Websites Need Page Goals by Mark
December 30, 2008 in Interaction Design, Sparks with 9 Comments
Most websites have pages with several goals or calls to action, but each Web page needs it’s own purpose, an overarching task for users to perform. Those tasks are user goals, and successful websites have several goal-driven pages.
I was recently reminded of this as I was browsing Flickr. As a Flickr member, when logged in, I have my own dashboard-like page called Home. It’s a great place for me to check out what my contacts are up to, see what I recently uploaded, and more. There’s a lot do—just like any other dashboard provides—but what’s the goal here? What am I supposed to do?
Member Flickr home page with several mismatched pieces and calls to action.
Links, tabs, images, collapsable tabs, hidden sections, oh my! There’s a lot to clicked on, so much so that I began to question the ultimate goal the design team at Flickr had in mind when redesigning this page. Flickr had blogged about the redesign three months ago; it turns out they have no idea what they want users to do most.
While that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's also not a very good one. It means the page is unfocused, alive and there only to get me off the page and somewhere else. A sound strategy I suppose if the goal is to just explore the site, to wander aimlessly and find images and videos that looked interesting. Simple enough, but what's the point? Is that really what I come to Flickr for?
Let's consider that Flickr has two primary user types: Viewers and Contributors. As both a Contributer and a Viewer, I'm just like most of the other users. This is where Flickr's problem with redesigning this page lies. As a Viewer, the primary goal is to explore. As a regular Contributor, the primary goal is to upload. Presently, the link to upload is just a heading on the right, a link I constantly overlook. If they wanted me to upload photos and videos more, and as a paid Pro member they should, they’re doing a poor job of it. This is why page goals really matter.
If Flickr wanted to make uploading photos and videos my primary goal when I revisit the site, they’d make the page look something like this:
Realigned Flickr home page that solidifies uploading as the primary goal with a button for uploading instead of a simple hyperlink.
Instead, they put my content and that of my contacts first. Images are powerful, catching my eyes nearly as much as a very actionable button. With goals as different as sitting on the sidelines and actually contributing, Flickr faces a unique dilemma: what are they asking users to do?
As not just an interaction designer, but as a Flickr user, the current page design tells me one thing: the primary goal really is to just explore. Although that was not the ultimate goal of the design team, it could still work out well for Flickr.
Goals help shape more than just messaging and content. They shape user expectations, telling users just want needs to be done. So, what are your pages telling your users to do?
9 Comments
Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo says:
Agreeing with the button, but not with your placement. Wouldn't the most appropriate placement be before the photostream? That would make the stream secondary and the action of uploading a primary goal. Atleast that's my thoughts.
Nat says:
Good article, but I'm not sure I agree that uploading is the appropriate goal for the Flickr homepage. In my opinion, what makes Flickr unique is the community.
More often than not, when I visit the Flickr homepage, it's to see what is going on within my Flickr community, comments on my photos, new images from my friends, etc., and I think that the homepage does a reasonably good job of putting those things up front (though I do wish it were a bit more customizable). It doesn't encourage "aimless wondering," it encourages interaction with your existing network of friends and groups.
I'm also not convinced that the web interface is the best way to upload images to Flickr. I know very few people who don't use some other method (plugins, stand alone uploader apps, etc).I have over 1,000 images in my Flickr account. and I can't remember the last time I uploaded an image through the web interface, because it is such a chore if you are uploading more than a few photos. One thing that I think Flickr could do better is to emphasize these alternate tools for uploading, as they're kind of buried in the footer now. If their goal is to get more people to upload more photos, I think that would be a better way to encourage it, since those tools make the uploading process much easier.
Bryan (ZURB) says:
Mark, I think you have the right idea, though Tor makes a great point. After using Flickr quite a bit over the last couple months, I find the upload link a bummer. I tend to upload a few images at a time, so I use it quite frequently. I'd prefer to have something that was on every page in the top corner. A link in context would be even better- say on your first photo in the photostream.
But let's look at this problem. What really are the goals? Are the business goals aligned with the user goals?
We assume that Flickr wants to make it easy to get content into the system (Nat, without new photos, it's pretty hard to envision a vibrant community). But do they? Adding photos to the system is a cost- even if they are taking your money. The cost of setting up servers and maintaining them takes money. Flickr as a business really hasn't been successful and that would probably explain why some of there decisions don't seem inline with a healthy, profit driven entity.
Just to give you a sense of scale- our client Photobucket has a couple of people whose sole job is to install servers (all day long) to keep up with their storage needs.
I think Flickr made a mistake a couple of years ago by introducing drop down menus from the top links. They decided to take a "utility' approach- which ultimately takes many of the actions out of the context of the work flow.
Mark says:
Tor: That's actually a very good question. The button before the photostream might seem like it structurally makes more sense, but it's placement in the bottom right will likely get more views and clicks.
Consider typical eye movements on the Web: we start in the top left and move to the bottom right. This button's placement takes that principle, along with the use of color and size, to aid in it's dominance and likely usage.
Nat: I'm not saying that uploading really is the ultimate goal of the page, but rather that the right page goal has significant impact on the copy and design strategy. If Flickr wanted me to upload more, then they might use a large button on the right to stand out from the rest of the page. But they dont. Uploading is evidently not the key use case here, but rather exploring.
It really does encourage a certain aimless adventure, too. They're not telling you which photos to click on—you can click on your own, your contacts', or the most interesting ones below that. It's up to you. It's a guided exploration that each user makes for his or her self.
That makes the ultimate goal of the page an aimless exploration of the community, made unique with every logged-in user.
And as for the online uploader, nothing works better for me :). Uploading a handful at a time with a minimal and easy-to-use Flash upload panel is just awesome. In fact, I wish more sites used it.
Mark says:
Bryan: They definitely don't seem to have making money as their core business goal based on some of their UI decisions, but we're forgetting two things: ads and paid subscriptions. At $25 a pop for just one year, they're likely rolling in the money from Pro users. And with ads to support the non-Pro side, well, I think they're covered.
Their UI decisions are for the Pro users: for them, it really is a utility. People that just like to look at pretty pictures won't stick around and navigate through drop downs, but Pro users who live for Flickr will.
Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo says:
Mark, you're right, and I was also thinking right, right. Top right that is, before posts from the Flickr Blog.
Mark says:
Tor: The top right would also be a good spot to put it, by the same logic even. I would recommend that, if they ever were to go this route, they A-B test it first to see which is better for them. The only way to really find out what works is to just give it a go and see what happens, then iterate on it as you make discoveries about user behavior and expectations.
Bryan (ZURB) says:
Mark: Yeah, but $25 a year and ads really isn't much when you consider other services like internet and cell phone service providers. I'd probably pay $10 a month for the service if they continued to innovate.
Mark says:
Bryan: Not sure what you're saying... At $25 a pop, and assuming they have at least 50,000 paid accounts (completely reasonable since back in 2005 they had 300,000 accounts), they'd be making $1,250,000 a year, just in subscription revenue.
Are you suggesting they're overcharging? I'd argue they have their niche audience secure and with years of success under their belts, it's reasonable to say people are willing to pay it.
Add your comment...