4 ms·
First, I'm really intrigued by the design choices made on the page - the red line and the fact that the page is a good 1280 px wide (I have a 1280x800 pixel mon
by sachinag 18y ago
First, I'm really intrigued by the design choices made on the page - the red line and the fact that the page is a good 1280 px wide (I have a 1280x800 pixel monitor and had a horizontal scrollbar). There's something absolutely brilliant about how the red line on the left reinforces the key insight of the research. (And it exactly matches up with the part of the text that would maximize that reinforcement.) The page width, I don't get - but Dustin's a design stud and I'm not a stud of any sort.
Second, I suppose we could end up at optimal designs for what we wanted through iterative A/B testing. Given enough time, enough variations, and enough traffic, you could conceivably come to the ideal webpage for conversion (of whatever metric you wanted). Of course, as people change, the page would have to change as well. The Gladwell article posted earlier today is a good companion read to this piece, I thought.
- tel 18y agoFor me, the extra width worked rather well. When I first hit the site, the sidebar was hidden and I focused entirely on the article. At the end, I noticed the little white arrow cue and scrolled over to get extra information about Dustin and his website. I'm not certain if this was a premeditated design choice, but it actually played out very nicely.
- halo 18y agoAt least it shows the advantage of CSS - within 30s I managed to do View/Page Style/Basic Style and made the text with ridiculous leading readable. The quicker that this particular trend dies out the better - a font-size of 14px with a line-height of 30px doesn't make for easy-reading,