3 ms·

Hi, I made the site. Your criticism and the other points in this thread are valuable to me - so thanks. When writing the site, I showed the before & after to a

Hi, I made the site. Your criticism and the other points in this thread are valuable to me - so thanks. When writing the site, I showed the before & after to a few non-designers, and every single one had the impression that the right-hand flyer looked better. In my opinion, that's key - if something _looks_ more understandable, it's more likely to be read. If something _looks_ hard to digest, people aren't even going to bother. The readability may look like an issue on the site, but when the flyers were actually printed, the apparent problem no longer actually looked like a problem. @Jabbles - yes, the font differences were a large difference that I don't mention anywhere. Using a sans-serif font for the headers and a serif font for the text creates more contrast, making the headers stand out more and making the headers and details more easily distinguishable from each other. A number of the points made are excellent ones, and I wish I had incorporated them. For example, the contact information should have been way, way more prominent. Capitalizing the URL is something I've never considered in the three years since I made the flyer, but I can see how that would help. Thanks again for all your criticisms. I've never created a site like this before, and man, was it difficult for me. I spent at least 200 hours on it, going over the text and examples over and over again. There's much, much more I'd like to do with it, and there are many flaws I want to address, but for now I feel like it's more important that it's just out there.

andrewcooke 15y ago
your design certainly looks more "current" and "professional", which people will class as better. but that's not the same as more understandable, which is something you can actually measure. for example, you can do random trials, showing people a flyer for a short length of time and then asking questions about it. so you're obviously capable of making something that fits in with current taste. but you haven't proved that your version is more understandable. if you want the cachet of a "scientific" justification for your design then you have to do the science. tacking on an assertion doesn't really cut it.
- nonrecursive 15y ago
  All very true! I am taking a break from this site for the time being, but when I revisit it, I plan on: * Creating new before & after examples from scratch, hopefully with fewer flaws * Adding a section on going through the process of redesigning something * Adding more resources But no, I'm probably not ever going to do the science, unless somehow I get paid for the time I spend doing so.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    you could look at a/b testing. it might be interesting to learn how to set that up... (not sure how you'd use it to measure this particular case though)
  - ZoFreX 15y ago
    I would heavily recommend "doing the science". It's a lot of fun, and it has one of two outcomes: You confirm what you think is true, in which case your argument has a LOT more weight (as so few people will "do science"), or you disprove your idea, which means you get to find a way to make your design even better. Win-win! It really is a lot of fun, too. We had a university assignment to investigate a particular public-facing system, and while most of my peers turned to Google I hit the streets with a clipboard. I had a really great afternoon, learnt a huge amount about the system, and discovered data that no one else did.
    - nonrecursive 15y ago
      You make it sound very fun :) I've done some usability testing, and I've really enjoyed it in the past. But really, I'm not sure how I would realistically test a flyer. Actually... it could be quite fun to create a couple flyers with links listed, post them around town, and see how many hits I get. I don't think it would be a true a/b test, though, as it wouldn't be possible to alternate different flyers at the exact same location.
      - gallamine 15y ago
        You could use a tool like fivesecondtest.com. Not affiliated, btw.
sil3ntmac 15y ago
"Better" doesn't necessarily mean more readable or understandable. I'm not an expert by any means, but the flow of the text on the right is a bit disconcerting (e.g. spacing of "Regular Classes" - half of typography is negative space), not that it's better than the left. Would recommend reading http://www.webtypography.net/ http://www.webtypography.net/ ... a lot of it won't apply but some of it is very important, and the author does a good job explaining how to implement these principles in CSS. When I first read it, I was amazed by how much thought goes into simply spacing and sizing text.
- sil3ntmac 15y ago
  Oops, I meant "not that it's worse (less readable) than the left."
munificent 15y ago
Personally, I do find the design on the right cleaner. The problem I have is that the big black bar behind the two lumps the two together into one weird single thing. I think they would be easier to evaluate if presented more like this: http://i.imgur.com/KrRl6.gif http://i.imgur.com/KrRl6.gif.
- nonrecursive 15y ago
  Thanks - you're the second person to point that out, and it's something I intend to fix.
barisme 15y ago
I think the one on the right (same one you indicate) is definitely more readable. I'm a former copywriter, so I'm more verbal than visual in some ways, and I am still quite sure you have this right. For further reading and info about user testing, you might check out books by Jakob Nielsen -- ie: Designing for Web Usability, and Eyetracking Web Usability.

andrewcooke 15y ago

your design certainly looks more "current" and "professional", which people will class as better. but that's not the same as more understandable, which is something you can actually measure. for example, you can do random trials, showing people a flyer for a short length of time and then asking questions about it. so you're obviously capable of making something that fits in with current taste. but you haven't proved that your version is more understandable. if you want the cachet of a "scientific" justification for your design then you have to do the science. tacking on an assertion doesn't really cut it.

nonrecursive 15y ago
All very true! I am taking a break from this site for the time being, but when I revisit it, I plan on: * Creating new before & after examples from scratch, hopefully with fewer flaws * Adding a section on going through the process of redesigning something * Adding more resources But no, I'm probably not ever going to do the science, unless somehow I get paid for the time I spend doing so.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  you could look at a/b testing. it might be interesting to learn how to set that up... (not sure how you'd use it to measure this particular case though)
- ZoFreX 15y ago
  I would heavily recommend "doing the science". It's a lot of fun, and it has one of two outcomes: You confirm what you think is true, in which case your argument has a LOT more weight (as so few people will "do science"), or you disprove your idea, which means you get to find a way to make your design even better. Win-win! It really is a lot of fun, too. We had a university assignment to investigate a particular public-facing system, and while most of my peers turned to Google I hit the streets with a clipboard. I had a really great afternoon, learnt a huge amount about the system, and discovered data that no one else did.
  - nonrecursive 15y ago
    You make it sound very fun :) I've done some usability testing, and I've really enjoyed it in the past. But really, I'm not sure how I would realistically test a flyer. Actually... it could be quite fun to create a couple flyers with links listed, post them around town, and see how many hits I get. I don't think it would be a true a/b test, though, as it wouldn't be possible to alternate different flyers at the exact same location.
    - gallamine 15y ago
      You could use a tool like fivesecondtest.com. Not affiliated, btw.

sil3ntmac 15y ago

"Better" doesn't necessarily mean more readable or understandable. I'm not an expert by any means, but the flow of the text on the right is a bit disconcerting (e.g. spacing of "Regular Classes" - half of typography is negative space), not that it's better than the left. Would recommend reading http://www.webtypography.net/ http://www.webtypography.net/ ... a lot of it won't apply but some of it is very important, and the author does a good job explaining how to implement these principles in CSS. When I first read it, I was amazed by how much thought goes into simply spacing and sizing text.

sil3ntmac 15y ago
Oops, I meant "not that it's worse (less readable) than the left."

munificent 15y ago

Personally, I do find the design on the right cleaner. The problem I have is that the big black bar behind the two lumps the two together into one weird single thing. I think they would be easier to evaluate if presented more like this: http://i.imgur.com/KrRl6.gif http://i.imgur.com/KrRl6.gif.

nonrecursive 15y ago
Thanks - you're the second person to point that out, and it's something I intend to fix.

barisme 15y ago

I think the one on the right (same one you indicate) is definitely more readable. I'm a former copywriter, so I'm more verbal than visual in some ways, and I am still quite sure you have this right. For further reading and info about user testing, you might check out books by Jakob Nielsen -- ie: Designing for Web Usability, and Eyetracking Web Usability.