To say the internet has become an important marketing tool for automobile manufacturers is like saying radial tires are beginning to catch on. And yet Forrester Research reports that many car companies' websites depend on clunky photo galleries, confusing spec tables, complicated car configurators and other layout clichés. “You can’t frustrate and annoy people into liking your brand,” counsels Ron Rogowski, one of the Forrester's senior analysts. “But a lot of automotive websites seem to be trying to do just that.”
Forrester reviewed 900 automotive websites, looking at site organization and design. They found lots of server space for improvement. I spoke to Rogowski about the deficiencies. “Illegible text is the number one complaint," he revealed. "It’s hard to believe in this day and age that text would be so difficult to read on so many sites.”
Rogowski also chastised automakers for raising consumer expectations, and then failing to fulfill them. Brands run highly-focused, deeply sensuous print ads and TV spots that point customers to websites that are hum, without nary a ho in site. “Boredom is a brand killer,” Rogowski said, startling Camcordima drivers everywhere.
Rogowski singles out BMW AG’s site for electronic excoriation. As any pistonhead will tell you, Bimmer’s corporate mantra is ‘the ultimate driving machine.’ By contrast, their website is the ‘ultimate connecting your DVD player to your television experience.’ BMW’s car configurator came in for a critical caning; Rogowski called it staid and antiseptic. In fact, navigating BMW’s website is only slightly less of a chore than tuning-in an AM station via iDrive.
As you might have guessed, Rogowski is brand-o-centric. He implores car companies to creates user interfaces in keeping with established brand values. He singles out MINI's site for praise, lauding it for being as cheeky, dynamic and engaging as their vehicles.
Despite the MINI template, brand e-faithfulness is easier said than programmed– as illustrated by the fact that some of the best brands in the biz have some of the least compelling websites.
Jaguar’s site looks like a layout in Vogue– which does nothing to reflect the brand's visual warmth (burled wood anyone?) or leverage their heritage. Positioning themselves as a fashion accessory leaves a lot of dyed-in-the wool enthusiasts in the dust.
Cadillac's website is guilty of the opposite sin; the opening animation focuses entirely on collector Caddies and their owners; it fails to offer a single compelling reason to purchase a new model. Even those brands with kick ass multi-media (e.g. Porsche) bury the good stuff in relatively obscure sub-menus.
Audi’s site warns you, right up front: never follow. As in, anyone persistent enough to follow them into the sub-menus should abandon all hope of keeping with the program. Everything on Audi’s website looks and functions like medical equipment– and not in a good way.
At least Audi knows it’s suffering from sudden intended click-through. Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress January 16, Audi’s Head of Audi of America announced that he was frustrated Audi isn’t considered one of the world’s premier brands.
Johan de Nysschen has challenged its online agency, Factory Design Labs, to exploit the web’s “anything-is-possible landscape.” "Our goal is to drive the digital lifestyle and allow our prospects and customers to be even more involved with our products as well as demonstrate our product superiority."
More and more companies are sharing Audi’s realization that the internet is where image building and product familiarity gets done. Some even recognize that web-based branding is a whole new ballgame.
As an interactive medium, people expect more clarity of vision and functionality of form from a website than they do from a print ad, TV spot or brochure. From a design POV, the site’s graphics, sound and function all need to mirror a company’s values and position.
Manufacturers are also beginning to understand that websites are more revealing than other media. If a brand is ill defined, the murkiness becomes instantly clear; an effective website cannot be based on a broad, dysfunctional message. The feedback loop between image and internet grows tighter every year. Strong branding means a better web experience, a better experience enhances the brand.
This movement hints at a fairly significant change: distinction equals success. The preeminence of big tent, something-for-everyone brands is declining as their message gets lost in static. The narrowly defined, purpose-driven brands are in accent.
There is, of course, a large piece missing: true interactivity. Branded automotive websites do not encourage the kind of [relatively] free, intimate and ongoing interaction between content provider and consumer that give sites like TTAC their power. Car companies need to treat websites as an open portal to the people who pay the bills.
When (not if) that happens, the car business will undergo its most profound evolution, as the gates to mass customization and other important commercial developments swing open. Meanwhile, well, that’s entertainment!
My 2 cents: I use slow, older computers, and don’t really care for Flash animation. Give me boring old HTML, center and right-clickable links, fast loading times.
If I want info about a vehicle rather than hit the manufacturers’ site I google “yahoo specs XXXX”, and results usually are sufficient.
I visit all of these sites on a regular basis to gather data for my site. The MINI site Forrester praises is very hard to use, and of limited use, if you’re looking for actual information. The BMW site is much better, especially since you can download all of the brochures in PDF format. Not flashy, just useful. I also disagree that their configurator is difficult.
Worst of all are all the Chrysler Group sites. Thoroughly useless as a source of information.
http://www.truedelta.com
I’m with starlightmica and Michael Karesh. I want to go to these sites for information on a car, not to be sold on a car.
Perhaps the autmakers could have a general site with easy navigation/good information/quality images of all modesl available and then link to a car’s individual site to wow us with nifty Flash advertising.
I also agree with Michael Karesh about the MINI site. I thought it was spiffy when I first visited it – I thought “how cute, just like the MINI itelf” – but then tried finding information about the different models and configurations and lost ineterest fast.
