Comments on: Don’t think Home Pages require a different design, or Are we still thinking about the Web as a collection of books?

By: David Rosam

David Rosam — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:56:49 +0000

That’s kind of the flip side of what I’m saying.

Following your lead, I find myself arguing that every page should be eye-catching because it may be the place people enter.

By: Alex Farran

Alex Farran — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:02:38 +0000

Ah. Yes I agree with that. Splash pages and spinny logos have largely disappeared, but the old habits are still clinging on. What you’re saying is that a home page is just another page, it doesn’t need to be eye catching because that’s not how people find things on the web. In book terms its the introduction, or the table of contents, not the cover.

By: David Rosam

David Rosam — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:41:56 +0000

Well, a book cover is there to sell in a retail environment.

And, at the same time, most people don’t just open a book at random and start reading from there. It’s understood from the structure and usage how the content works.

On the Web, as search engines get better at ferreting out and indexing content, people are increasingly likely to find themselves starting anywhere else but the Home page, so I’m challenging the mindset that says a site has to have a (book-like) cover that is design-heavy and doesn’t look like the inside pages.

I’m not comfortable with the idea of ‘abandon(ing) the book metaphor altogether’, though. There’s surely enough in common between Web sites and books to make that not entirely useful?

By: Alex Farran

Alex Farran — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:32:08 +0000

Are you suggesting that we abandon the book metaphor altogether? Should all navigation be done by search and links alone? I guess Wikipedia is the model to follow, though even there, topic summaries and lists provide some structure.