metrocafe311

Some of you may have picked up on the commentary this week around the launch of the new global Tourism Ireland website, Ireland.com - most of it pretty damning. (If you want to see some of the backlash, just type Ireland.com into Twitter search) There are numerous issues with the site in terms of brand, usability, information architecture and design, but i'm not going to list the problems, as others in the industry have already done a very good job of that (Stephanie Francis, UX designer at Engineyard gave a fair critique of the issues on her blog yesterday) I'm more interested in looking at how the design process might have resulted in the problems they're having, and what can be learned from that. 1. It starts with a good brief and a set of project objectives: If you're not totally confident writing a website brief, ask for help, ask an agency for a briefing template, or consult some experts to help define what you need. 2. Always prioritise the user and what they need to do: The marketing team or the designers themselves are *not* the target audience for a site. The difficulties Ireland.com users have reported in finding specific information and getting lost in a navigation maze, indicate that user requirements were not prioritised. Making sure internal stakeholders 'like' a site should never ever be a key objective - ensuring people can find what they need quickly and easily is much more important. 3. The user must always be at the centre of the process - prototype, test, iterate, test and iterate again: The interface design of Ireland.com is very unusual. No familiar website design patterns have been used, and the user is immediately a little confused on arriving at the site, even getting lost as they try to navigate through it. It was a brave move to try to do something innovative, and it *could* have been brilliant. But early prototyping and testing would certainly have highlighted some of the usability issues, allowing design problems to be fixed much earlier on in the process and resulting in a better site overall. (Plus, fixing major design problems later on in the process when coding is already underway will quickly put a huge hole in the budget!) 4. Design by committee will always spoil the end product: Too many cooks etc etc. My guess is that there were many different stakeholders on this project, all with a say in the interface design, photography style and copywriting. It's a tricky balancing act, as everyone will want to have their say, but ultimately, the project brief and objectives should lead the way, not subjective opinions, likes or dislikes. 5. Good sites require time, planning and process: Good work takes time. But, a good process incorporating understanding and research, clear objectives, and testing with users throughout to ensure these objectives are being met, will help to save time overall; spotting issues early on and allowing them to be fixed before they become a bigger headache. Project budgets can quickly spiral out of control when all of the issues listed above come into play - and immovable deadlines often mean that a site is launched when it really isn't ready. As my Irish teacher always said - Tús maith, leath na h-oibre! (a good start is half the work).