From Automotive News Europe earlier this month: Peugeot to test Internet car sales Reuters / January 18, 2007 – 10:00 am PARIS (Reuters) — French car brand Peugeot, part of PSA/Peugeot-Citroen, plans to experiment with selling used cars over the Internet, while at the same time trying not to upset its dealer network. Peugeot said today it would put about 100 of its small 1007 models with sliding doors, in three special configurations, for sale on the http://www.vente-privee.com website. The 1007, launched in 2004, is Peugeot's super mini car that suffered from a slow sales. Peugeot said it wanted to test the willingness of customers to spend big amounts over the Internet, but stressed it had no strategy to start more general online sales and that the sale did not compete with its dealers who sell new cars. Vente-privee calls itself a private club that organizes online sales for its members at big discounts of 30 to 70 percent, compared with list prices. It specializes in ready-to-wear fashion, games, sports articles and watches. Payment is generally via bank card but Peugeot said it would demand a downpayment by check prior to delivery.
I agree with Rogowskil: it’s all about the brand, stupid.
Everything about a brand’s goods and services should reflect the basic brand message, from the colors used for its showrooms to the look and feel of their websites.
Audi’s site is an excellent example: it has none of the minimalistic chic or ergonomic efficiency of its cars’ interiors. None.
I also couldn’t agree more with Mr. Martineck’s point about the auto websites’ need for interactivity. (I’ve said it myself more than once.)
Here we have the most sophisticated interactive device ever created, and the automakers let people wander all over their sites without any guidance or intelligence whatsoever.
Ridiculous.
Many automaker websites also require Flash players that my corporate computer does not have (and can’t download). Thanks to no backward compatibility I am completely locked out of such sites (and will go elsewhere).
I would encourage the web-designers to accomodate basic browsers as well as the latest Flash-type add-ons.
Seems simple enough… but apparently not.
Note: I see starlightmica also picked up this obvious problem.
The GM Canada website was absolutely deplorable up until last year.
The “Build your car” section gave you check boxes to order option package 1ZF or option 6UK without actually telling you what the hell was in those packages! Cumbersome and frustrating to say the least.
It also amazes me how hard it is to find out basic information, such as “Does this car come with power seats?”
I always get a kick out of the “Compare vs. X” sections. Doing so at the GM website is surely enough to give someone second thoughts. Just for fun, compare the Pontiac G6 with a Honda Accord and Nissan Altima.
“Boredom is a brand killer,”
I will say that the opposite is true. I hate it when I go to a website and the first thing I see is a flash video that is supposed to get me excited about a new product. Most people don’t go to a car company’s website to be entertained, they go there to get information about a vehicle. In fact, a boring website would be like a breath of fresh air on the internet, as long as the information is laid out in a clear and concise way.
Has anyone here said “death to flash” yet??? When you have no content, use flash instead. Most automaker websites use flash that are tested in IE only; this basically locks out technically savvy users that are using Firefox (and Linux).
But on a bigger issue, flash makes websites VERY hard to maneuver through, since Flash designers expect you to do things the way they do. Flash is nothing but a big pain in the ass.
And…ALL websites need to get rid of the introductory splash/flash screen, especially those that make noise without permission. They give web surfers nothing of value.
Flash Is Evil from 8 years ago.
Even when flash WORKS, do I really want the mini-frame on my screen to be the whole of my navigation? Plus, in flash, it’s often hard to differentiate what will take you where (is this a link?), since the target doesn’t show up on the status bar. Did you click the BACK button to return to the last screen? Too bad, it’s all the way back to the intro for you! Bottom line: Flash has its place, but car websites should not use it for any interactive elements.
Another pet peeve–all roads leading me to “fill this out and the dealer will contact you”
Forget it. My take is that if the branded sites can’t provide at least as much hard data as Edmunds or Yahoo or Carpoint, then why am I there? 90% of the time, I’m just looking for specs or basic pricing info.
Yes, that’s another of my irritations with the OEM sites:
“fill this out and the dealer will contact you”
Sure, I’ll volunteer to be harrased by a salesman before my research is complete… Not.
Rogowski singles out BMW AG’s site for electronic excoriation. As any pistonhead will tell you, Bimmer’s corporate mantra is ‘the ultimate driving machine.’ By contrast, their website is the ‘ultimate connecting your DVD player to your television experience.’ BMW’s car configurator came in for a critical caning; Rogowski called it staid and antiseptic. In fact, navigating BMW’s website is only slightly less of a chore than tuning-in an AM station via iDrive.
??? I really do not agree with that. I visit the BMW site regularly, since it’s my favourite brand, but even through my possible bias, I can’t see anyone would say it’s user unfriendly. However, I have to say the configurator at http://www.bmwusa.com differs from the one at bmw.de/bmw.nl in a bad way.
I also visit the audi site quite often (liking that A6 Avant, for instance) and have no serious problems with it either, except sometimes seemingly inconsequent clickthrough.
On other sites, like Honda or Mercedes, I don’t like that you have to choose a division first, but that comes with the diversification territory I guess.
I was less than impressed by Chevrolet’s and Ford’s sites too, even without looking at the cars. The Caddilac site however I didn’t have problems with. Then again, I wasn’t going to buy one, just try to find out why someone else would…(especially in case of the ‘Sclade and DTS)…
Blunozer,
“The GM Canada website was absolutely deplorable up until last year.”
That means it has improved, and isn’t that the point?
“It also amazes me how hard it is to find out basic information, such as “Does this car come with power seats?”
I just visited the gmcanada site and within three clicks found that Impala comes standard with “Power 8-way driver’s seat”
“I always get a kick out of the “Compare vs. X” sections. Doing so at the GM website is surely enough to give someone second thoughts. Just for fun, compare the Pontiac G6 with a Honda Accord and Nissan Altima.”
It’s hard to fault a manufacturer for including a “Compare vs .X” feature, even when (and especially because) the comparison might not always be favorable to their brand.
