“Before the web, having great content was enough. The irony of my critique of WashingtonPost.com is that it wasn’t a critique of content. They had GREAT content, when I actually found it — there weren’t really any editorial shortcomings. The critique had much more to do with software design than with editorial quality or judgment. News organizations need to add software user interface design to their core competencies.
Lesson for publishers: The web is more about applications than publications.
This is why it’s so damaging for news organizations to apply the standards of print publishing for design, content, and experience — they simply don’t apply on the web. The reality is that designers didn’t necessarily know if they were successful in print, because people kept subscribing to the newspaper anyway. But on the web, success or failure is evident with every click.
”
It’s a symbiotic relationship between having great content and design. Only having great content or only great design is not enough. He brings up a good point about print design not necessarily translating directly to the web and I think that’s where content-heavy sites like newspapers fail. People don’t have time to read and sift through garbage on a daily basis. The example of Google should have been more about simplicity. Googles is very simple and devoid of many distractions unlike latimes.com.
If Your Users Fail, Your Website Fails, Regardless Of Intent Or Design
