5 ms·

> most of their UI interfaces feel like Web 1.0 Which makes me certainly wonder about what assumptions I am making about the general computing public that are

> most of their UI interfaces feel like Web 1.0 Which makes me certainly wonder about what assumptions I am making about the general computing public that are obviously false. I assume that Amazon's pages are probably some of the most optimized and A/B tested in the world. If their interfaces feel sooo Web 1.0, I can only imagine it is like that because of extensive and exhaustive testing and metrics analysis. What lessons can this teach to the rest of us, who don't have the infrastructure or user-base to do the kind of testing that they do?

dx034 10y ago
I think Amazon.com is heavily tested, not so sure about AWS. I'm happy that it's Web 1.0 (i.e. fast), but it often seems as new functions were just added to existing design. Some pages might need reorganization/redesign to make them a bit less complicated to use. The problem is that people often associate a redesign with switching to SPA. Which I really hope they won't do.
- rockostrich 10y ago
  Fast? I guess the initial render for everything on the AWS console is fast and the new landing page is much nicer to look at, but many of the APIs take forever and all of the product specific pages still have a Web 1.0 UI.
  - dx034 10y ago
    Then we're talking about different pages. The ones that load forever are not Web 1.0 for me. Web 1.0 is pure HTML with little JavaScript. They load fast. What takes forever are the new, fancy JS pages, which are probably Web 3.0 (or where ever we are now). It's still faster than most SPAs, just very complicated.
aphextron 10y ago
>What lessons can this teach to the rest of us, who don't have the infrastructure or user-base to do the kind of testing that they do? Probably a lot. I've worked with embarrassingly bad looking websites that were making millions of dollars in revenue, only to see it drop off a cliff after a "modern" redesign. The truth is that the general public sees a much different thing as they browse the web than we do. Things like legibility, simplicity, and speed are far more important than advanced features.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Yahoo Finance would be a good example, one more improvement and that site will be near unusable.
- DenisM 10y ago
  Can you provide examples? Something I could use to inform decisions in our company. Thanks.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    A couple years ago, my employer redesigned their credit card page from a slightly cluttered, clunky design to a cleaner, more modern version. Nothing fancy, certainly nothing heavy, just your typical Web 1.0 -> 2.0 CSS adjustment. Payments plummeted by 5-10%. Didn't understand it. Reverted the change, and still have Web 1.0 UI to this day.
cwilkes 10y ago
It is extensively tested except that the individual parts are owned by different units that need to optimize their profitability. So instead of having an overall good looking site you have tiny billboards screaming at you to buy. I use Amazon all the time. I just never look at their home page much and just look at search results.
colechristensen 10y ago
I think you're falling into the hole of thinking the web interface is the business. I don't shop at Amazon because I like their website, I do it because Prime allows me reliable free 2-day shipping, because camelcamelcamel provides an accurate price history, because I believe in the customer service, and because I can usually find what I'm looking for. Now they opened a warehouse nearby I can order something in the morning and have it in the afternoon. Amazon is a logistics company with a web frontend, that frontend isn't nearly the most important part of their business. Their recommendations are awful, their site is clunky and difficult (try to, say, price compare the per-battery price on CR123A batteries for a frustrating afternoon) and doesn't do classes or categories well at all. The point I'm trying to make is they've got a lot going for them that isn't their website and most of that is why they're popular.

dx034 10y ago

I think Amazon.com is heavily tested, not so sure about AWS. I'm happy that it's Web 1.0 (i.e. fast), but it often seems as new functions were just added to existing design. Some pages might need reorganization/redesign to make them a bit less complicated to use. The problem is that people often associate a redesign with switching to SPA. Which I really hope they won't do.

rockostrich 10y ago
Fast? I guess the initial render for everything on the AWS console is fast and the new landing page is much nicer to look at, but many of the APIs take forever and all of the product specific pages still have a Web 1.0 UI.
- dx034 10y ago
  Then we're talking about different pages. The ones that load forever are not Web 1.0 for me. Web 1.0 is pure HTML with little JavaScript. They load fast. What takes forever are the new, fancy JS pages, which are probably Web 3.0 (or where ever we are now). It's still faster than most SPAs, just very complicated.

aphextron 10y ago

>What lessons can this teach to the rest of us, who don't have the infrastructure or user-base to do the kind of testing that they do? Probably a lot. I've worked with embarrassingly bad looking websites that were making millions of dollars in revenue, only to see it drop off a cliff after a "modern" redesign. The truth is that the general public sees a much different thing as they browse the web than we do. Things like legibility, simplicity, and speed are far more important than advanced features.

mistermann 10y ago
Yahoo Finance would be a good example, one more improvement and that site will be near unusable.
DenisM 10y ago
Can you provide examples? Something I could use to inform decisions in our company. Thanks.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  A couple years ago, my employer redesigned their credit card page from a slightly cluttered, clunky design to a cleaner, more modern version. Nothing fancy, certainly nothing heavy, just your typical Web 1.0 -> 2.0 CSS adjustment. Payments plummeted by 5-10%. Didn't understand it. Reverted the change, and still have Web 1.0 UI to this day.

cwilkes 10y ago

It is extensively tested except that the individual parts are owned by different units that need to optimize their profitability. So instead of having an overall good looking site you have tiny billboards screaming at you to buy. I use Amazon all the time. I just never look at their home page much and just look at search results.

colechristensen 10y ago

I think you're falling into the hole of thinking the web interface is the business. I don't shop at Amazon because I like their website, I do it because Prime allows me reliable free 2-day shipping, because camelcamelcamel provides an accurate price history, because I believe in the customer service, and because I can usually find what I'm looking for. Now they opened a warehouse nearby I can order something in the morning and have it in the afternoon. Amazon is a logistics company with a web frontend, that frontend isn't nearly the most important part of their business. Their recommendations are awful, their site is clunky and difficult (try to, say, price compare the per-battery price on CR123A batteries for a frustrating afternoon) and doesn't do classes or categories well at all. The point I'm trying to make is they've got a lot going for them that isn't their website and most of that is why they're popular.