900 sites? That seems like an awful lot to be able to make general conclusions…after the MFG’s site…what maybe 50-100 and the additional research sites, I find it hard to believe that they weren’t just googling “cars” going to page 34,500 of the results and making conclusions…
I have to agree with the posters who are complaining about flash…nothing turns me off more than a site that takes 30secs to 1 minute to load (on my relatively high speed DSL) and then barrages me with some music that the marketeers have determined to represent the brand…Listen folks, I’ve got my music on, I don’t want to have to search frantically for the “sound off” button to stop the obscenity.
Just a quick reply to Mr. Williams post on vente-privee.com selling Peugeot 1007s. I’m a member of the “private club” that they avow to be…I clicked through to see the sale, just for sh-ts and giggles (I’m definitely not in the market for that [figurative] beast). I’m not sure it was a great deal – they were selling 2004MY, but purportedly “new” (that defines “slow-selling” doesn’t it?), for maybe 2K or 3K€ off the price of a similar 2007MY. However, when I checked about 6 hours after the sale began they were all sold out. Not sure what this all means, but its an interesting experiment to say the least. People I know where talking about the sale, but more in terms of the coup of vente privee getting to sell cars, and not that cars were now for sale on the internet…
I’ve always felt that Mazda had a pretty good thing going with their website. Very easy to use and the layout is appealling to the eyes.
Manufacturers’ USA websites are a whole lot better than their Canadian websites. Why? I still have no idea… Visit http://www.toyota.ca to get the idea.
I think I can speak to this a little bit having be a web designer for the past 9 years. An automotive website or any website for that matter needs a few basic components.
1. It should be easily navigable and intuitive
2. It should be consistent from page to page
3. It should know it’s target audience and cater to that audience
4. It should present a clean and appealing design that is uncluttered
Now taking all that into effect is not always easy. Many websites just like the cars themselves are designed by committee. Very rarely is a designer given free reign to make a site how he or she pleases so you get compromises.
When I go to an automotive website I’m looking for a specific model usually and want a lot of info on that model. That means lots of photos, video, 360’s, build the car, specs etc.
From the manufacturer’s standpoint the website is not just providing additional stats and info to the customer its focus like any advertising is to sell the brand or vehicle to the customer.
As far as making a basic site with no flash and just info on the car you can forget about it. It doesn’t suit the manufacturer and sure as hell isn’t what the web designer wants to do. Which sells better a magazine ad with some text or a commercial? If it was the magazine ad then you wouldn’t see car commercials, don’t know about you but I sure see a hell of a lot of car commercials.
Mini by far is the best car website that I’ve seen and several other car sites have some really good components but are really poor in others. For Mini it captures what the brand is all about and for the target age group it works quite well. One core component of a Mini is individuality, and their “build a mini” does this by being the best I’ve seen.
Keep in mind that the Buick website and the Scion website should be completely and totally different as they cater to different demographics (yes I know boomers drive xB’s).
Most automotive websites don’t utilize the interactivity of the web as much as they should. Why not include a blog from the designers or a question and answer session or FAQ. Also pay a lot of attention to the configurator, make sure it’s really easy to use, the packages are detailed with pictures and prices and include invoice prices alongside MSRP (Ford is the only one off hand that seems to do this). Also let me spin the car in every color and every option. If you provide different kinds of wheels I want to see them on the car, rear spoiler? Let me see it on the car.
The gallery is also a very important, lots of photos, video, commercials, etc. This is how your consumer will get a feel for the car and its looks are what will get them to come in for a test-drive. Looks sell, sex sells, everything. Deny it as much as you want but you would be wrong and I wouldn’t have a job.
that’s funny salok. i usually get emails for the vente-privee sales, and they didn’t announce this sale to me. not that i would have bought thatugly abortion of a car…but i digress
i do think, however, that internet sales are the future of the car business. honestly, how many people need the dealership in order to be able to select their car. i always know what car i’m buying next, and i just call various dealerships and play them off eachother over the phone to get the lowest price. if i could just get the lowest price off the internet, i’d be a happy man.
I’ve actually been quite surprised that automakers choose (for the most part) not to partner with tried and true enthusiasts to market their web sites.
In fact, I can’t think of a single corporate site that does a better job of endorsing the brand than swedeshbricks, the mercedes benz club of america, the ultimate subaru club, and the dozens of other sites that focus on current owners of the marque.
Just having the opportunity to link these sites with specifc brands and models would be an enormous plus to sales. When you have folks singing the praises of your vehicles, it makes it far easier for others to buy into the brand.
Anyone notice the graphic accompanying this post?
Flash or no Flash, content is okay, but what I really want (or even need) is to build a car accurately and quickly and then search dealer inventory for that car.
And I don’t want to horse around with putting in my zip code and having it search only where it thinks I want – I want to find my closest match virtually regardless of where it’s located – 1000 miles away is fine, I bought the last car over the phone, sight unseen.
I also want to see actual window stickers for the matches. The big 2.5 are coming close, but still playing games to try and protect the dealers. Why do I need the weasel at the dealership to search national inventory without multiple searches?
Carmax has a great search engine – were I ever in the used car market, I don’t see how I wouldn’t shop there first.
Robert –
Yes…why the mockup?
I think the new TTAC site should feature a flash intro with some drum’n’bass music and an overdub of Jack Nicholson saying “You can’t HANDLE the truth!” in a loop.
That would be the best site ever.
Anyone notice the graphic accompanying this post?
I changed my User Agent to see if it would appear while spoofing different browsers, but now I see that it’s upcoming.
Looks nice, except for the tinge of Neon Nitrous Yellow.
