May 04, 2004 | View Comments (16) | Category: Version 2
Summary: How I would approach the IMDB redesign.
I have heard that some people may be intimidated at attempting the redesign of IMDB because of the site's complexity. In my opinion these type of redesigns are much easier to do than a site that has little to no content. Any design should be based around the content and as I am sure many will attest to here, getting content from a client can be a time-consuming venture that stalls many design schedules.
So I thought I would impart my infinite wisdom upon everyone and offer my suggestions as to how I see the redesign of IMDB. I plan on starting my version this weekend. Time to eat my dog food so to speak and see how this Version 2 contest works. Let's get started.
The difficult thing about the IMDB site is that with so many sections you have to weed out what is important and what is not. If you interviewed 10 different users of the site I am sure you would get 12 different answers in regards to what parts of the site that they use.
However, web design is similar to newspaper design in that you only have so much space to fit important information. Newspapers always have a front story that dominates the space and grabs the reader's attention. When the reader is done with the article they continue on to the rest. Some web designers treat their websites like once a reader reads one part, they will skip out and leave the site without reading anything else and therefore they try to make every section visible.
Again with the redesign you have to apply your own view to the site. Some people will view your site and notice some things missing, while others won't even recognize that something is missing. This is what makes this contest a learning experience.
When looking at the navigation what stands out to me is how much it is hidden. If these sections are important they should stand out more, if not then the impact of the navigation on the design is justified.
Shhhh, I have a secret. Nielsen used to be a full-time web designer. He made one site and was promptly fired. IMDB was that site (love ya Jakob, can't say the same for Andrei ;-). Use colors to help the sections stand out. When I think of movies I think of entertainment. Movies get me happy and excited. The current color scheme makes me feel like I am taking a trip to the library.
Those are the three main issues I will most likely focus on. The best piece of advice I an offer is take away from the site. There are so many unnecessary elements plastered onto the homepage that the first stage of the redesign should be just to start crossing out some sections with a marker (not on your monitor though).
So there it is. Now I have to go back to work and get embarrassed by all the wonderful entries compared to mine.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/227
My redesign process was:
Look at who is using the website (forums etc), what is the target audience? What is the website's aims? What do you think their long-term aims are (not too hard to figure out).
Once I did that, the next step was... what information is relevant? How can this be designed so that the most important things are easy to access?
After that it was a simple case of design and coding. The entire process took me about 6 hours (Spread over a few days). The easiest part was the research and initial plans - mainly because i've done a lot of HCI. All I had to do after that was decide on a colour scheme (aimed at the target audience) and provide a simplistic interface.
Thought i'd share as well, I see no harm in it.
Robert Lofthouse
Cool, an article inspired by my comment! Thanks for post, Scrivs, I love the Nielsen story, and your suggestions are on the money.
BTW, what was the scrollbar solution?
Hasan (http://hass.spikehost.net)
Well I used the temporary fix of 99.99% width on the nav bar.
Robert, the more people who decide to share their thoughts on their own design process the better. It helps everyone learn.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Another key thing to looks out for is "grouping" of links. Have a look at what they have on offer, see what links are useless, which ones can be put under a "main" category etc etc. I created two sets of navigation for two types of users, you might be able to figure that out as well.
You don't even have to use any of the content, how do you think a database site should look? how have you always envisioned it? It's a redesign, that means you can have whatever you want on the website.
What elements do you feel are the most important on a website that interacts with databases to provide information? what do the users go there for? Based on those questions, what should stand out?
I'm trying not to repeat what Scrivs said, although he did give you great hints and tips at what to do. I'm just trying to expand on it a bit.
There is no point in keeping information to yourself, so you may as well share :P
Robert Lofthouse
Everyone comes to the IMDb for a different reason, and the link(s) they want have to be on the front page. This is because the IMDb is what I call a bookmark and visit (instead of a one-time visit) site. People bookmark it, and then visit it in their daily routine to find out movie news, new DVD's, or what's playing near them. If the links they want are three clicks in, it can get pretty frustrating to remember where the information is, and physically click and wait to get there. The first-time visitor must also be catered to; but I think it's impossible to guess exactly what information he wants. So I say put it all on. (There's a reason IMDb.com , Amazon.com, and CNN.com have a lot of information/links on their homepage.)
So the challenge becomes ranking the information and fitting it all on, while still maintaining aesthetics and usability. Which information to put above the fold, below the fold, which boxes to emphasize/de-emphasize (alter size, color, placement) ... I thought about it all.
Then Photoshop layout and coding. I think that since you have given us specifications about the XHTML, the voters/judges should look more closely into it. Is it as semantic as it could be?
I'm looking forward to viewing your entry, scrivs. :)
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
Indeed, I think that the judges should rate a site based on its:
Code (is it structured logically, does it validate)
CSS techniques (is the code sloppy, could it be more efficient)
Does it cater for the web site's target audience
Is the information presented well visually
Does it work in most browsers
Does it consider accesibility, and
Is it ORIGINAL.
I have no idea why judges/voters pick people who cram as much information onto their front page as possible, it's confusing. Visually appealing they may be, structured well they are not. (Having a Yoda moment)
Robert Lofthouse
off topic but why was their a scrollbar situation anyways?
I noticed that the other day and was like UGH
Bryan (http://www.gamecubecheats.info)
I'm by no means a famous or even mildly succesful designer, but here's what I did.
First thought: What's the most important thing on the entire page.
Obvious; the search field. Does anyone really read movie of the day features? From my own experience, no. With the most important thing in place, I tried to group sections, in ways that, I felt, made any sense. A good deal of them were cut away, even though I still feel cluttered with sections.
