Or rather, why I hate the H&M website.
This situation seems to have improved over the years. Peacocks started with an annoyingly out of date but fairly usable website after their first “image change” (going from green to purple colour-wise).
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212180816/http://www.peacocks.co.uk/
They then went silly buggers and did some stupid thing in flash, where you couldn’t access any information about what they sold. Essentially as bad as the H&M website, but slightly better to navigate.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070107034200/www.peacocks.co.uk/index.asp?deptid=16
No. Damn. Information. At. All.
And since when did clothing stores publicise the names of their seasonal ranges or themes? (“stories” in Peacocks-employee land)
I then went there today to show you this horrid example, and actually found a much better site:
http://www.peacocks.co.uk/
So um, congrats Peacocks for finally getting it right. It’s even better than the Evans website now, which still uses those odd sideways flash things that makes me think of the generation game…
They actually didn’t go too bad.
But the worst offender is always… H&M.
Offenses:
1. You need Flash for anything to work, otherwise it redirects to a corporate website
2. Everything is in popups.
3. Once you’ve actually found the area for your country (which it does via you picking the country in an odd flash scrolling menu - eh, what happened to directing via geolocation?), there is very little information. Nothing about what is sold, ranges, anything. Just some random pictures of models wearing some clothing from the range, and not even enough clothing to be useful: it’s usually a pain to find prices too: which is odd - the main selling factor of H&M is the “ikea” factor to me: fairly ok disposable clothing at cheap prices, and they actually go further in sizes than primark: plus the fact that it’s never boring to be in there.
It seems they have realised this, and just relocated me to the corporate site for now until they fix it… but even the corporate site makes no sense: it mixes consumer and corporate informaton (I don’t think investors want to know about what measurements go with what sizes oddly) and it’s still a hodge-podge mess.
-ends rant-
Anyhoo, I referred to this article (courtesy of Gruber) about web design. What is said makes sense, and overall could be applied to almost all mass market consumer items. And I think this is what was bothering me: why can’t life be functional and beautiful? The Danes seem to have this belief in their mainstream architect designs: the UK things either have to look horrid and function well, or look great and not provide a great user experience. This leads to the annoying commonly held UK consumer belief that you can’t have something that functions well, looks good and is at a reasonable price.
Well I here to nag at people. To tell them they can have all three. In fact. great design should mean that a product is effortless from the consumer end, is beautiful in its own function/simplicity and is fairly cheap for the market to make and for the consumer to purchase.
Sometimes though, I don’t mind paying more for a “complete package”.
For example: pre washed and prepared vegetables in a microwavable container. Yes it is going to cost more for that convenience; you are paying for the person’s wages who prepared it, or the design that went into the machines that assembled it, the refrigeration it needed to get it across the country to the correct store. You pay for the ease of just picking up a box, shoving it another box, pressing a few buttons and then there’s food. The logic of this increases the more valuable your time is - if you have plenty of time, then preparing your own vegetables is definitely cheaper, provides more ability to customise what you eat and if you’re a good cook, will end up in a tastier end product for you.
Students or people who have a lot of time spare, tend to not appreciate this market at all and will rant about certain items being “cheaper”… well they are… if your time is not valued any higher than the price difference.
If I want hustle and bustle I go to a food market, and for this I get the possibility of getting cheaper and more interesting food, but it means I have to be free when markets are open, and have the time to chat about the food to the seller, or to haggle (much fun I must say: the buzz of a bargain cannot be beat!).
If I want a quick as possible shopping experience, with convenience then I’ll go to a supermarket. I pay extra than the food market for the ability to just waltz in, pick up food and buy. I should be able to trust the supermarket to be up to date with prices, special offer labels and suchlike. I shouldn’t have to check prices down the nearest penny, or check if a offer is still valid if the signs for it are still up. That’s what I pay the supermarket extra money for.
You get the idea.
So um, we get to computers.
People need to pick something based on their needs, how much they value their time, and how much they want to learn from a computer. Much like any other largish household purchase, such as a car, it needs to suit them and what they want to do with it.
Laptop? Weight is probably an issue Desktop? Weight is probably not an issue unless it goes to an extreme Size of Case? Depends on how much room you have, what room it is going to be in, whether it will be a media PC or not… Operating System? Preference, learning curve, time that can be invested…
You get the idea. This could be dismissed as aesthetics. But why should I suffer in my experience of a computer if given the choice not to? Why should I use a Peugeot 207 if I have the opportunity to use a Saab 9-5?
