Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
22 Oct 1996 12:01:28 +0100


Date: 22 Oct 1996 12:01:28 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: RE: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199610221101.MAA20353@curia.ucc.ie>

> You're walking around hungry as can be and decide you want a nice chicken   
> sandwich and fries -- you walk up and see two restaurants -- both have   
> signs outside saying how great their chicken sandwiches and fry specials   
> are and they are both charging the same price for this entire meal -- so   
> your decision has to be made on appearance.   You open to the door to   
> Restaurant #1 -- the floors are dirty, there are only a couple of seats   
> so the place looks very barren, the place smells bad, smoke fills the   
> air, and the rating sheet shows a 52.  You close the door.
> 
> You open the door to Restaurant #2 -- a person is there to greet you   
> right away -- the air smells good, there are plenty of seats, light music   
> is playing the background, the place is spotless, and the rating on the   
> sheet shows a 99.

A very good point: I never disputed that appearance plays a large
part. My query is, _how_ large a part in generating _business_.

> Now you tell me which restaurant you choose.

The big problem is, the food in #2 turns out to be a load of crud, 
but the food in #1 is superb. Now which site gets the higher number 
of return visits?
 
>   When choosing a certain company, they are more likely to quickly leave   
> a page which contains only text, and stays behind the times.

Absolutely, which is why graphics play such an important part, both in
attraction and in ergonomics, and especially on the front page. But
once you pass the portal, it's uncertain which keeps the visitor at the
site: the hardcore info or the glitzy graphics. My money's on the
information every time, and especially on its reusability.

///Peter