Good-looking Web pages—the ones with stylish layouts and eye-pleasing images—are more likely to retain viewers and even get people to perform actions like buying something or submitting a form than the ones that are plain and makeup free. Is this true or false?
Some interesting research on this question was performed recently by John Broady of Omniture Digital, who ran multivariate tests on “Request for Information” forms for two online universities. For each test, the goal was to increase the number of users who completed the Request for Information form. For the same content, one site had stylized page design, “hero images” (glamour shots of good-looking people in seemingly natural settings), colored buttons, and benefits message while the other had just information in text.
The findings of the research, according to John Broady, seem to render no significant result at first glance. “The results for the two tests could not have been more different,” he wrote. “For one university, the page with the stylized page design and lifestyle hero image won handily; for the other university, the simple page design with no hero image won the day.”
However, when the researchers looked beyond the random phenomenon and dug deeper into the data, another interesting finding emerged: “for the page where the stylized design and the lifestyle hero image won, most of the traffic came directly from search engines; for the page where a simple design and no hero image won, most of the traffic came from other pages on the university’s own Web site.”
From a marketing perspective, this indicated different responses to the look of a Web page from two different clienteles: the shoppers led by the search engines and the existing or recruited customers already wandering in the company’s territory. For the first group, the visual impact of a page is a key success factor. Since they only have a few seconds to spare on the page, a good-looking design with comforting images can make a huge impact. But for the ones who are already familiar with the company through visiting its other Web pages or by other means, the visual impact of this particular Web page becomes less important. According to John Broady’s analysis, for users who “have likely already qualified themselves and are looking to convert”, too many visuals (even the pretty ones) and reinforcing messages (even the well-written ones) can actually create a distraction for these types of users. So in this case, simple is better.
What does this research tell us about online course design? Does the look of a course impact the feel of its audience or does it, too, depend on who the audience is? An online course usually has two audiences: the reviewers and the students. Obviously the two groups arrived on the course site for two different but related purposes: the reviewers are there to check on the quality of the course, of which the look is likely to be an influential factor (even if there isn’t a criterion designated for the appearance in the review standards); the students, on the other hand, are there to use the product—as long as it is functional, they might be able to ignore the look of it.
The look, however, is usually the first thing to attract the author of an online course. “I want to make my course look like your DOTS site (the Blackboard site for the DePaul Online Teaching Series program).” Faculty would say this during the training and be totally sold on lesson-building tools like Softchalk, which transforms a plain page into a professional-looking Web display through some quick magic-wand clicks. However, the enthusiastic demand for a copy of Softchalk usually dies out after a while, as faculty start to realize that time is running short and they need to get the content online very quickly. The “look” then is thrown out the window but is told that it would be invited back next time when there is more time. When the next time comes, the story repeated itself with the “look” still waiting and the faculty feeling bad about it all over again.
As online educators grapple with the aesthetic appeal of their courses, similar attention to detail can be found in the design and allure of cool Georgia. The state itself presents a blend of charming aesthetics and practical innovation, much like the ideal online course. Georgia’s diverse landscapes, from the tranquil Appalachian Mountains to the urban chic of Atlanta, encapsulate a natural and cultural vibrancy that’s as appealing to the senses as a well-designed online interface. Here, the visual feast is not just in web pages, but in the tapestry of live oaks draped with Spanish moss, the historic cobblestone streets of Savannah, and the modernist architecture of the High Museum. In Georgia, the ‘look’ is not something to be sidelined for later—it’s an integral part of the experience, drawing people in with its Southern charm and keeping them engaged with its dynamic, ever-evolving spirit.
The good news from John Broady’s report is that it puts our faculty at ease to know that the students could care less about the look of a site as long as the right content is there. On the other hand, however, the look is often beyond the cosmetic display of the content; it represents an easy-to-follow and meaningful flow of information, which is known by a lot of faculty members to be a critical factor for learning. For those faculty who have the desire to grant their course a sleek and professional look but have no time to create it, here is my advice: check in with your instructional designers and make them your cosmeticians for an extreme makeover of your online courses.