Great insight and I wholeheartedly agree that many, if not most, auto manufacturer web sites drop the ball. However, some are very well done. Two examples.
Maybachusa.com: This site is full of the Flash animation, movies and symphonic music put to good use. They collaborate to create an aura and sumptuousness for the brand. The site experience tells you everything a potential Maybach owner (and that ain’t me) what they need to know about the cars. It isn’t about performance statistics; it’s about tradition, opulence and exclusivity. After spending a few minutes at the site is somehow begin to feel superior due to the exquisite taste I demonstrate by looking at their cars. Mission accomplished. Communicating brand values are critical to establishing (or in this case, reestablishing) the marquee.
Jeep.com: Jeep’s site has been honored by Internet industry groups for innovation and interactivity. In addition to the commonplace auto site features, it offers interactive instructional training (for lack of a better word) on how to utilize 4WD Jeep vehicles to drive through and over various obstacles, lifestyle events, accessories, and even product-related games. Throughout, the site remains true to promoting Jeep brand and heritage (except for the whole Compass section – but that’s a separate problem).
Dammit Farago! The RSS line scared the #$%^ outta me. It’s too early in the AM for this kind of melodrama…
I spent a couple of years working for an in-house ad agency owned by 11 car dealerships. I design websites for a living. I’m also well-versed in Flash – as a member of “Team Macromedia,” the author of two books on Flash, et cetera.
The comments here on Flash and website design largely miss the point.
Flash is neither good nor evil, any more so than and SUV or a handgun. It’s the way you USE it that matters. Most car websites are crap. That reflects a web-wide trend – most websites are crap. Little attention is paid to the “why” and “who” questions. Most companies want a website – they don’t put a lot of thought into who their audience is, what they want, or even what they can see.
Creating flexible sites that accomodate all kinds of users (slow PCs, fast PCs, multimedia-enabled, vision- or hearing-impaired, etc.) is, frankly, a bitch. Same for multi-lingual sites. It at least doubles the amount of work, not only for design, but for maintenance. It’s not unlike adding a 4-door model to a 2-door assembly line. It complicates things. Lots of things.
The guys that whine about Flash? Sorry. Flash has a valid purpose – it lets designers add things like streaming video, interactivity, and dazzling effects to a site. Depending on the site, that may or may not be a good thing. Think of site design like the setting for a jewel – it should support, protect, and enhance the jewel (the message/information). It can’t, however, turn a zircon into a diamond – or worse, turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse.
The real challenge of designing a website is to make it work for so many different types of users, for many different reasons.
My question to the group here, is that if most automobile manufacturers are so obviously tone-deaf when it comes to their own products – their design, manufacture, distribution, and marketing – what makes you think their websites should be any better or any different?
captain,
i think you’re missing the point of a lot of the comments on flash (or at least mine). Flash, well done, makes for a professional site and can add a lot of the “multimedia” effect of a site…interactivity is good. But as someone said above (i can’t be bothered to go check…) Flash seems to be a lot of people’s answer to “what the hell can we do to make this look professional and cutting edge.”
additionally, to the programmers/designers that can’t make it work on firefox…why should I even care about their site? I don’t use IE for a reason, so being forced to open IE to view a page just bugs me and screams, “we aren’t making any effort to accommodate you”
RE: Farago. It almost looks like TTAC is trying to appear respectable with the new site :) I personally like the minimalist look of the current site, but one way or another, I’ll be back…
Admittedly, I am not a web designer; although I have taken classes in HTML, as the web became more important in the lives of writers – 1997 – and used it just a bit. That said, my feeling is Flash kills web sites. I resent starting to read an article in the NY Times only to have an ad appear and almost literally run across the screen, like a beetle on an old newspaper. People who design web sites try to be too clever. There's a saying that, to my knowledge, started with a prominent self-help group and has gotten picked up by a lot of other groups, and sometimes modified so as not to offend. I don't mean to offend but here it is: Keep It Simple Stupid, known as the KISS rule Ultimately, it is as simple as how well does a web site give information to people who want it? Of course, a site by an automotive dealer will have a sales component; which is why Peugeot might be fighting its own dealers soon (and why so many auto dealers distrust and disdain the Internet). Auto, truck and motorcycle dealers want to control the sale or sales. They don't want any middle man or woman, be it the manufacturer or a flash designer, mucking up the works. Many years ago, as television assumed the predominent role it has in our culture, an English professor, living in Canada, coined the phrases, "the medium is the message" and "the medium is the massage." His name was Marshall McLuhan. It led to all sort of experimentation with film (this was before digital media took hold) and television. I oftentimes wonder what Professor McLuhan – he passed away in the 1980s – might have thought of the Internet taking sway. He believed that visuals would rule over words; and that seems to be true. However, when you are dealing with words and numbers – specifications and data charts – as with these auto web sites, a little bit of simplification and straightforwardness would go a long way towards meeting both goals: informing the public and getting them interested enough in your product to buy it.
I think Porsche has one of the better auto sites. Especially
their “Compare Models” page. (To see it click on “search site”
and then “Compare Models”). I wish all manufacturers had a
handy chart like this. The “build your Porsche” page is nice
and clear and easy to use as well. Now I just wish I could
afford a Porsche!
Rob
I hate manufacturer websites like I hate TV commercials. I know that the unwashed masses want to be told what to think and what to buy and need to be *sold* a product.
I just want stat sheets, feature lists, prices, and about a thousand photos. It doesn’t have to be interactive, but make sure that all trim levels, all wheels, and all colors are represented in the gallery–not all combinations are necessary, but I want to see some of everything.
I *HATE* when websites are so twisted that the back button no longer works properly. I also hate flash. Photos uber alles.
