The NY Times has redesigned their website to make it more like the paper version (credit to Tom Marciniak ).

Famed Canadian media guru Marshall McLuhan, called the "Oracle of the Electronic Age", coined the phrase and book title, The Medium is the Massage (not ‘message’ but massage… though it’s assumed that this was a carefully crafted pun). While this quote has largely been bastardized and misinterpreted, McLuhan espoused that the medium or channel that conveyed the message shapes the message (or alters it). In other words, the complete message or meaning of a story on TV could be different than the same story communicated in, for example, a newspaper.

The NY Times is attempting to make the website look and feel more like the newspaper with a five column layout, less color, etc. However, a website is not a newspaper and shouldn’t be mistaken for a newspaper. People read very differently online than they do when actually holding a physical newspaper. When reading a newspaper you can be sitting in almost any position with no screen glare, no animation, no up-to-the-minute stock quotes, etc.

However, I must admit, there are things that I really do like about the new site… and the more I look at it the more I like perhaps better than any other newspaper site.

The home page is rather busy with its five columns – I don’t know quite where to start reading. But I like the white space. It looks clean. I very much like the three column layout they use under the Today’s Paper tab which includes an enlargeable JPEG of the actual paper version.

When reading an article, the page offers the reader a number of interactive options including E-mail, Print, Reprints, Save This and Single Page (though I’m not sure what this option actually does except strip out one or two ads). Also presented a tabbed box called Most Popular. It lists the top 10 most e-mailed articles, the top 10 most blogged articles, and the top 10 most searched terms (top searches were ‘immigration’ and ‘Colbert’ (as in the very funny current affairs comedian and talk show host).

I like the new site; it works for me. What is agreeable to me though is not necessarily agreeable to the masses. (In fact, I guarantee you the NY Times get a handful of both complaints and kudos.) Users generally like a far more simple layout and less cluttered look. In addition to it hugely effective search engine, there’s a reason why Google is so popular. The Google home page is simple to digest and fast to load. The trend to simplicity is more than just a trend – users demand simplicity.

Should you consider a five column layout or try to emulate a hard copy publication? I certainly wouldn’t do it. The medium is the message. However, more important than media theory, is an intimate understanding of the needs and expectations of your users and delivering flawlessly.

A common issue unites all companies, regardless of size and industry: there is never enough money to throw at every opportunity or threat. That fixed budget means investments in one area of the business come at the expense of others.

For Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMBs), those budgetary decisions are especially difficult and visible. By definition, there’s fewer dollars available than in large corporations. And when there’s less than 100 employees and a relatively small customer base, it’s very apparent where resources are going and where they aren’t.

As result, investments are made in the areas that offer the most obvious return, and for many SMBs that is not perceived to be their website. Research indicates that 57% of SMBs are making money from their websites, either online or via offline sales. While it’s a growing percentage of revenue, it’s not yet reached the level where every SMB can quantify the benefits of investing in their website.

Every company can calculate the benefits of adding salepeople or investing in improved supply chain management systems, however, so it’s easy to understand why the website can lose out to other areas of the business.

This question of how to justify website investments was an important part of a seminar we presented to a group of business owners this week. Their companies ranged across a variety of sectors. Their websites, in turn, varied widely in functionality, content quality and visual appeal.

We reviewed ROI models that quantify the company-wide benefits created by a site that strongly links to organizational objectives. While each company worked with numbers that were unique to their business, there was one measure they all factored into their plans: 1/20^th of a second.

That’s the amount of time in which viewers judge your site, according to researchers in Carleton University’s Human-Oriented Technology Lab. They reached their conclusion by flashing websites for 50 milliseconds and asking study participants to rate them for visual appeal.

“Unless the first impression is favorable, visitors will be out of your site before they even know that you might be offering more than your competitors,” says Carleton’s Dr. Gitte Lindgaard. The research, which is reported in E-Commerce Times, suggests that the first impression forms an initital bias that dictates long-term opinions.

A positive first impression carries over to other features of the site, such as content. Since people like to be right, Lindgaard reasoned, they will continue to use a website that made a good first impression.

It’s an eye-catching stat, and one that certainly captured the attention of the business owners. While the benefits of a well designed site are difficult to quantify, the risk of creating a negative impression in a fraction of a second can be quickly understood.

And with that understanding comes an obvious justification for improving the design of a website.

RELATED ITEMS

Which comes first: resource allocation or strategy?

Design I: Making your site pretty can get ugly