eye
Potential readers can make snap decisions in just 50 milliseconds.

The paper reported on is here

The abstract:

Three studies were conducted to ascertain how quickly people form an opinion about web page visual appeal. In the first study, participants twice rated the visual appeal of web homepages presented for 500 ms each. The second study replicated the first, but participants also rated each web page on seven specific design dimensions. Visual appeal was found to be closely related to most of these. Study 3 again replicated the 500 ms condition as well as adding a 50 ms condition using the same stimuli to determine whether the first impression may be interpreted as a ‘mere exposure effect’ (Zajonc 1980). Throughout, visual appeal ratings were highly correlated from one phase to the next as were the correlations between the 50 ms and 500 ms conditions. Thus, visual appeal can be assessed within 50 ms, suggesting that web designers have about 50 ms to make a good first impression.

[praveen]

interesting find..

goes to show design is still the King.

even if someone says content is, unless a good design complements it, it still lacks behind.

thanks for this interesting read on a sat morn

<edit>
damn subscription options
</edit>

This post has been edited by praveen: Jan 14 2006, 06:22 AM

[bwelford]

It's good to see such research. It is good support for the thesis put out in a book by Malcolm Gladwell. It's full title is BLINK: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. I developed that into an article, which currently sits at #1 in Google for blink click websites.

[praveen]

. It's full title is BLINK: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.

yep, thats a fantastic book.

cant argue on that.

one of the few books which i give away as prezzies

[kdfisher]

I've focused on that upper left hand part of the page thing, but now they suggest the search function be on the upper right side of the page? Nice stuff

[Ruud]

I'm afraid that such a study and its conclusion can eaily lead designers or decision makers down the path again of "it has to be...".

This is a piece of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself. And in some puzzles this piece won't even appear.

We know this from for instance speed tests. For years we held it to be a God-given truth that a site had to be fast. I mean; fast. Until we learned that expectation about the usability of the site and how it can effectively address the user's needs played a much more important role. In other words, a slow Amazon would be perceived as fast and good whereas a fast second-rate website would not.

I fully expect a similar thing to be true here. What happens if we would repeat this study but with expectation factored in? How would a group react to the 50ms exposure when told they are shopping for a book? Or another group when told to find information on Google's latest patent application?

Because, in the end, the visual aspect of a page is part of the trust model, the level of trust we put in a site "just like that". And that initial trust might very well be linked to expectations based on previous experience. A dry .edu paper has one look, a Flash demo site another, and a forum yet another.

As it would be linked to previous experience the model is ever changing. "It needs to be above the fold" no longer holds true, we know, as people have become increasingly aware that they can scroll.

So to me a study like this raises questions more than answering them. What are the expectations of some users? What model is applied to their expectations? If their expectations rely on previous experiences, how much leeway do I have? Can I use visual elements from one visual trust model in another? How can I use that to cause a certain desired behavior?

[eKstreme]

You're right Ruud. I'm trying to get hold of the PDF or the full text of the paper to see how good the results are. We need to apply our own critical eye on the data to make sure it's interpreted correctly! I'm not saying the paper is wrong or bad, but I am reserving judgement

But as Barry said, it's good to see such research. The more the better, and the more research, the more buzz around the field. This buzz will attract more attention, including that of some very smart people who do good research. The field can only benefit.

[AbleReach]

When someone wants their 2,000 word essay or a 200K picture of a product on every page I think they miss that above the fold is like a site's body language. Viewers need to see, at a glance, with their own critical eyes, that you are who you seem to be. If they see that, they may look far enough to get interested in clicking for closeups or reading the "whitepaper." If not, it's like going into a professional meeting having forgotten to wash or button one's favorite shirt, with a big grocery bag of rumpled files instead of an organized, tidy, clean expandable file or a brief case.

Amazon can get away with needing a while to sift through because we know their search function has something behind it besides lost socks... and the site's got usability: we know at a glance where to look for yon search and how to use it.

[Respree]

I'm inclined to agree with Ruud. Visual appeal is an important piece of the puzzle, but only a piece nonetheless.

Too bad we couldn't read the rest of it.

What is the connection between visual appeal and achieving the goal for one's site?

Does there a direct correlation between visual appeal and that all-important 'second click'?

Does visual appeal have a favorable impact on conversion rates?

Does it convey trust and credibility?

If your site visually stunning, but takes 2 minutes to load your stunning graphics, will anybody be around to see it?