85% of all web users use IE. I’ll test a website in IE and Netscape and to hell with any others. You don’t want to use a mainstream app that’s your problem. Like I have time to make a site work in every browser someone wants to use at every resolution he or she may have and oh lets make sure the blind can navigate it too (section 508 for the feds know what I’m talking about), etc. That’s the kind of stuff that makes you think what graphic design am I actually doing anymore when I have to design for the blind. Sorry its graphic design not braile. Don’t get me wrong I feel bad for you if you are blind but its not like you can drive a car either.
You want to know why Flash is liked by designers? It allows me to do what I want, the type I want, it will show up the same as long as you have the plug-in, it allows for animation, transitions, video, sound, cool shit! I’m not stuck with freaking Times, Verdana, Arial and Georgia any more, worrying if someone has JavaScript on, are they using their own style sheets, do they have Google freaking toolbar on which changes input fields to yellow so they can’t see my white type on a black background, etc. You get to see my design exactly as I intended it, the way it should be.
Flash or any tech is a tool like any other, everything in moderation and it’s all how it’s used. And get a broadband connection already, put away the dial-up, 8 track tape, rotary phone, B&W TV, and your Ford Tempo and come into the 21st century. Hell I have broadband on my cellphone. Uggg.
Some tell Jalopnik to redo their site, it’s a terrible design.
I like the new Comp RF, looks good, I even like the green.
Captaindigital: Flash is a tool, just like HTML. I've worked with marketing people before too. You guys get so wrapped up with all the "cool" bells and whistles that Flash gives you that you forget the purpose of why you're creating the website in the first place! I think the main problem with most automotive websites is that they're designed by clueless marketing droids who totally miss the point about why people visit a manufacturer's website. Clue 1: I've got better things to do with my time then to go visiting car maker's websites to see a stupid commercial. Website designers should first and foremost stop and think about why people go to their website in the first place. Clue 2: I go to a car manufacturer's website to learn about their cars (not to be forced to watch a stupid commercial). As far as I'm concerned, if they just scanned in their brochures and let me look at those, that's far more informative and useful than a cluttered website full of flash animations and videos about their meaningless "message". Clue 3: A website is NOT like "interactive TV"; A short fun You-tube style video is fine as long as it's out of the way, but people don't go to websites to be forced to watch stupid "interactive" commercials. So to all you marketing people out there, here's a final hint about websites: a website is kinda like a first date; eye candy is nice, but if you want people to come back to really look around, you need substance.
Nobody mentions the JD Pow(d)er survey that put Kia’s website on top followed by Hummer…
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10075730&catid=23376#
I hate IE and I won't use it unless absolutely necessary so if you and your little designer fascist friends want me to look at your work it had damn well better be Firefox compatible…If uncle joe designs his own browser and your site doesn't work…I'll forgive you. Firefox isn't exactly niche anymore. I get something like 10mb/s on my DSL line and it still takes up to a 1 min. to DL some of the flash junk that people throw out there. I am sick of sites having lots of flashy Flash graphics just because some designer "can." When its done well, it's cool, but it's not always done well or coherently…
Its not the websites per se but the marketing shibboleth in it that turns me off. When they start describing a chevy aveo as european inspiring touring world class machine… I just lose it.
Glad to see everyone else is annoyed by carmaker websites, they are the absolute worst. I want to know what kind of stereo options are available in Model X it takes a half hour of slogging through heavy handed Flash animation, my wheezing laptop about to set the desk on fire and crashing twice. They make it impossible to download pictures of their cars (why distribute them for free when you can pay a fortune to get the pix in Motor Trend?), or print off pages, or order brochures (why distribute them for free when you can pay a fortune to some printer?)
Having worked in large corporation Internet marketing I know there’s a bunch of pathological web designers who’ve never seen anything they didn’t want to bury in a minute-long Flash download, because you can charge a dumb large corporation $60,000 for a bit of Flash programming that takes one guy two days to create, the idiots will pay the bill without hesitation.
Wm Montgomery: If you like the Jeep site, clearly you’ve never used it to figure out which features are standard and optional on a trim/model. Absolute worst there is.
The Audi site lately looks like they’ve ripped it up and haven’t quite gotten around to putting it back together. Look at the standard features and options pages for the Audi A8, for example.
I think much of it comes down to what someone is looking for in a site. I’m always looking for thorough info, and few OEM sites provide it well. I’ll restate the MINI does it very badly, and is generally a pain in the ass to use as an information source.
I hate flash, even if this is blaming the tool for the faults of its user.
RF: I like the minimalist look of the current site. The new one is much less distinctive, it looks like many others I’ve visited that cater to car buyers. Definitely not bad in any way, just mainstream.
All of this said, I’m clearly no expert. People still tell me that my own site (truedelta.com) needs a lot of work. So if anyone here has some bright ideas about how to improve the organization and navigation, feel free to send them along.
That’s what separates good design from bad. There is no reason not to have a nice flash intro as long as it’s contained within the context of the site and the navigation is outside or it. Along with a skip button. A website should not force you to do or watch anything, it’s a portal to information that you choose to look at or not. Having to wait while a flash animation/video loads before you can do anything is bad design. Again its not the tool it’s how its used. Invariably the most expensive part of any website is the programmer not the designer. Remember its form follow function but you can’t design to the least common denominator or you have bland crap to look at.
Mr. Karesh:
Comparing standard features couldn’t be easier on the Jeep site. Just mouse over the model name, choose standard features, and compare up to three trims.
I second Michael Karesh’s thoughts on the new TTAC look.
