TAsunder wrote:Because you didn't realize they were ads, which makes them the best type of ads possible.
Let's say you're right tho'. You've just admitted you and Nielsen are wrong if those are the "best types of ads possible".
Of course that's a false statement too.
They are one kind of effective ad. And only one kind.
Oh if only people studied advertising for a living.
This isn't my first time around the internet block. I've been doing graphics since the '70's and doing web design since the '80's. It's hardly the first time I've encountered Neilsen's work. Lot's of people considered him wrong and a kook in 1995. I've read up on this stuff, sat thru the lectures, attended the conferences. He's got some good ideas. But just like the usability folks on the other end of the spectrum who told me we needed to switch to a Second Life style they both got one basic thing wrong.
They assume we all use the web the same way and want the same experience from it. People don't work like that. Some want all text. Some want an online 3D experience like Second Life. Most people want somewhere in the middle and even then it's driven my the specific site.
Neilsen went wrong when he wanted his ideas, again some of them good, to be RULES.
Look at Wagstaff's example above. One of his rules was pages couldn't take more then a second to download because people wouldn't wait any longer. Those of us designing websites knew in 1995 that was bullshit. How long people would wait depended on what they were waiting for. Today's weather? Yeah a second was about right. Pictures of Pam and Tommy Lee doin' it? People would gladly make a sandwich and wait. But Neilsen only saw one kind of user and then made RULES around that user.
People just don't all USE things exactly the same way. But for Neilsen's rules to work they all have to.
The other end of the spectrum is just as wrong. I'd personally rather use a yellow font on black background all text web page then spend 5 minutes in Second Life.
As I said before one size does not fit all.
BTW same thing goes for advertising. What makes for effective advertising is not one set of rules. It's many things. It depends on the product, it depends on what the advertiser wants the viewer to do, it depends on the intended audience. Any claims of "the most effective" form of advertising that doesn't address those things and many more factors is often gonna be wrong.
Because countless studies of users performing specific tasks on sites have confirmed this.
See above. It depends on what you define as effective.
The advertising that people who study advertising consider the best or most effective pretty much always involves graphics.
These VW ads are classics. They're known for being very effective and for pretty much starting the idea that an ad didn't need much text to work. They're considered game changers by people who study advertising.
30 years before Neilsen.http://www.greatvwads.com/
You forgot the part where you get a PHD in the field. Where's your PHD in this field, BTW, that you think that you are somehow equally qualified?
You can't get a PHD in art or graphic design.
Plus I'm old enough to have met a lot of PHDs who weren't all that "expert". I certainly don't take it as a guarantee of expertise.
Am I more qualified when it comes to usability? Nope. I'd say I know a LOT more about graphic design and actually making websites then Neilsen. I also know a lot more about how people react to art. Hint, not everyone reacts in the same way.
Sorry but I'm not going to take the word of an expert who admits to not knowing much about graphic design and then tells me it's not important on the web anyway.
I'm not an expert on usability. I've had to study it tho' and I'd never say it's not important. Lot's of good ideas in the field. And obviously it's an important field when it comes to something like web design. But then so are sociology, design, art, writing and advertising. I wouldn't take advice on good web design from anyone who only focused on one of those fields either.
Plenty of other people with PHDs who get themselves hired as "experts" in usability disagree with Neilsen. So if the experts can't agree I'm gonna go with the idea that they all have a bit of truth to show us, but I wouldn't trust the ideas of just one of 'em.
If you can't ignore effective advertising then I suggest you actually do some research on eyetracking and effective web advertising, because at this point it seems you haven't even done a cursory look into it.
Actually I've done a lot of looking at it. It's a flawed method for gauging effectiveness of web advertising. It's not without value, but it clearly doesn't tell us everything about the web and how people use it. Or really anything about what makes an effective ad.
Frankly at this point I can't believe people still defend Neilsen's ideas. The growth of web usage and the ways people choose to use the web prove most of his ideas were wrong. Just like some experts back in the day were saying.
Once again, one size does not fit all.
PS I totally understand not wanting to see ads. Say it as a personal preference and I'll get your back. Just don't pretend the science is in on this stuff.