3 ms·

The banks had extremely functional websites after years of iteration. Some of those sites had been more or less unchanged since at least the early 2000's. A s

by gxs 9y ago

The banks had extremely functional websites after years of iteration. Some of those sites had been more or less unchanged since at least the early 2000's. A shining example of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm 99% certain people weren't leaving any bank because of an old website design. The new ones have so much padding and empty space, and hide everything behind "clever" menus. I'm a PM and avoid this clever bullshit like the plague.

dkonofalski 9y ago
Tons of people leave banks because of old website designs. Old websites typically don't support newer technologies on the backend because they're entirely outdated. Just because something worked when it was developed doesn't it mean it stands the test of time and, if customers can't access new features, they won't use that bank.
- gxs 9y ago
  That was kind of my point. The new designs don't incorporate any new functionality. The designs don't necessarily look outdated, they look out dated to us because we live and breathe that stuff. I'm not speaking in absolutes here though - some bank sites do need to be completely reimagined. Chase specifically comes to mind for example, but Wells Fargo's site was perfectly usable and did not feel dated. To go even further, I'm not entirely arguing against redesigns, I'm arguing that if you do go that route it should at least be simple and straight forward, it's a bank site not the next social media behemoth. It's always a really tough problem to keep old users happy who've been using the old sites for possibly years while treating new users to something more modern. This is one of the toughest problems I've encountered working in this field and haven't yet found an elegant solution.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  I would leave a bank because it lacked features, not because it's design looked old. A bank is a tool, I don't care how pretty it is, I care how functional it is.

by gxs 9y ago

dkonofalski 9y ago

Tons of people leave banks because of old website designs. Old websites typically don't support newer technologies on the backend because they're entirely outdated. Just because something worked when it was developed doesn't it mean it stands the test of time and, if customers can't access new features, they won't use that bank.

gxs 9y ago
That was kind of my point. The new designs don't incorporate any new functionality. The designs don't necessarily look outdated, they look out dated to us because we live and breathe that stuff. I'm not speaking in absolutes here though - some bank sites do need to be completely reimagined. Chase specifically comes to mind for example, but Wells Fargo's site was perfectly usable and did not feel dated. To go even further, I'm not entirely arguing against redesigns, I'm arguing that if you do go that route it should at least be simple and straight forward, it's a bank site not the next social media behemoth. It's always a really tough problem to keep old users happy who've been using the old sites for possibly years while treating new users to something more modern. This is one of the toughest problems I've encountered working in this field and haven't yet found an elegant solution.
colechristensen 9y ago
I would leave a bank because it lacked features, not because it's design looked old. A bank is a tool, I don't care how pretty it is, I care how functional it is.