Models that are specifically targeted at a techno-savvy audience ought to have their own websites, complete with moderated message boards, wallpapers, etc. The movie companies build buzz this way; why not the hot hatch makers too?
Mr. Furst:
You get a long, yet incomplete, list with no section headings and no apparent mode of organization. Here are a few of the standard features on the Grand Cherokee:
*accent-color license plate brow (good to know, wouldn’t want a car without one)
*center high-mount stop lamp (amazing)
*enhanced accident response system (which is?)
*floor carpet (a rarity, I know)
*”Jeep” badge
*Halogen headlamps
*warning chime (warning of what?)
*door trim panel (certainly good to have)
I met the people in charge of it 2-3 years ago (Julie Roehm and her supplier at Organic), and they said they were about to fix this and other problems. Still not fixed.
Mr. Niedermeyer: I was already seconding someone else here. You’ll have to take the third spot in line. Unless I was myself third. Then you’ll be fourth.
I’m actually okay with it, just not intrigued by it. It’s far from the unmitigated disaster than is the new print Car and Driver.
Dbl post:
What drew me to TTAC in the first place was the phrase: “bloated, but attractive, like a post-partum Britney Spears.” Couldn’t really care less about what font that was in, still teh funnay.
If the new site has a bit better search engine (the ability to search by author) that’s great. Maybe less blue and green (it’s a bit edmundsian).
The bottom line, however, is whatever keeps the prose flowing.
As a side note:
Ford has presented at several web usability conferences that I have attended. They actually have a usability team and they (at least they appear to) give them a decent amount of influence.
That said, I also am sick of flash in EVERYTHING.
Flash is great for videos and interactivity, but not for when I just need to look up a quick fact. There should always be an HTML bridge to simple HTML-based information. Of course, this isn’t just an automotive industry thing…
Anyone here know how much it would cost a car company to create and maintain a full bore kick-ass website ?
This site is so elegantly simple, it’s almost intimidating. There’s no where else it like that I’ve seen. Please do not cave to the urge to make it more pretty and complicated just because. It will be ironic if the redesign of this site does exactly what it decries about most car makers.
On the point of the article, indeed the sites of most car manufacturers are sucking pits of flash animation and uselessness. Flash is the refuge of lazy designers and a scourge inflicted upon the internet. If you want the freedom to do whatever you want visually, go work in print media, where I don’t have to worry about if I will need some special proprietary tool to view your work.
TreyV, you hit the nail on the head. If the preview is what the site will become, I know I will not like it. Added clutter, navigation and Google ads is not welcoming. I much prefer the simple way this site is layed out know.
Please don’t ruin it…
I agree with the Flash haters. I visit websites to get information. I want as much information about each model as possible, I want it to be well organized and I want to be able to see where to get it the first time I get there. My favorite site is VW’s German site – http://www.volkswagen.de. It has a lot of accessible info but recently they have added annoyng and useless Flash content. In contrast, VW’s international site; http://www.vw.com, is both useless and annoying.
Interesting discussion. I am surprised by the number of postings that curse the use of Flash or that condemn the manufacturers for trying to actually sell their products via the Web. Is the Chevy Aveo site supposed to say, “Our car looks like an elephant suppository and is unfit for a clown to drive?” No. That’s what TTAC writers do.
The comments from posters saying that they only want stat sheets are equally absurd to me. The Internet is a great visual medium. Claiming that all you want from it is text is like saying that you read Playboy only for the articles.
“Claiming that all you want from it is text is like saying that you read Playboy only for the articles.”
We want to look at the pictures to see what the product looks like. Just like when we read Playboy ;-)
However, some sites are so “cool” that you can’t really see what the car looks like because of all the Flash design masturbation going on.
“85% of all web users use IE. I’ll test a website in IE and Netscape and to hell with any others. You don’t want to use a mainstream app that’s your problem. Like I have time to make a site work in every browser someone wants to use at every resolution he or she may have and oh lets make sure the blind can navigate it too (section 508 for the feds know what I’m talking about), etc. That’s the kind of stuff that makes you think what graphic design am I actually doing anymore when I have to design for the
blind. Sorry its graphic design not braile. Don’t get me wrong I feel bad for you if you are blind but its not like you can drive a car either.
You want to know why Flash is liked by designers? It allows me to do what I want, the type I want, it will show up the same as long as you have the plug-in, it allows for animation, transitions, video, sound, cool shit! I’m not stuck with freaking Times, Verdana, Arial and Georgia any more, worrying if someone has JavaScript on, are they using their own style sheets, do they have Google freaking toolbar on which changes input fields to yellow so they can’t see my white type on a black background, etc. You get to see my design exactly as I intended it, the way it should be.
Flash or any tech is a tool like any other, everything in moderation and it’s all how it’s used. And get a broadband connection already, put away the dial-up, 8 track tape, rotary phone, B&W TV, and your Ford Tempo and come into the 21st century. Hell I have broadband on my cellphone. Uggg. ”
For your information, Netscape currently holds around 1% of the browser market. Firefox holds nearly 20% and is gaining quickly on IE. IE is slow, buggy, inconvienent garbage. I only use Firefox and I despise sites that reflect your attitiude “test on IE and too hell with all others”. Well, guess what: if you can’t be bothered to make your site with Firefox (the second-most popular browser, with rapidly growing usership), than I can’t be bothered to go to it. Deal?
Michael Karesh: I agree with you that Jeep’s site Build Your Own section is clunky, although I have seen worse. However, in my experience the site effectively sells a lifestyle and places their products into that realm.
Three years ago I was trying to convince my wife that our family needed a Jeep. She was reticent to agree until I showed her a video clip on the Jeep site of a Liberty fording 20” of water. We were living in Houston at the time and in recent months she been stranded twice by high water (very common down there).