Ended up with four sections:
General IMDB sections
User specific bits (bookmarks, my movies)
IMDB features (like trailers, top 250 films and the birthday feature, which I imagine actually gets quite a few hits, immediately accessible and interesting - "hey thats the guy from that one movie")
And finally "The World", which is basically everything outside IMDB.
A whole lot of navigation, which is a lot more complicated than most sites I've done. I've been looking to cut stuff away, but decided to leave it as is.
Brian Andersen (http://www.brian-andersen.dk)
Hmm, that's an interesting approach.
I simply ended up with: A member specific navigation section, and an "all user" specific navigation. I also did the same as you and made sure that the "search" feature was a focal point. It has to be the first thing the user see's on the page (besides the header).
IMDB are all about searching, and providing endless amounts of information. They don't really create their "own" content, it's just facts mainly.
To really get a feel of who the target audience is, just spend some time reading the messages on their message board. That will help you with colour schemes etc.
I stayed away from using whites/greys (a lot of people have used those colours in their designs, in the past competitions), and any corporate design techniques.
IMDB isn't a corporate site, they don't need happy business people stock photos, they don't need a pretentious line in the header (unless part of a theme) and they certainly don't need a crammed information architecture - i.e bits of information on every part of the page, especially if there are no distinctive borders surrounding it.
Robert Lofthouse
I have no idea why judges/voters pick people who cram as much information onto their front page as possible, it's confusing.
How is it confusing? A lot of information can be displayed in a small area, just as long as there's a layout present that can organize the information and make it readable and therefore make the site usable. As I mentioned before, CNN.com has a lot of information on its front page, and it employs a good layout in order to make it usable.
Does anyone really read movie of the day features? From my own experience, no.
And what does that experience consist of? You and your wife don't read the movie of the day stories? It may be true that many don't read them, but it's probably also true that some do read them. And even if thats not what you visit the site for, you might see one that cathces your eye (your first date in 1980?) and read it. I think the IMDb without a lot of content wouldn't be the IMDb at all.
They don't really create their "own" content, it's just facts mainly.
They don't, eh? What about Celebrity News, Studio Briefings, Movie of the Day, Meet the Actor, and opening movie articles? It is based around the database (hence the name of the site), but I think that the people who write for them generate content that is a solid, working part of the site as a whole, and should not be removed.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
Thomas:
especially if there are no distinctive borders surrounding it.
That is what followed what you quoted, which is exactly what you regurgitated, only you referred to it as "layout" in general.
Again, you should really be careful when you read things: "They don't, eh? What about Celebrity News"
Most of the things on that website are taken from other sources, or it is based on their database of information. The amount of things on that site that is actually "theirs" is minimal, you'll find that mostly users of the site contribute to it.
The primary feature on the website is the search feature, secondary features are the showtimes etc and so on.
This is a redesign Thomas, a complete restructure of the Information Architecture. As it stands that website's IA AND HCI is a complete mess. My redesign incorporates the main features, but doesn't overwhelm the user. It also ensures that the number 1 feature on that site stands out.
I'm sick to death of seeing clone sites following the current trends for business sites, and i've seen quite a few in the past competitions.
You just sounded like someone who got completely burned. Accept others opinions. Oh, and if you actually asked the users of that website what they use/don't use.. then maybe you'd get somewhere. Again, you're relying on your own opinion of what should be there, much like what you slammed Brian for doing.
I really do hate the way kids slam you with their opinions. No offence Thomas, you're a good designer.. but learn to be less offensive, and learn to accept others opinions.
The only thing I agree with you about is: You need to ask the users what they want, you can't rely on your own opinions of a website.
Robert Lofthouse
Oh, and IMO CNN's website is overwhelming. I have no idea where to look first when I enter that website. Somebody completely screwed up the HCI on that one.
Robert Lofthouse
One last comment before I get back to work: Thomas, turn the author style sheet off on cnn.com in opera. Then also view it in text browser mode... how considerate.
Robert Lofthouse
First of all, I'm not commending CNN for their code or accessibility. The majority of websites on the internet (big-name or not) are probably coded worse than that. I just think that it's a good example of fitting a lot of information and links into a small space. Perhaps you agree, perhaps you don't. It's beside the point, really.
And second, I didn't mean to "slam" anybody. I shouldn't have used "your" as my pronoun in my second paragraph; in hindsight it did sound quite personal and demeaning. I apologize if anyone was offended.
Also, I did not quote you regarding "cramming" information onto a page. You did mention "distinctive borders", which is indeed the same concept I was referring to. In fact, I agree with a lot of your points. I just disagree with anyone who thinks that removing a lot of the current content is the way that the IMDb should be restructured. Which is merely my personal opinion.
I do respect people's opinions. The reason I quote and respond is to get answers and perhaps better understand why people feel the way they do. Leave the fact that I'm young out of it - that doesn't matter in the least.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
Indeed :P I'm a minimalist.
I also believe that you need to leave some things to be "found" on a website, it's less exciting if everything is on the front page.
I spend a lot of time telling people that the web should cut itself off from its print past. However, if you look at a newspaper, they only give you a few hints at what will be inside. They usually give you about 3 - 4 hints. It's totally unnecessary (imo) to cram everything on the page, whether the layout is good or not.
I like having a few "latest blah" type parts on the page. The CNN website is awful in the fact that it has EVERYTHING on the front page, and it just has text next to text next to text, without much differentiation.
Robert Lofthouse
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
"not on your monitor though"
Damn! Wish I'd finished reading that...
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)