From Flames to Fame: Views vs. Credibility
My Twitter stream and inbox caught on fire this afternoon following a post by Dave McClure, a software developer and marketing nerd in Silicon Valley, regarding the importance of visual cues in calls to action (CTAs).
McClure, who begins the post with a disclaimer that he has no professional training in user interface (UI) design, but goes on to say he has 25 years of experience, illustrated his point about visual cues by employing the rear of a woman shown bent over. In his post, The Faces! The FACES! It’s ALL About the F**king FACES!, McClure writes:
If there’s one thing i’ve learned from all that geeking around, it’s that UI typically works best when it’s butt-simple. As a famous PayPal colleague of mine once stated succinctly: “Users are Stupid… give them something to click on.” Wise words. You’ll do well not to forget them, Young Jedi.
However it’s not always enough to simply give people underlined text links to click on… rather, it’s important to have strong associated visual cues that encourage users to take action. Sometimes that can be as simple as just creating a beveled, slightly rounded, 3D-looking button with a color offset and some text that identifies a Call-To-Action (CTA).
Many people have become trained thru years of working with operating systems to click on things that look like buttons. particularly BIG buttons. particularly BIG buttons with pictures or icons. they are almost irresistible. Go on. Click it! you know you want to!
But — and i do mean butt — even big buttons with big graphics aren’t always going to capture user attention. What has gradually happened over the past 10 years is that online consumer interfaces have started to zero in on basic human behaviors, recognition systems, and patterns. many of those offline interactions start with the simplest of human interactions — looking at someone’s face.
In fact, you could argue that much of the online experience these days is less about reading text, and a lot more about looking at faces, icons, and other visual representations of people.
The post makes good points, but the image employed, while it got him a lot of hits, took the attention away from the ideas McClure is trying to convey.
“I’m drawn to the button,” says Sean Percival, Director of Content at Tsavo Media. “I wouldn’t click it though–it looks too spammy to me. The colors and rounded edges are horrible–the pastel pink dates it extremely. It just doesn’t tell me enough about what I’m clicking.”
Visual cues are important. We click on hundreds of buttons on sites regularly, buttons that employ a single letter, or none at all. We know what symbol represents RSS, that Twitter is the blue t on the aqua background, that Facebook is the white f on the blue background–our minds have made those associations.
Just as they have made the association of scantily-clad human bodies with the likelihood of pop-ups, spam or porn.
McClure is making good points, but he’s undermining himself as an expert by presenting graphic elements that don’t resonate with the message–which is the importance of visual cues in UI design and the forward-looking applications embracing it.
I bring up the inconsistency with my good friend Atherton Bartelby, a graphic designer and associate at DMD Network, a firm specializing in integrated marketing.
“I think there’s a vast distinction between UI and this kind of shoddy attempt to get traffic,” he tells me. “This is not making a point with ‘design,’ this is visually pandering to the lowest common denominator of visitor that any site could possibly imagine. It’s offensive it was even brought into the context of design and UI! ‘Strong associated visual cues’ does not mean shoving an ass in someone’s face.”
Bartelby is not wrong to describe this as an attempt to get traffic. In the comments, a regular reader responds to an objector by saying: “This post is a very Dave tactic. Trying to shock to get attention for a (great) point he is making.”
We all want to be read–that’s how ideas spread–and an outrage gets views like nothing else. But how far can you go without destroying your credibility?
![[del.icio.us]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[kirtsy]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/kirtsy.png)
![[Ma.gnolia]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/magnolia.png)
![[Mixx]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/mixx.png)
![[Propeller]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/propeller.png)
![[Reddit]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://omgomgomfg.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 am
For me, it really all comes down to, not only good UI design, but the self-representation you are disseminating on the web, and therefore ultimately, the quality of visitors you are attracting. I know that I would personally prefer to have five quality return visitors who appreciate my site’s design and thought content than 85,000 visitors who only arrived (and likely only stayed for 30 seconds) via the use of gimmicky graphics. So to conclude, I think your final question is the most important point of all!
Really interesting piece! (And you claim you aren’t a designer. *wink*)
OMG, Atherton Bartelbys last blog post: What’s In A Brand?
reply
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 am
i wasn’t trying to shock to “get traffic” but rather to make a point. there’s a difference. i don’t really give a damn about traffic. i do care whether i express myself in a way that gets a point across.
and the image wasn’t intended as a dissertation on optimal button UI color or conversion. i probably can’t hold a candle to messrs percival or bartelby, but neither was i attempting to draw the Mona Lisa on a matchbook cover. it was simply a graphic construct with a shocking image to emphasize an essential point.
the image WAS intended to draw attention to the fact that our brains are hard-wired in response to certain visual elements (faces, icons, butts, whatever), and that UI designers might consider that as we exist with increasingly socially-aware sites & services, that visual design — and in fact the use of faces specifically — might be useful in achieving design goals.
all other points aside, i’m sure my post was crude, thoughtless, and vulgar. i don’t disagree, and people who think i’m an idiot or an ass are probably on target to some extent. i really don’t care.
however, if there were a few startups & entrepreneurs who found something useful in the conversation, then i’m fine with the result.
the image was simply the focal piece & shocking element that was used to make the point. nothing more, nothing less.
OMG, dave mcclures last blog post: Tweeting Real-time @TWTRcon w/ Kara Swisher, Jeremiah Owyang, Paul Saffo
reply
AV Flox Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I’ve expressed my views both here and in your blog, so this reiteration will remain short: I still think the image does more to undermine than support the points being made. You disagree. That’s fine. No one has brought up the question of whether this technique works better with your audience.
In any event, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments here. They may accuse you of being crude, thoughtless and vulgar, of having no design sense or even the most rudimentary understanding of aesthetics, but they can’t say Dave McClure doesn’t take on his detractors.
reply
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 am
I agree – the point here really isn’t whether or not visual cues are important. I think that’s a pretty short point to make.
What he missed was an opportunity to teach a lesson about what makes for an effective visual cue, not whether or not to have one. While I don’t think the picture’s offensive, I would definitely steer clear of it because nine times out of ten that kind of thing links to a trojan or malware. He could have written about the benefit of brand recognition in a CTA button, something the average business owner doing his or her own website marketing might not get. Which is too bad.
Good find though!
reply
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
@av flox: thanks for the props, even if we don’t agree. the discussion was stimulating.
@ciaoenrico: just to be clear i was *not* advocating the use of BUTT-ons with asses on them. the image was to make a point, not to use as an example. i hope that was relatively obvious. “teach a lesson about what makes for an effective visual cue”… um, well that was the intent of the whole piece. if i missed the target, my fault for poor aim but not for lack of intent. re: CTA button recognition, i thought i *did* beat that horse to death.
anyway, thanks to you both for the feedback… hope it was worth the time
OMG, dave mcclures last blog post: Tweeting Real-time @TWTRcon w/ Kara Swisher, Jeremiah Owyang, Paul Saffo
reply