Lol, aside from designers feeling like they are the top of the food-chain it means that superfluous design can ruin conversion. Terrible way to proposition folks to convert on this pop-up tho.
Why is it a terrible way to get people to convert? The popup is clearly oriented towards people who have been frustrated by designers, not designers.
I'm not saying its always a terrible way to get people to convert, but that sometimes the way something is designed goes against the best way to convert.
source article, for context: http://unbounce.com/design/is-your-designer-killing-your-conversions/
She isn't wrong. About conversion-centered design and all.
I find the tone of this article really jarring. Can't place my finger on it precisely. Maybe it's because it's constantly referring to "your designer". As if they're some kind of slave.
Kind of makes me feel like writing an article about how to "get your marketer to do what you want". Sure, we're all resources, but we're human as well.
I guess that's exactly it. The UX of this article is aimed 100% at marketers. Only if a designer reads it they might feel somewhat insulted? Not a great way to cooperate. Not exactly an article marketers can forward to "their" designers, to up-skill them easily.
Maybe they should, you know, talk and listen to their designers a bit more.
But that's the hook in the article. It's meant to resonate on an emotional level – not as a rational conversation.
I'm not saying it's right. It is, however, very effective if you're laser-focused on a particular audience – and it is the same technique that Donald Trump uses.
I agree with the issue (designers ignoring conversion over looks) but I think the tone set in this article is counterproductive to the issue itself.
I understand taking an emotional approach. In certain cases, that's a great idea. Just in this particular one, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
But whereas this kind of user-centered design focuses solely on a user accomplishing their own goals, conversion-centered design is focused towards having the user complete a single business goal.
This can seem like a huge shift, but the goal is essentially the same: getting the user what they need with the least friction possible.
Oh cool, I never realised that user needs and business goals were interchangeable like that. /s
That graph that implied all technology tends toward persuasion and manipulation was pretty damn creepy, too. I really thought that after “helping users take action” the internet was going in a more helpful “trying to understand needs well enough that less user action is required” direction. I feel like these differing viewpoints might be the source of the tension referred to in the headline…
hmmm. I wonder who designed (sabotaged) her popup. lol
The designer don't know that because content on the popup is text and might be changed later on. :P
Designers don't kill conversions, popups do...
There is no standards body or licensing program for designers, and very often people will call themselves designers when in fact they are illustrators, developers, or something else. The person who thought up this popup has not worked with honest-to-goodness designers, so their experiences have been poor.
Designers, of course, worry about whether a thing achieves its goals more than how novel it looks.
Cool Designers Wikipedia Club
Not relevant at all.
By way of example, I am a non-astrophysicist. It wouldn’t be accurate to say that I’m not a “true” astrophysicist—I’m simply not qualified to call myself an astrophysicist at all, not even a terrible one. There are basic competencies foundational to the practice, and I have none of them. If I called myself an astrophysicist but couldn't define thermodynamics competently, or demonstrate a working understanding of relativity, that would make me a liar, or at least bafflingly wrong.
Design may be a little looser than astrophysics, but it’s still a word that has meaning, especially in context. In the exact same way that I am definitely not an astrophysicist, people who (1) don't concern themselves with whether a product achieves its goals and (2) don't exercise a reasonable process for solving problems in a goal-oriented way are in no way designers. They are not even aspiring to do design. They could be excellent visual artists, but that’s not a substitute for actual design skill.
If a person doesn’t do the work of design and doesn’t understand how to do that work, in what sense could we possibly call them a designer?
"Design may be a little looser than astrophysics" may be the understatement of the year. The definition of design is fractured even within the design community.
Example: Let's say we agree that problem-solving is fundamental to design; who is to say that an artist has no claim that artwork is solving problems of the heart/ego/society/etc. Why can't an illustrator claim that sketches that spice up your boring ass HTML email template are solving the problem of your HTML email template being boring? Further, why can't a medical device designer make the claim that not a single designer at Facebook is a true designer because frankly social media/advertising panopticons aren't true problems in the first place?
Ah, I know who can claim that. You. Because you're a true designer. And that's why it's a fallacy.
I guess I'm fine with illustrators claiming that their work solves problems, so long as they define the problem they're solving, and their work is plausibly intended to solve the problem as defined. Then you could perhaps call them designers, albeit with a limited range of design competency. I want to make explicit, though, that if we expand the definition of “designer” to apply as broadly as that, it applies to everyone—developers, restauranteurs, and basketball players—and therefore loses all possible usefulness as a word.
When “designers” take a project, ignore all of the client’s goals, and set out solely to make things pretty instead, you could argue that they’re solving the problem of the product looking ugly. They might be designing in that sense, but I would expect you to agree that they’re nonetheless not filling the design role that they were hired to solve. They’re at best the wrong kind of designer.
If I hire an “interior designer” to help sell a house by improving its appeal in photos, and he decides to (very competently) repair the wiring instead, should I call him a bad interior designer or should I call him an electrician? Maybe you could argue that he’s technically an interior designer in a way that would only be considered persuasive at a philosophy conference, but either way, he doesn’t even fail at solving my problem; he never tried.
While I agree with you in general terms, you're disconsidering bad designers.
Poorly designed things often fall short of achieving goals, but the maker behind it is still a designer.
Morbid curiosity got the better of me reading the article and before I knew it I'd filled in the popup to see what the video tips were.
I dunno. At what point do you sacrifice business goals for happy users, and vice versa? For example, I hate those pop-up e-mail grabs as part of the user experience but you can't deny that they work.
Ultimately, there has to be a compromise, but this image (and the article provided) don't seem to be working towards that. If anything it comes off as "Yeah, you're designer is wrong." Just in general rubs me the wrong way.
I wonder if she did the design herself :D
Oh, the irony.
Jen understands the importance of designing pages that are both beautiful and highly-optimized for conversion.