Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

I don`t know if I`m making up a term, misusing a term that already exists, or what to call this thread. It`s one reason I decided to post.

There`s a website critique about a Flash site. In the responses and reasoning process, the site builders indicate that it doesn`t matter if the site is interesting to someone who stumbles onto that site. It`s designed only to be meaningful to clients they`ve found elsewhere who want to see an example of their work.

In the ongoing discussion of what makes a good Web site, I think we should bring into the forefront this basic categorization of two types of sites. Would you agree?

The term "e-commerce" tends to mean, to me, a site on the Web designed to attract customers from anywhere, then sell something. But those customers can really be anyone---anyone who runs a search through a big search engine.

Yet we`ve now had at least three sites, since I`ve been a member on SuN, where the person wanting a critique explicitly says they`re not interested in selling something to the general public. Instead, they`re only using the site as a sort of business card, brochure, or secondary advertising item.

I`ve seen sites where you`re restricted by a member login, user ID, or other entry gate. They`re often research sites, or business intranets running across the main Internet backbone. I see those sites, sometimes because pages have been indexed on Google, but I don`t get upset when I also see they`re restricted.

Would it make sense for business-to-business (B2B) Web sites to use a login like this? I`m thinking there`s a sort of hybrid problem here. It`s not a member-only site because the "industrial" site is still trying to capture new business.

I`m also suggesting that the fundamental rules of design would be different for such an industrial type of site. There doesn`t need to be all the introductory content of a general commerce site, only a specific description of why this business is more efficient, effective, or valuable.

I`m not actually sure what it is I`m seeing. So any thoughts? Can we separate out two categories like this, and is the difference wide enough to be categorically different?

To me, e-commerce is a website with a storefront.

A "business card on the internet" site is what we call a brochure site - but we generally try to make them understandable to people who find their way there as well as people who are specifically pointed there by the owner of the site. It`s your basic 5-pager.

I think there are some site that are out there strictly for informational purposes, as a hobby, and they are not designed to sell anything. I own a couple of them.

In the nonprofit realm, the focus of the site can vary widely ... and even vary widely on the same site within the course of the nonprofit.

Even though a majority of my clients all come from people not found through my website ... I still think you should make it presentable to the world. There should be some notation of what this place is, even if it just has a login. Tag it, describe it, link it to some project homepage ... opening up is the start of some wonderful collaboration and the dream of TBL (creator of the internet). He`s returning to that academic vision and wants us to jump off that cliff with him.

I think the same standards and good sense applies to all of the above, however. I don`t really think there are exceptions, unless you`re talking about an "intranet" and not the "internet". Only delivering one`s content to a select group or within the company is an "intranet" ... examples include the Kaiser healthcare login system or the intranet I built pieces of for the Tech Museum so that the staff could take care of internal functions.

No, I understand an intranet. Those wouldn`t normally be found or indexed by a search engine, not to mention their being private networks, not accessible to the average person wandering the Web.

This post comes about as a result of more than one site builder making the argument that they`re explicitly not interested in people who accidentally find their site. We had some fella from Europe who was an executive CEO consultant. He asked for a critique.

That site was jargon-filled, meant nothing to anyone here on SuN, and the commentary was to that effect. His response was that the only people viewing his site were people who already were on the way to being clients, found through non-Web methods. It was such a highly constrained and targeted site as to be meaningless to anyone ouside his target audience.

Should that site indicate anything about its disinterest in "you" the average person? I think so. Maybe the lead sentence should say something to that effect?

Maybe it`s that I`m starting to get irritated by what comes across as false advertising, misleading content, and general toro poo-poo. It`s bad enough that I do a search for "christian bible studies" and end up on "Miss Jenny`s XXX Tiny Titties" site. :-) Y`know?

You`re a crackup.

Just as a side note ... intranets are not always on private networks. That is why I specified. With people working globally and telecommuting ... it makes sense to make them accessible but secure.

The problem when people only design for one audience is that they don`t know the power of networking and word of mouth. In real life (outside the web), I can go to an event and meet 10 people. I might not get business from those 10 people, but 4 of them may refer me to someone else and 2 may become strategic business partners. As you never know what opportunities will come around the corner, you should never shut yourself out from the accidental visitor to your website. Sometimes the best and most unexpected contacts come out of the ones you weren`t looking for specifically.

This is why I feel you should have some paragraph describing what this place is, even if you have it locked down. Because you never know who may want to contavct you because they have something important to offer you.

Actually, I agree with you. I subscribe to the "unforeseen consequences" of complex systems, and tend to believe that those who build severely constrained Web sites are missing the boat.

I think maybe where I`d go with this thread is in terms of Web design "standards," for want of a better word. There`s probably some sort of standard conceptual framework out there that sets up one of these B2B sites? Maybe?