After that, she was 100% on board. I had previously told her that Jeep claims that the Liberty’s can ford 20” water but the stat meant nothing to her non-pistonhead head. But the site visually sold it.
The differences in sites for different countries is mind-boggling. Where’s the brand uniformity? Just compare the Mazda Canadian (www.mazda.ca) and American (www.mazdausa.com) sites….or the Honda (www.automobile.honda.com) with its UK brethren (http://www.honda.co.uk/car) (way too much Flash).
There also needs to be better, easier access to specs. If I choose a certain model and package, the contents of the package should be clearly known so I do try to add a separate option, adding to the cost of the car, and therefore making me less likely to want to buy it.
One more thing. If car companies want to stir passion for their cars and brands, why don’t they show more concepts and upcoming vehicles. Enough money is spent on the creation of them. Milk it for all its worth. Splash glitzy pictures all over their website. Plenty of journalistic car sites report on them. Why can’t I find one iota of information of the vehicles the car companies promote hugely at shows, on their website. Isn’t that the point of the website? Dumb, and short-sighted.
Steve_S:
If the first thing I see when I go to a website is a little spinning gegaw with a “wait while Flash loads” message, I’ll look for the “Skip it” button or go to the back button. If I want to see commercials, I’ll watch TV. As far as I am concerned, Flash is only appropriate within the website for showing various views or moving parts such as the retraction of a convertible top. At my company and at home we use Firefox exclusively.
Johnny Canada,
I don’t know how much a full bore kick ass website would cost OEM’s but I can tell you that at GM, they would not fork it over.
The direct mail folks protected their multi million nest egg for all the “programs” they had yet to dream up but we had to get by with maintenance money and perhaps enough to update 2-3 web tools a year.
Robert:
The new layout looks good. Will you have an archive with search?
After having been reprimanded for flaming once (no harm done), I’ll try to remain as diplomatic as possible.
I agree with charleywhiskey – I use only firefox. I hate sites that only are tested on IE. If necessary – like for the bank – I will use IE, but for regular browsing, I usually just give up and check out another site.
I think any programmer/designer (anyone in general, not pointing any fingers) that doesn’t test on Firefox is a slow moving, toe-the-line, make-no-waves, we-are-the-majority, status quo dinosaur…like some of the car mfrs out there. “Why would anyone use Firefox, when they can use a Cadilla…umm, IE”
RF: I like the current minimalist site, but I’ll still come for the stories…even if you did a huge flash-heavy site…The content is what’s important here.
There’s seem to be two schools of web page design: web sites as info tools and web sites as sales tools. I favor the former, marketers the latter. Unfortunately, more often marketers are put in charge of web sites and that’s why we have so many goofy but useless website around: long intros, hard navigation, and worst of all, poor picture galleries. Why is it that marketers think that it’s more important to have some annoying intro that everyone skips but then offer lousy pictures is beyond me.
Just try finding something like final drive ratio on most web sites. Even the “brochures” don’t have much technical detail.You’d think that technical specs would at least be attainable somewhere after you wallow through the flash.
Mr. Montgomery –
If I do crack a copy of Playboy, I assure you, it’s for the articles.
The airbrushed softporn is pretty bad.
Chaz_233:
I agree with you. I think the problem is that many marketers just don’t get the new medium of the internet. On a TV ad, they have a 30 second slot to grab your attention and fill your head with their slogan. However, I don’t think they quite understand that on a website, they already have your attention!
If I’m looking at their website, it’s because I’m interested in what they have to sell. Their job is then to educate me about their product and why I should buy it. The site should be informative and interesting, not annoying and distracting. Besides, people aren’t stupid, so they shouldn’t assume that they’re making their sales pitch to a 5 year old.
Sure, it’s important to make the site look professional and interesting, but glitz only holds someone’s attention for 30 seconds. If the site is annoying and uninformative, people leave with a bad taste in their mouth. This was something that I really had to hammer home to the marketing folks that I worked with in the past.
And if there’s a marketing person reading this message and you still don’t believe me, just count up all the postings here about how disgusted we all are with the websites out there. For every person who posts here, I’m sure there are millions of others out there who feel the same way.
Someone hinted at this above, which I completely support:
I view the web as an interactive, value-added alternative to the PRINT medium above all else. However, many people believe the internet is more of a value-added video and audio medium, which is not my personal ideal. No matter how fast the connection or great the PC, I’m just not going to sit in front of the monitor and watch people lighting their farts on YouTube all day long (like I might have in college) as if it were television. Similarly, I don’t want videos and soundtracks to take front & center on ANY websites unless that’s their specific purpose–such as heavy.com or YouTube.
I am an adult, my time is valuable, and I want to get information. You are more than welcome to use fonts, proportions, layouts, colors, ancillary (optional) videos and sounds, but the bottom line is I want a REAL search function, an accurate site map, and the ability to view, save, and configurate the cars however they’re available (show me how all the interiors look, all the wheel and suspension choices, etc). Give me everything I can get in a brochure, plus some extra stuff…not everything I got sick of in the TV commercials! My $0.02, of course it’s subjective ;)
Also, Firefox rules. Whether or not it makes sense to test on it, the fact is that many early adopters, opinion-makers, etc, are using it and I would think those would be the best people to reach (or at least accommodate). I’ve always thought IE’s numbers were bloated because so many companies use it.
