Det er brugerne, der bestemmer på Nettet

Glem teknologi og markedsføring lidt: Hvis et website eller en anden IT-løsning skal fungere, må det først og fremmest være tilpasset brugernes forudsætninger og dække deres behov.

Hidtil har der overordnet kun været to typer af rådgivere i markedet: Reklamebureauer og webbureauer. Og selvfølgelig kan de udvikle websites. De har bare andre interesser at tage højde for, før brugernes forudsætninger og behov kommer i betragtning.

Hos et reklamebureau er Nettet blot ét af flere medier, hvis indbyrdes forhold udgør et samlet indtjeningsgrundlag for bureauet. Det er som at købe sko i en butik, hvor man også gerne vil sælge bælter og briller. Desuden er det reklamens natur at skabe iøjnefaldende opmærksomhed, hvilket ind imellem kolliderer med brugerens behov for hurtigt overblik og adgang til relevant information.

Et webbureau er som en regel knyttet - enten via ejerskab eller partnerskab - til en eller flere softwareplatforme. Hensynet til en bestemt platform går derfor forud for selve løsningen, og igen er det brugerens behov, der kommer i anden række. Her er det som at købe sko, uden at prøve dem først.

I begge tilfælde er det egentlig ikke økonomiske eller faglige ressourcer, der er problemet, men prioriteringen: alt andet får maksimal opmærksomhed, mens etablering af brugeroplevelse – den faktiske kontakt mellem bruger og virksomhed på nettet - kommer i anden eller tredje række.

Det er brugerne, der bestemmer på Nettet. Og de gider ikke bruge det, der ikke virker. Eller komme dér hvor de ikke finder det, de søger.

CREAAAATIVE NAMES

THE IMPACT OF THE WEB ON FINDING NAMES FOR NEW PRODUCTS AND COMPANIES.
There is a nice book in my bookshelf, written by one of my rare mentors; late Mr. Jens Bernsen, former director of Danish Design Council and published same place. It’s called: ”Design of Names” with foreword by Wally Ollins. (No, don’t go looking for in at Amazon – it isn’t there).

The book is about how to find names for companies and products. It’s filled with all sorts of brilliant suggestions and good advice. I’ve read it several times, but only used it once, because there is one important thing it doesn’t take into consideration:

How to find a suitable name that isn’t already taken by some idiot on the net!

You go through a lot of trouble with the client and your colleagues, and finally you find something that every one think is perfect as name for the new product or company. You look it up to see if it’s available as a .com-domain, only to discover that some guy in Slovenia registered the name two months ago and is now trying to sell it for the highest bid.

Does it have to be a .com-domain?
Sure! Unless you’re only addressing users in your own country, or you're not doing international business (or do not have the potential for it), you MUST have a .com-domain: That’s where everyone will start looking, if they remember the company name – It’s like the main street of cyberspace.

That’s why I’ve only used the brilliant suggestions from the book once: when I discovered they were useless in this day and age - not all of them of course: phonic rules of perception are still the same. But most of the great efforts are in vain the moment you find out that the name is already registered, or if it means something dirty in some obscure language.

But thanks to these limitations we’ve got a whole new way of finding names and are able to accept incredibly silly constellations and fantasy-names that no one even thought of before: Just think of “google” or “flickr”. They sound funny; they have weird spelling and don’t really mean anything. And yet; they do sound familiar and we instantly recognize them as representing some internet related company or activity, solely from the weird spelling.

We all know that we’re out of good old .com-names, so short, weird words means brand new internet related company.

So, some good comes out of this; an additional way to precieve company names and their meaning (if they have any). That's some of the reason why the company I work for is called "FatDUX".

CLICK & FEEL

The impact of the web on development of visual identity
Since the expression “look and feel” is referring to the general appearance and operation of a user interface, “click and feel” could refer to the actual interaction with the interface and the following user experience. And how (or why) visual identity is then applied to this abstraction.

I’m old enough to remember when a website was considered a part of the general communication - in fact: I’m even old enough to remember when there wasn’t even a world wide web (but that’s another story). Today a website is the general communication, if not as in some cases; the only.

There has been a paradigm shift along the millennium shift; from considering a website as being one element of communication among others, in the perimeter of media, to become the actual turning point of most corporate communications.

And this paradigm shift hasn’t left other means of communication untouched. Even the very core of communication; identification and exchange of expressions have been affected so tremendously that we are still trying to find out how to cope with it: It’s an ongoing process.

I'm very interested in the impact of webdesign on the making of corporate visual identity and how to use both in unity in order to get the best of it. And since both design and technology develops so fast, there’s no point in looking at special techniques or concrete visual references to companies, brands and any design in general.

Instead, I concentrate more on “why” than “how”. I want to discover the principles behind the practical, and improve our ability to understand the mechanisms of applying visual identity to the web.

I welcome any contributions and suggestions in my search. If you’re professionally trained in designing visual identity, websites or user experiences, please share some of your knowledge. Even if you're NOT trained in the above mentioned skills, but just have an opinion.

Thank you.