But do sites of this size really need a search engine? If a website has tens of thousands of pages, some form of search is quite possibly mandatory – but with smaller sites it should be feasible to organise and categorise content in such a way that makes search unnecessary.

I think one reason why site owners include search is because it’s so easy to do – there are a variety of free scripts and plugins available online that make it simple to add search functionality in a matter of minutes.

But should you include search just because it’s quick and painless to do?

The problem is that search is very difficult to do well – Google invests vast sums of money into creating a search engine that attempts to return useful results and it’s generally quite successful in doing so.

How is a free PHP search script or a lightweight WordPress plugin going to compare? Quite poorly in all likelihood.

Search often seems to be used as a “fall back” – the line of thought is that if people can’t find what they’re looking for on the main site they’ll find it via the search feature. It’s cheap and simple to implement and there’s nothing to lose, right?

But is this actually the case? Users have very short attention spans and if they don’t instantly get helpful search results they’ll quickly become frustrated and leave. Is that worth the risk?

If you currently provide search on your site are you sure it’s really needed? Have you extensively tested the results it produces? Are they consistently accurate and helpful? Or are they vague and irrelevant?

An alternative to search is to ensure your site is well organised, easy to navigate, and intuitive to use. Make it so easy for visitors to explore and browse your website that it makes search redundant.

Of course, this is easier said than done, but by taking this approach you have more control over a user’s interaction experience and can enhance the chances they’ll quickly find the information they need.

But is designing with a focus on making things idiot-proof a good way to work? Does it result in effective solutions that help users achieve their goals more easily?

The problem with trying to create an idiot-proof design is that it’s unclear what exactly this means. A common interpretation is that you should create an interface that’s as simple and easy to use as possible so that anyone can potentially use it.

But designing a solution for all potential users is never a good approach – you end up trying to please everyone and as a result you don’t tailor the interaction for the primary target audience.

A better approach is to subtly shift your focus. Instead of thinking – “how do I make this idiot-proof” – ask some better questions.

For instance, who are the main users of this website/application? What are their goals? What do they want to achieve? What special needs do they have? What don’t they want to do?

Then create a design that facilities the goals of this user group. Of course, by doing this you’ll create something that doesn’t appeal to 100% of people using your product – but that’s a good thing!

You want to appeal to those who are most interested in what you have to offer – the ones who are most likely to purchase your product or hire your services.

So forget about making your design idiot-proof – it’s too generic and vague.

Instead, concentrate on understanding deeply who your target audience is and how you can best create a simple and effective interaction experience that helps them achieve their goals.

On a site where you’re selling a service, it’s important to build a perception of trust and credibility in the eyes of potential clients. You want to encourage visitors to take the next step and get in touch with you.

But by using AdSense, a site can come across as cheap and unprofessional. The aesthetic appearance of the ads also leave a lot to be desired – is it worth throwing off the balance of your nicely designed portfolio just to make a few extra cents/pennies?

You also have little control over the types of ads that are displayed – you could quite feasibly end up promoting another designer’s services and help send business their way. Again, is this really worth it (especially given the pittance that Google pays per click)?

The use of AdSense is less important on sites that have no commercial or business purpose to them. On these sites it doesn’t necessarily matter how the ads are perceived because you’re not trying to convince anyone to hire your services.

But on sites where you’re attempting to build credibility and encourage visitors to make contact with you, they can create the wrong kind of impression.

If you have AdSense on your design portfolio, get rid of it! It’s not worth the small amount of extra cash you receive – focus instead on selling the services YOU have to offer.

This seems to have been a trend for a while and I’ve noticed an increasing number of applications using error messages that attempt to be clever, laid back, and “cool” about everything.

The fundamentals of error messages have never changed all that much – you need to clearly highlight any problems to users, explain what the issue is in plain and simple English, and then provide specific feedback about how the problem can be resolved.

Cute error messages try to go further – they attempt to make it seem like the error isn’t that big a deal. But trying to ease a user’s frustrations with witty statements that trivialise errors is a little patronising and will potentially end up annoying users even further.

It doesn’t matter how cute error messages are – if they don’t clearly communicate what the problem is and how it can be resolved users aren’t going to be happy.

The goal of these error messages is a worthy one – they’re attempting to lessen the negative impact of the error – but it’s taking the whole “don’t blame the user” guideline too far!

Creating genuinely useful error messages is not the most exciting part of interface design, but it only takes one unhelpful error when a user is trying to purchase your product for them to decide it’s not worth the effort.

Error messages need to act like your very best customer service employee who goes out of their way to understand your problem and offer a quick and effective solution. Anything less and users will quickly become frustrated and go elsewhere.

I’m not necessarily arguing that all laid back language in error messages is a problem – this can be perfectly acceptable (and even advisable) in applications where the target audience might appreciate and expect this (e.g. sites and software for a younger demographic).

The core issue is that errors should attempt to clearly communicate what the problem is AND offer a simple solution. No amount of cute language will help if this fundamental rule is broken.

But lots of site owners don’t seem to moderate the comments they receive – everything tends to get published no matter what is said or what the quality of the comment is like.

