5 replies to this topic

[Ken Fisher]

I'm trying to find good comparisons that show growth/declines in certain types of websites. Side by side type examples. Or better explained, sources that can show proof (numbers, graphs etc) static websites are falling out of favor in so far as keeping viewers engaged, compared to those that are using different types of visual interaction. Visual types of content that attract emotion, particularily video.

The more I look into this, I see a shift taking place with the younger generation who may or may not be your current customer, depending on what you offer. I see so many new ideas taking place with video rarely mentioned here. Look at that younger generation. Are they entertained and drawn by static websites? How many would rather not think? Zillions! "Don't Make Me think" by Steve Krug

I've noticed some interesting stuff like what what Target is doing...or at least was...it was shown here not long ago. Their concept is/was showing a short video while enabling a click able sidebar to products shown in the video to purchase. The first video on that page which I didn't see all the way through (until today) has some really interesting ideas to convert.

There are all sorts of numbers I've seen in how video can convert more buyers over drabby old style designs. That's another story, but any comparisons to my topic title I haven't seen? I can't come up with any.

Edited by Ken Fisher, 19 December 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[iamlost]

To do such a comparison you need permissions and examples and methodology and... so what tests there may be that look at whatever (not just your title question) tend to be few, not especially rigourous, or in-house, i.e. not publicly available.

I have done tests over the years of all sorts of bright ideas and at best 20% ever were rolled out to entire site(s). I did learn what works best in one niche may not quite so much in another although some things appeared to be universal. Using images to catch/direct eye as well as break up text copy, and as you mention using vid to do the same.

And vid potential is largely under utilised. Clickable in window links, windows in windows, sidebars or frames with additional information/encouragements... colour choices and tone/timbre of voice and music and... all have impacts and can be used to filter/direct audience segments... etc. etc. the typical vid use even on YouTube, let alone on site is mostly at it's most basic. Part is due to learning curve, part to available resources, and a large part is simple ignorance: if people don't know they can't do.

Marketing is not often done well and that failure is especially visibly true online where small business has been front and centre. I collect (bookmark for later analysis) marketing ideas that catch my eye. And spend a good deal of time trying to understand what is being done, why it works or doesn't (outstanding failures have much to teach as well) and how I might improve my own efforts. But then I have more time than many/most webdevs as I'm no longer building up, simply maintaining.

And, while I share more than many, I also am careful not to share where I think it might diminish a competitive advantage. So, seeing the type of tests and results you are interested in is unlikely unless you run them yourself. When you do: feel free to share.

[Ken Fisher]

All points understood

I also am careful not to share where I think it might diminish a competitive advantage

Good strategy lost! I am definitely more tight lipped about ideas or thoughts than I was ten years ago. Not so much here, but within my industry. Them were the good ole days especially on WWorld when guys would divulge "secrets" of the day. I'm not a professional developer/designer mind you, but my livelihood is on the web with my own properties.

Yes, the learning curve is large when it comes to video. I've been at it off and on for four years now with a heavy emphasis the last 4-5 months. The only thing I can say I struggle with still is lighting. Yet it sounds so simple. I'm working on it.

I was thinking more about online reports (articles) which I can't seem to find. Sure there's a lot of talk about how conversions are much higher by using video and this and that. I suppose it's too early to tell but I did see one report translated from German..very interesting.

[iamlost]

While not directly answering your title question the following are a cross section of some studies that I've found of interest/use comparing static and interactive elements:
Note: listed by date, earliest to most recent.

* Communicating Dynamic Behaviors: Are Interactive Multimedia Presentations Better than Static Mixed-Mode Presentations? (PDF file, 283KB) by N. Hari Narayanan, Auburn University, and Mary Hegarty, UCSB, 2000.

* Learning through Virtual Product Experience: The Role of Imagery on True versus False Memories (PDF file, 70KB) by Ann E. Schlosser, University of Washington, 2006.

* Evaluating Web-based Static, Animated, and Interactive Maps for Injury Prevention (PDF file, 274KB) by Jon Cinnamon, Claus Rinner et al, Ryerson University, 2009.

* Digital Ad Engagement: Perceived Interactivity as a Driver of Advertising Effectiveness (PDF file, 266KB), by Alex Wang, University of Connecticut, 2010.

There are a zillion more out there that may be more or less of interest.

[Black_Knight]

Those who know me well know that I tend to sidestep either/or issues with immediately wondering if there's a way to have both. With multimedia that is always an option, and user-testing designs can soon show you whether prominent video, sidebar video, or low-impact video tucked away in its own section on 'how to...' or "Video Presentations" works best for your market and product.

I must admit, that when I first saw the topic, I was expecting a discussion on static html vs dynamic database driven sites

That too is something to combine with your multimedia, options and controls that are simple and in the users hands to allow them to decide how prominent they want video content to be.

One thing that many studies found is that people generally dislike sound or video that plays automatically without them choosing to play it. This is mostly true where the media includes sound which may suddenly blare out, or disturb something they were already listening to. So make sure that if you do include video with sound, that it is paused by default, and that the user chooses when to play it.

[Ken Fisher]

people generally dislike sound or video that plays automatically without them choosing to play it.

Yea, that's almost an automatic people would think, but every now and then I come across a site that "breaks the rule"

I think some of you are on to what I'm looking for. Either I've become blinded because I think video is a way too cool way to get a point across, or it ain't gonna happen. My search habits have changed radically in the past few years. I don't spend much time looking for how to's or product reviews on main search anymore because I've discovered video is far more enriching. However getting past the bad quality is the only stumbling block, but that too is common in main web text search.

Sure I can see both, but in my opinion if you don't have a good combination you'll be a dinosaur in the not too distant future, Perhaps the lack of responses and discussions about video at cre8 has something to do with no experience or knowledge in video itself.

Some impressive numbers here.

Btw, I look for videos everywhere nowadays. Just this morning I had problems printing labels because I've never done it before, Sure enough, the label manufacturer had a great video on it. I'll probably remember them for other jobs instead of trying to wade through wordy complicated user manuals.

Edited by Ken Fisher, 25 December 2012 - 04:20 PM.