But you know how you can go to a factory and they`ll have a small side building with a sign about how they have an "outlet?" It`s pretty clear that the entire property is designated industrial. It`s not a shopping mall, store, or coffee shop. Shouldn`t sites with this type of focus "look" like such a site, instead of pretending to be a li`l ol` advertising site?

Such companies should have a site for public consumption, where they explain what they do to anybody that is interested. Large companies have a site for everybody and they use this site as e-commerce venues. They also have a much harder to reach sub-domains exclusively for suppliers and employees but you can find them. They also have a third tier sub-domain for  B2B commerce dedicated to EDI, you need to be approved by the company to reach those sub-domains. Then of course there is their intranets.

IMO companies should (generally speaking) follow this model, a web-site that is the face they present to the world, with several sub-domains each with increasing access barriers and security levels. These sub-domains should be given out on a need-to-know basis. Failure to do this can only alienate people. Would it result in loss of sales? I doubt it, but, it certainly makes their brand appear to be less friendly.

Craig, 

While the web and the sites on the web are certainly accessable to all kinds of people - not all sites are designed for or targeted toward all viewers.  I imagine that the owner of the site you cite  is only thinking of his site in terms accomplishing one task eventhough the site could be used to accomplish more than one task.

This is not necessarily a design or "standards" issue but a management or business decision. Is it the best decision for this company? Maybe they are "missing the boat" or maybe it makes good business sense for their needs - it fits their business/marketing practices.

Should there be such a standard/guideline? If there is a standard, who would enforce it and what real impact would there be?

A successful website follows some standards or practices ( for navigation, coding, and content) and is designed to communicate its` message to a target market... hopefully, in an effective manner. But it is up to the site owner to decide that target audience.

~Roland

 

-------------------------

Web Design | Best Beef Jerky | ecommerce articles | Follow vwebworld on Twitter

It seems to me the discussion is about websites designed for everybody
for anybody to understand versus sites designed for a specific audience.
What I believe is confusing the topic is the definition of this specific
audience. This could be clients only, prospective clients, current
customers, employees, other professionals in the field, other businesses,
etc. or any combination of such. Now I`m not sure how the terms
industrial and commercial fit into this exactly but I believe this is the gist
of the subject at hand.

So in reviewing sites, as we often do here, it would be important to keep
this in mind. It might even behoove the person posting their site to
explain that it is or is not for general public consumption, though some
may be obvious like digital camera e-commerce for example.

What confused so many people about the ISO site recently posted is that
many didn`t know what ISO was and wanted a simple explanation
somewhere. But that wasn`t really the purpose of the site, as we learned
through discussion. It simply isn`t being designed for the general public,
rather those in need of ISO services.

But where does one draw the line between public and niche audiences?
Let`s take a web design/marketing firm`s site for example. Web designers
cater to businesses. Many of those businesses cater to the public. How
does the client perceive the web design firm if the designer`s site is made
for clients only? I don`t know but it is a good question. What if the site
weren`t easy for Joe Public to understand but it were for the client? Most
likely the lines are blurred.

These site critiques are seen by all of us from many different fields and
expertises. As a whole, we`re simply not going to "get it" all the time
when we review for others.

Alright, I think we`re getting to the nub of the situation.

• Eli`s point about using sub-domains to gradually "thin out" the viewing group, and having a top-level site that explains the company, and so on. It`s a management problem for the site builder. I agree.
  
• Steve`s point about terminology, and also that perhaps company management should be more explicit on their landing page as to the purpose of the site. I like that too.
• Roland`s also putting it to the site owners to make their own decisions.

I`m getting a more clear understanding of why I wanted to put up this post, and it comes down to the Web critique thing. I believe some people post for a critique in the mistaken belief it will somehow increase their traffic, or maybe their search engine visibility.

Most, however, actually do want a critique. Vincent put up a basic article of some simple guidelines for critiques, but in any forum, these things easily get lost. So we have people new to SuN asking for a critique. I know looking at all those sites and thinking about them has been seriously beneficial to ME. I hope whatever I say might help the site owners, but it`s mostly my own benefit that keeps me going with the idea.

So here we are, with some number of sites where we`re told the marketability, or general-public interaction is of little interest to the site owners. Why the request for a critique then?

I suppose I`m always looking for ways to bundle ideas into a model, or join them into a "set" of some sort. Web sites are still so new, it`s an ongoing fascination of mine to see if there might be some basic categorization. This problem of sites being accessible through the search engines, but not really designed to be interesting to the general public just showed up.

Hm....I think Eli`s got the best explanation. That`s not to say many people will follow the process, but it does make sense to me, having sub-domains and varying levels of access and/or visibility.