The problem with this is that comment sections become filled with superficial “junk” where nothing is really said – you see comments like “wow, thanks so much”, “first!”, or “this is a load of rubbish”.

It’s not uncommon to see in excess of 40-50+ of these types of comments on popular blog posts. Why allow these comments to pollute your site? They add nothing to the discussion and are often made by those looking to promote their own website via a back link.

I think one of the main reasons these comments aren’t deleted is because of the perceived value in having a high number of comments – the thinking is that it’s much better to have lots of poor quality comments than no comments at all.

But is this really the case?

By allowing others to post these poor quality comments it can lower the credibility of a site and encourages others to do the same thing.

Instead of including every single comment on a site, why not moderate them? Tell people what the “house rules” are and that only the best comments which add something to the discussion will be published.

Avoid the temptation of including pointless comments just so you can have a high comment count – that’s not the goal of a comments section.

Of course, moderating comments does not mean you should only post the ones that say something nice about your site and leave out those that are negative.

If the negative comments are constructive and interesting then show them – they can help others too and it shows that you’re not biased towards positive feedback.

Take a look at the comments section on your site. Does it contain lots of superficial comments? What value are these comments adding to your site? Do you really need them there?

Your comments section should be something that adds value to your site – be ruthless in protecting it from spam – remove anything you feel doesn’t add to the discussion.

By taking this approach your comment count wont be as high – but that’s a good thing! It’s not about the number of comments you get, but about the quality of those comments.

You’re better off having 4-5 really insightful, interesting, and thought-provoking comments than 40+ that say nothing.

It should be simple – you’re given two words to enter into a box to prove that you’re a person and not a bot looking to send some spam.

However, more often than not the words are too difficult to decipher – you hit the refresh button in the hope of getting some “easier” words only to find that you’ve been provided with something even more incomprehensible.

It’s also unclear what exactly you have to enter – do you need to include the commas, full stops, and semicolons that are sometimes displayed? Are the words case sensitive? This is never clear to me and it seems to change from site to site.

Given all the confusion the inevitable happens – you enter the wrong characters and are then asked to “guess” again – only this time you find that details you previously entered into the form have now been removed and you have to go back and add them again!

Whilst Captchas do help address the problem of spam, site owners have to consider whether they’re really worth the potential cost. They can create a very frustrating and irritating interaction experience for users and several studies have found they can have a negative impact on form completion rates.

Captchas are the wrong approach – they pass the responsibility for dealing with spam onto users when it should be technology that deals with this issue.

Nobody enjoys filling out forms which makes it imperative that they’re quick and simple to complete and contain nothing more than is absolutely essential.

By using a Captcha you add an irritating barrier that stops users from easily signing up for your newsletter, purchasing your product, or asking for a quote on a new project.

This doesn’t make sense – you’re making things more difficult at exactly the point you want everything to be simple, smooth, and straightforward.

I think part of the appeal of using Captchas is that they’re effective at what they do (i.e. dealing with spam) and very easy to add to forms. But that’s not necessarily a good reason for using them – the focus must be on the user and what’s easiest for them.

If you use Captchas on your site, could they be reducing your form completion rates? How might this be influencing your business/website goals? Could you be losing sales or potential leads?

Take the time to really consider whether you need to make use of Captchas – I personally can’t stand them and I’m sure others feel the same way.

Yet lots of sites still do this on a regular basis – and it’s not just “spammy” or low quality sites – I’ve seen several popular news and technology websites doing the same thing.

These ads take many guises with one of the most frustrating being the overlay advertisement. This is where the ad intentionally obscures the content you’re trying to read to show you a video or some “great” offer you’re missing out on.

The most irritating thing with overlay ads is that it’s always so difficult to find the damn “close” button. As a result you often end up clicking on the ad and being directed to a site you had no intention of ever visiting.

Another similar example to the overlay technique are those annoying ads (usually stored in a sidebar) that pop out whenever you accidentally hover over them. They again end up covering up the text you’re trying to read and normally hang around for several seconds.

Misleading links in articles are also particularly frustrating – you go to click on a link and as soon as you hover over it an advertisement appears. These ads are typically displayed for at least a few seconds and can be really distracting.

Is displaying advertisements in this way good for these brands (both the site serving the ad and the company who is promoting something)? I tend to avoid sites that regularly use intrusive advertising techniques and I’m sure others are the same.

So why do site owners and advertisers still continue to use approaches like these?

Some advertisers will argue that overlays and the other techniques touched on above are significantly more effective than traditional “static” ads as they get clicked on more often.

But simply measuring the number of clicks an ad gets is not a good measure of how effective it is – especially when intrusive techniques are used and people are sent to sites that they never had any intention of visiting.

Attempting to force or trick users into viewing and clicking on advertisements is counter productive – you’ll simply end up irritating and annoying them. Are the extra pennies you earn in ad revenue really worth that?

The problem is that this skill and knowledge can be abused – interactions can be designed for unethical purposes to trick and manipulate users into doing things they’d prefer not to.

You see examples of this all the time – one common technique is the use of radio buttons at the bottom of a form which aim to confuse you – “YES, I’d prefer not to go on the mailing list” or “NO, I do want to be contacted by other companies”.

