mediajunk

A study of health-related websites has revealed findings that should be heeded by all web publishers.

The results of the health site study were reported in The Times last week:

Research at Northumbria University has identified the factors that get most sites passed by: too much detail, too much advertising, or too general a portal that involves lengthy searching.

The report revealed that users do not like having to spend a long time searching or browsing websites. Scrolling through long passages of text was off-putting, as were advertisements.

Most tellingly, users rarely disliked a site simply because its content lacked quality, with only 8% of participants listing poor content as a turn-off. Design factors, on the other hand, were much more decisive in the acceptance or rejection of a site.

Design, including issues such as layout, navigation aids, use of colour, pop-up advertisements, small print, too much text, a "corporate look and feel" and poor search facilities, were listed by 94 per cent.

Large corporate or portal-type sites were usually rejected by the participants in favour of sites that had an authentic -- even home-made -- feel, and those which offered personal stories.

I believe this study's findings may well apply to other types of website, not just health sites. Recently I gave my views on what makes an authentic website (basically, you know one when you see one).

Companies and organisations should consider replicating the homely, personal authentic feel of "labour-of-love" type websites if they are to achieve success in disseminating information. Perhaps the only way to do this is to recruit and promote passionate webmasters or writers within their ranks?