Blog

Working with outsiders

In the old days even we tried to control too much - and I know we’re not alone in that. We were wary of outside help, used freelance staff sparingly and when we did, imposed our way on them. The internet has changed all that and we now actively seek out people that work with us from the place they choose.

Gaining from dispersed expertise

Our team has expanded to include specialist people in many locations. We’re tapping into their knowledge, commitment and willingness to collaborate around a shared vision. This way of working is not the tele-worker model predicted years ago where big business ‘allowed’ its staff to do the odd day from home. This is people based, granular knowledge working that will replace the current big business command and control structures. Put simply, this is the way to work for our times.

Giving clients better service

As client demand for additional integrated services increases, we are able to expand to meet their needs without the growing pains of the old order. Over 30% of the people we now rely on – people that are critical to delivering for our clients – work in a place that they choose. By encouraging a porous business based on open collaboration we give clients access to a broader pool of talent and expertise, allowing us to deliver a range and quality of service that is disproportionate to our size.

For more on the future of business and collaboration check out wikinomics by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams.

Avoid feature bloat

People say, forget features. Especially the one's dreamed up internally. They want simple, clean, clear routes to what they're trying to find. Here's what they said about navigation, content and design.

In their own words

"I like clean sites without too much going on and without too many different fonts etc - just good minimal and clean design. I'd rather have a site that looks good and loads quickly than one with lots of animations and video etc which takes time to load. I want to be able to get around quickly and to be able to get back to where I've been quickly (some sites have a list of recently viewed products which is quite helpful)."

"Slow response when I click on something. Too many irritating boxes to click on before I get to what I want. I want to see a clear, easy to use page on the screen."

"Messy sites with overcrowded screens. Less than comprehensive sites."

"It shouldn't matter but when a website looks too basic and homemade (or the design is really dated) it does taint the credibility of the site (you think "is this a 'two-bit' operation?", "will I see my purchase anytime before Christmas?"). Shoppers are fickle (as there's so much choice!) so something slick and professional looking will keep me on the site longer, browsing until I find something I like."

"Too many fripperies - images that fade in and out or move around. Websites that won't work going backwards, so that you can't get back to Google, say, from the site's home page. I end up closing the internet browser and opening it again, which is very irritating."

"The colour scheme is important I think. It only gets as far as irritating me if it's difficult to read one colour against another though."

"Complex sites that are difficult to navigate and unclear instructions."

"I'm irritated by complex, overdesigned websites. I like clear legible design that is easy to navigate."

"Slow response time e.g. images that take ages to download - are also irritating - I'd prefer smaller scale lower res images to look through with the option to see high res images."

"Bad navigation, busy sites with too many pop ups, heavy advertising messages, no contact numbers, no contact names, clumsy payment page."

"Ads popping up."

"Sites with too much detail. Sites that do not let you use the 'Back' option."

"Nice clean design, a quick way of browsing images - a slideshow is not quick enough - users need to be able to flick through at their own rate."

"Site that take a age to download have annoying pop ups and play irritating music."

"What irritates me most is long downloading, too much flashing, too many adverts on the sides and bad design."

"When you click to reach a sites home page and it has to load in an intro page and there is no option to 'skip intro'."

"Buttons that do nothing! Over complex websites."

"Web sites that land you on a page from which you are unable to return to the internet."

"Unnecessary functions are a distraction and a nuisance. A simple efficiently running site is much better (to me) than one that is overloaded with features."

"I always skip those fancy acrobatic flash intros. I find them self-indulgent and irrelevant on the whole."

"Personally I hate sites designed in flash, they all look the same and are a pain to get around. The internet should be used for infomation to be spread clearly, not induce epileptic fits!"

"To be honest I am not the right person to ask. I dont have much patience and I dont really understand how they work. I just like it to be as simple as possible."

We asked a simple question and the responses were overwhelming. So rather than harp on about our thoughts on usability, we think it's best to just publish people's views unabridged.

"What features or functions would irritate you?"

"Too much technical information. I am not interested in internal organisation management info."

"Flash and any other similar technologies only as a support - not as navigation (in the case of Flash)."

"Keep the website response FAST. Very fast."

"Make it very obvious where one is in the website. You know the drill - lower the cost of going down a wrong alley. Provide lots of cues in different forms, and multiple routes to the same information to allow for the different ways in which different people think. Make the website easy to index and thus be searched via the main search engines."

"Don't force me to watch movies of any nature."

"Provide alternative means of consuming/accessing the same information. Make it quick to consume, or longer if I have time, at my choice. "

"Don't take the easy way out and provide only (it often seems) pod casts for everything (like the BBC)."

"A busy interface - small type - non-inclusive design - any non-user-initiated movement / advertisements - graphical text - flashy menu system - colours used with poor contrast - JavaScript/AJAX used for the sake of it, and not to add to the user's experience."

"This is a website that will be used by a broad cross-section of the community. It's going to have to be built knowing that it will be used by colour blind, blind, deaf, dyslexic etc people, and should be designed and built with that in mind."

"Fancy fonts and scripts annoy me. Tiny font is difficult for many website users. I like colour, provided the important stuff I wish to print comes out in black and white. Difficult as it may be, depending upon your sponsor, I would work hard at a website that clearly knows the boundaries between the project management/progress and the political spin. So, no content-free text please! Performance matters that are intended for internal organizational accountability would not appear on the website."

"The biggest problem I have with websites is the finding the bits I want! Simplicity is key, there's no point having an encyclopaedic website if the negotiation of it is labyrinthine."

"Flash intros, whilst being very pretty can quickly become frustrating, despite the ubiquitous 'skip' option."

"Difficult to navigate, difficult to find key contact details (including phone numbers and addresses if desired instead of a web form)"

"Any clutter - and clutter is anything that I can't personalise, any obvious self-glorification, and any corporate w•••"

"All the usual, links that don't work, annoying graphics, news that is out of date, too many layers of information etc etc "