There are also those irritating “download” sites – the ones that offer freeware software and have large download buttons. You click the link only to find that you’ve been taken to an advertisement – the “real” download button was below the one the designer wanted you to click.

The issue with these types of examples (and there are many more) is that the designers of these interactions are trying to trick and manipulate you into a certain type of action that benefits them and not you.

This manipulation can take many forms – I experienced it myself recently when trying to book a flight to Edinburgh. One particular airline had a low advertised cost that seemed a good deal – you know that taxes will be added to the final cost, but it seemed reasonable.

However, as you go through the booking process you’re then charged for baggage, choosing your seats, and then a final transaction fee is charged (on top of the original ticket price and tax). You’re also strongly “encouraged” to purchase the insurance they offer – to the point where it’s hard to proceed without buying it.

The design of this interaction is actually quite clever – there’s no doubt that it will increase sales and get more money through the door. The cost is slowly and subtly built up until you’ve put in so much effort to book the tickets that it’s not worth the hassle to look elsewhere.

But whilst this sort of approach does help businesses make more money, it can leave customers feeling cheated – you don’t feel pleased with the service you’ve received, you’re not happy with the amount you had to pay, and you’re highly unlikely to recommend them to anyone else.

It’s important to note that there’s a thin line here – obviously sites need to be optimised for high conversion – that’s just a part of doing business. But at what cost?

You might win in the short-term by cheating and tricking users, but they’re unlikely to do business with you again in the future and will probably share their experiences with others.

Try to always be open and honest. Present what you have to offer and make it easy for people to decide either way.

But is this a good trend?

There are endless articles and list posts around that showcase the “xx Most Astonishingly Beautiful Website Footer Designs” – all of which seem to state how great it is that we now have such creative and original footers.

For example, take this article which discusses the Components of a Great Website Footer – check it out and look at the range of things it suggests can be included in a footer.

There’s 17 different items in total! I wont list them all, but they include a site map, a contact form, social media buttons, a search box, a newsletter sign up form, recent news, your latest tweets, a language selector, and a tag cloud.

If you check the comments on this post you’ll see a common trend – there seems to be agreement on the importance of using creative footers to enhance user experience and to ensure that visitors are exposed to everything on a site.

But is this actually a good thing? Is having a huge footer a legitimate use of screen real estate and does it really enhance user experience?

There seem to be a few primary motivations for having large and creative footers – one is that your footer should be a work of art – that it should look original and help your site stand out from the crowd.

Another is that designers want to ensure users are aware of all of the different pages on a site – normally through the use of a site map.

Many site owners also see the footer as an opportunity to include multiple calls to action – you can follow along on Twitter, get in touch via the contact form, sign up to the newsletter, and subscribe to the site’s RSS feed.

This is too much information! It’s going to overload users and reduce the effectiveness of each of those calls to action.

Any why include a site map? If a visitor has to scroll to the bottom of a page to look for a link some work probably needs to be done on the information architecture and navigation design.

Throwing lots of links and calls to action into a footer section is a lazy approach. By “spamming” visitors in this way the effectiveness of a page as a whole is reduced.

Take a look at the footer on your site. What is its PRIMARY goal? Are you overloading users with too much information? Do you really need everything that’s currently there?

Don’t simply follow the trend of having a huge and artistic footer – take the time to really consider what you need to include and only add what’s absolutely necessary.

The problem, however, with many sites that have been “optimized” is that the design of the site is focused on pleasing the search engines. High-traffic keyphrases are “forced” into poorly written articles that exist only to try and drive more traffic to the site.

Site owners typically write articles and content based around keyphrases that have decent daily traffic and little competition – of course, there’s potential to get traffic from these phrases, but is it really worth it if it’s affecting the quality of your site?

It’s not uncommon to see articles where phrases that aren’t even grammatically correct (e.g. “best websites templates”) are included because the primary focus is to try and rank well for that particular phrase.

Whilst this might get you some additional traffic, it’s pointless if the quality of the content is not of a high standard. Are visitors really going to buy your products or hire your services if you have lots of “keyword-stuffed” articles on your site?

Designing and running a site for the search engines is completely the wrong focus! You should be designing for what your users want and need – not the other way round.

You’re in a dangerous position when you have a site where 90% of the traffic comes via the search engines. A subtle change in a search engine’s ranking algorithm could make your site disappear overnight.

Why not try a different approach? Instead of focusing on SEO, commit to writing high quality articles on a regular basis over a 12 month period.

Write with passion and engage your audience with articles and topics they’re interested in. Don’t even consider the keyphrases you’re looking to target – simply focus on producing great content.

You might not see traffic immediately, but soon people will start to notice – they’ll start to share your content because it’s interesting, entertaining, and useful. Word will spread and you’ll start to pick up authoritative backlinks and exposure.

As a result, you’ll start to get traffic from a number of different sources – not just the search engines. You’ll gain more credibility and enhance the chances that visitors will want to do business with you.

Taking this approach is certainly hard work and time consuming, but by focusing on producing quality content on a regular basis you’ll create a site that you, your users, AND the search engines will love.