0

If you take a look at this site: http://www.kooaba.com/ - there are some external links ("As seen on" section) for which there are no rollovers. These links, however, do not lead user down in the funnel (they do not lead to conversion point, even though they may boost the conversion anyway).

In general, providing no rollover for a link is bad UX. On the other hand, degrading some elements to emphasise the other is a common way to shape the user journey towards the conversion point. This degradation, however, can be achieved using other methods (different placement, smaller font etc.).

So the question is: is it ok to use bad UX to provide better conversion? Or is it going too far?

Please, share your thoughts.

wootcat
  • 972
  • 5
  • 12
Dominik Oslizlo
  • 13,849
  • 2
  • 30
  • 57
  • You're asking the question "is it OK to use bad UX" on a User Experience Q&A site? I'm not sure what you're expecting the answer to be here. In specific regards to that site; they are missing lots of alt-text for images and links there, because of this it's not an accessible site so it is not OK, no. – JonW Jul 01 '13 at 09:54
  • Somewhat related - 'Is user experinece evil?' http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/5444/is-user-experience-evil – greenforest Jul 01 '13 at 10:06
  • @JonW - yes, because UX is not only related to UCD, but also to CCD. And this situation somehow shows the conflict between these approaches. – Dominik Oslizlo Jul 01 '13 at 10:15
  • The site you linked as an example comes up as a "site built by lazy designers" in my book. Here is another example for you: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/ see the customers section. – Rayraegah Jul 01 '13 at 10:27
  • Maybe - but I'm not referring to the website as a whole, just to the missing rollovers. – Dominik Oslizlo Jul 01 '13 at 10:35
  • The missing rollovers are a part of what makes the site give the "built by lazy people" vibe. The shortest answer to your question - no, its not OK to use bad UX and there is no such thing as going too far with rollovers because it is either there (i.e. good UX) or not there (not so good UX). – Rayraegah Jul 01 '13 at 11:22
  • But there are rollovers on other elements (buttons, navigation), well, maybe footer links excepted. The reason why I asked this question is that this way the mentioned links are less noticeable than the others, so they do not compete with the other ones. What came across my mind is that it was meant to be like this. – Dominik Oslizlo Jul 01 '13 at 11:30
  • The links in question are images, if you observe closely the "Go" button, the "Social" icon-images in the footer, and some links with images in the developer page also lack a roll-over effect. My guess is they simply decided not to load another image to show roll-over (avoid extra code, http request etc.) or they forgot and never did any QA or usability testing or they were just lazy. – Rayraegah Jul 01 '13 at 11:37

2 Answers2

1

I guess you have to decide if you are personally OK with it as a designer and if you should fear some long-term backfire or even legal liability as a brand/company.

Looking for a way to reach business goals while at the same time improving the subjective experience of as many users as possible is of course great but otherwise, if it does demonstrably increase conversion and that's the main goal for the employer/client, I would say it's a good design. Framing the question as good UX vs. conversion hides the fact that different stakeholders have different objectives and there is no such thing as a “good UX” with no reference to a particular goal and a particular user group.

Of course, it could also just be some short-sighted decision with no real benefit by people who don't know what they are doing…

Gala
  • 5,906
  • 1
  • 17
  • 20
0

In that particular case, I would say those icons are there for credibility, which contributes to the ultimate goal of conversion.

Also, if you consider the reason the user is there, it's not going to be to go to the next web or mashable. If those links do anything for them, it's because they already know those brands. I would think any serious converters would, at most, click one of the links and close the subsequent tab.

For these reasons, I think the mouseover is useful if it brings the logo into full color and kindles their feelings about that brand on their way to conversion.

If it was decided that links to these other pages was distracting, I would consider making them non-linking full-color images (if possible) and putting them in a less obvious place such as the bottom of the page.

Either way, I don't agree with putting something you wish to understate in such prime real estate.

Dom Ramirez
  • 638
  • 3
  • 10