Below is a picture I played around with creating while I was learning Photoshop. It was through a tutorial; I just did the mechanics of it. But I’ve kept it in the back of my mind as I’ve been focused on digital history for the last year. In the world of the Internet, it’s too easy to draw conclusions without adequate evidence. And from Clio2, I’ve realized that the aesthetics can also lie. How we design our website will determine how it is perceived, read, and digested by the visitor. Sure, it gives the historian a good amount of control over our research and presentation. And some of us may realize how our design choices affect our outcomes. But I wonder, how many Internet users realize this? Do we always know when we’re being fooled?
Advertisement
April 25, 2010 at 1:14 pm
In Clio I we discussed at length a website that had been assigned one week, but none of us had really paid much attention to. The design was very poor and amateurish, including a prominent picture of the author’s cat. To this day I can’t tell you what the site was or what it was about, but I do remember the lengthy conversation sparked by the cat photo. The casual, folksy aesthetics of the site ended up totally undermining the author’s credibility. She could have had the formula for time travel, the cure for cancer, and the meaning of life as her site, but I (for one) glazed over and skipped ahead to the next reading when it looked like just another living room blog.
So I do think design and aesthetics can fool us, but the fooling goes both ways. We can be convinced of the gravitas of a site and its content by good design. The scholarship could be complete crud, but it looks serious so we assume it to be serious. On the other hand, we can be fooled into dismissing a site that is actually quite important and relevant, because it looks half-baked. Bottom line–if you want to be taken seriously by Clio I students, DON’T have a prominent picture of your kitty on the homepage!
April 25, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Great point, Dan. It certainly can go both ways. I suppose I’ll remove the photo of my cat from my website.
April 26, 2010 at 7:05 am
This is a really great image that speaks volumes about what we perceive and what really lies inside. It serves as a reminder that websites can be inviting or not depending on how well we design them, remembering that we only have 6 seconds to attract or deflect the attention of a user. But it also reminds us that presentation is not everything and sometimes we have to bite into a site to really discover what’s inside. The decision sometimes is just: should we take the chance? Great photo.
April 26, 2010 at 10:35 am
Great post Lynn.
Yes, we can be fooled, but we can use the same psychological effect to our advantage. If you substitute website for a book, wouldn’t a kitty on the cover of a book about Napoleon also seem odd? Don’t we go for the eye-catching cover of a book in the bookstore?
Most historians, in my opinion, have “blah” covers to their published works. Some, though, successfully marry an appealing cover to a fascinating read inside. I don’t see how the web is any different. So, I will definitely consider what image(s) adorn any published work just as much as I have fretted over the website design.
April 26, 2010 at 10:40 am
[...] By rwanysibaja Comments on Lynn (visual appeal) and Alex (redesign), and I agree with Dan G., in my previous blog posting, on the [...]
April 26, 2010 at 11:48 am
Hi Lynn,
This image is from the cover of Freakonomics, right? I would still like to sit down and read that. An appealing book cover can fool for a moment – but if the content of the book stinks, the reader will certainly find out in short order. Have you ever stopped to look at the books in the bargain section of Barnes and Noble? I often come across books with attractive covers there…but once I open some of them up, not much substance. I think the same goes for web design – a nice looking, serious site might hint at credibility and draw the visitor in for a moment, but once the reader dives in, the content speaks for itself. However, form definitely matters – draws in the reader or viewer and helps lock in attention – but I don’t think form can fool for long.
April 27, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Lynn,
Another way to look at it is that all kinds of design can be deceptive, even off the web. It’s strange to study new media and book history at the same time. There are a lot of connections to be made there.
Still, I’m surprised how much technology in new media influences research and presentation. It’s probably unfair to say that websites aren’t as free in the way they present research, when compared to, say, a book. That’s the way I tend to feel, though.
May 1, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Hi Lynn,
An overdue comment…I’ve spoken with some authors about why they chose certain covers for their books. I’m especially intrigued when they use Casta paintings, and the arguments in their book are completely contradictory to those of the paintings. Turns out that of the authors I’ve spoken with (maybe 5 to 10) none of them had any control in the cover selection. That’s all the publisher’s doing–or so they say.
It may well be the case that authors of websites have much more freedom than those publishing in books or articles. While all publications have to determine what images they will use according to cost, I believe that Web authors have much more freedom. As to book covers, web authors seemingly have far greater control of how they want to present their work, how they control the packaging of their work, in comparison to print authors. Moreover, web authors can change presentation and content as needed.
What you lose in terms of editorial help and advertising, arranged book tours, etc, may well be worth the trade-off in freedom of expression. Depending on how much you like to do web design
…