Sometimes a full site redesign makes sense
Anti-redesign
There’s been a lot written lately about shirking comprehensive site redesigns in favor of slower, incremental roll outs of enhancements.
The reasons for this are simple: You can be nimbly reactionary. You can test out a concept outside the usability lab (which has has its inherent awkwardness) to see how it performs. If it does well, you can sit on it. Or better, refine it further to make it even better. If it fails, you can scrap it, start from scratch, then roll out something altogether new.
And then continue the circle.
I’m an advocate of this. It makes sense. Keeps you on your toes and honest about the fact that good enough can always be improved.
A different idea altogether…
A few weeks ago, I was the website of a local optician, Optix on Downer. I’m not sure how long their site has been live, but if you look at it, you’ll notice the following image in the left gutter near the page footer:
When you click it, you get the old site. Strange, eh? But interesting.
Part of me likes this idea. It says: Visitor, we know we may have thrown you a wrench by changing stuff around on you, but we like you, so we’ve provided you with an out to get back to the site you’re used to.
Part of me hates this idea. It says: Visitor, you’re a stodgy, unchanging beast. We want to make you happy with our new site, but you’re awfully hard to please. Also, we know there’s something wrong with this new site, so here’s an out. Feel free to never take the time to explore this new thing we spent so much time and money developing. We’re not going to make enhancements anyway.
Pros and cons of offering an out
Optix almost certainly doesn’t have a dedicated web department who can review analytics, do heuristic reviews, or use the bevy of other techniques out there to determine what’s failing and respond to it.
They’ve come up with an interesting approach to the full redesign, by allowing visitors to access the older, possibly more familiar site. But by doing this, they’re making new users ask too many questions: What am I missing on this new site that was on the old one? Do I have to troll that one, too, in order to find the info I’m looking for?
The new site has crisp, concise content, a sensible content architecture, and is pretty dapper looking to boot. Optix should be happy with how they’ve evolved and not focus on continually paying homage to the flashy dinosaur wreckage of their past.
The truth is, sometimes a full, significant redesign makes sense. I feel kind of icky saying that, but I guess occasionally you need to come face-to-face with the alteratives before you can face the facts.