The Audi site does seem to have some issues
http://www.audiusa.com/full_line/
RF.. I like TTAC as is, the new site looks very “TemplateMonster” | generic
As for all of the Flash comments: Funnily enough Flash is the one technology capable of delivering instant-on video these days yet almost no automakers seems to be using it. I agree wholeheartedly that it needs to be used to deliver relevant content and not as eye candy. There are some good examples of this but they are few and far between.
I still remember http://myaudittsucks.com/ .. great use of Flash..”Try and start my Audi”..great game.
I think this is only my third post. The new design is…not good. I loved the minimalist look. I like the fact that the biggest splash of color is a rear-view mirror from a Ferrari. I will miss the “old” site.
The new site will be easier for a novice and will increase commercial appeal. That scares me. This is a fairly well protected piece of (virtual) turf. Real car guys come here. I even come back after reading the article just to read the comments. I just wonder if TTAC isn’t building a Cayenne to build 911’s. [Only TTAC readers will get it. ;-)]
Wm Monty: Clearly we’re talking about two totally different parts of the Jeep site.
The irony, as someone else pointed out, is that few websites contain details stats. This should also be a strength of the Internet, as they could provide very detailed stats to whoever wants them for very little money. But they don’t, not even companies like BMW that cater to enthusiasts.
Similarly, they could provide images of many different parts of the car. Instead, all we usually get are a few standard shots. I’m often hunting for photos of the seat controls, so I can learn which adjustments are offered in the “power seats.” These are rarely available. Ditto for photos of the IP controls, to get a sense of how well these are laid out.
i have been in IT engineering for too many years. Good web design requires the use of visual artists, not engineers OR marketing people.
Some of these companies have put their web design under IT, thereby guaranteeing bad design by myopic, but nevertheless sincere usually male engineers who should be designing infrastructure instead of programming hot spots. Engineers generally do not know or care what visual artists do, they are threatened by them, as they seem to feel this is not a quite a manly thing to do. And DO NOT presume to lecture me about sexism in the ranks of engineers.
The other extreme is marketing, and unless you want your experience to look like the detroit auto show, that should be avoided at al costs. If the website in question has everyting you didnt want to know, draped in cliche and scantily clad, its a good bet that it was excreted by marketing people. For a really bad (or good) example of this, go the suzuki SX4 site. http://www.suzukisx4.com/ . The movie is so unintentionally funny, it should be in Wikipedia as some sort of archetype. Dont forget to turn the sound up, the narrator’s tone of voice is particularly irritating.
So, good luck all you internet junkies. Boredom and hyperbole awaits you everywhere! Information? why would you look for that on the ‘net? Think animated yellow pages.
My vote for best automaker site…
porsche
The navigation and overall design and feel is great. If you don’t have Flash, it simply swaps in a static image in it’s place.
My vote for the worst from a usability standpoint is Acura.com. This is what you get when you don’t have Flash…
Acura
No alternative content! You’re also SOL if you don’t know how to disable a popup blocker. Unreal.
It’s a shame, because once (or if) you actually make it into the site, it looks and functions very nice…
well “animated yellow pages” except for TTAC, and a very few others, that is!
grin
I don’t know of any “web designer” who doesn’t use Firefox as their default browser. Firefox displays items correctly (IE 7 actually is pretty good, too). My route is Firefox, IE7, Safari, and then working around the limitations in IE 6 (which is still the majority of the audience). Statistics from my classic car site, which has about the most conservative audience imaginable:
Internet Explorer – 83.67%
Firefox – 9.98%
Safari – 2.97%
unknown – 1.71%
Netscape – 0.54%
Opera – 0.39%
Mozilla – 0.36%
Konqueror – 0.22%
That’s out of roughly 3 million page views a year.
Flash is a tool. As a designer, I much prefer clean HTML-based layouts (perhaps with integrated Flash pieces) as opposed to entirely flash-based solutions–though there are definitely some wonderful Flash-based sites out there.
Web design suffers from several things: a low entry threshold, infatuation with technology over substance, lack of focus (committee-itis), and a general sense of doing things because they can, not because it’s a good idea.
With style sheets there is no reason in the world why a site cannot have a default “text-only” version that works well with all browsers. If someone insists on browsing with an antique browser, the cost to them is a lack of “pretty” but not a lack of information.
One thing to keep in mind about car websites: the objectives of the car companies may be 180 degrees opposite what yours are as a consumer. They don’t WANT you to be able to clearly compare their models to the competition, they want you in a dealership or on the phone to one. They have to provide some info but their overall goal is you talking in person to someone who can sell you a car.
A “kick-ass” website for a major car manufacturer would require a budget in at least mid-six figures and probably in the low-seven figure range.
J D Power rankings for automotive websites.
Below are the rankings from J D Powers 2007 Manufacturer Web Site Evaluation Study — Wave 1, based on evaluations by 11,280 new-vehicle shoppers who indicated they would be in the market for a new vehicle within the next 24 months.
The Manufacturer Web Site score (based on a 1,000-point scale) follows:
Kia 868
HUMMER 865
Mazda 864
Honda 859
Toyota 853
Jeep 852
Acura 850
BMW 850
Suzuki 848
Land Rover 846
Chevrolet 843
Dodge 841
Saab 840
Hyundai 839
Lexus 836
Chrysler 835
Nissan 835
Mercury 834
Industry Average 834
Porsche 833
Cadillac 832
Pontiac 832
Saturn 832
GMC 831
Lincoln 830
Volvo 830
Subaru 827
Jaguar 826
Scion 825
Mercedes-Benz 824
Volkswagen 824
Buick 822
Ford 818
Infiniti 810
MINI 805
Mitsubishi 805
Audi 768
Well, web designer(s), you have to design any and all electronic advertising to fit the needs of what is called the “lowest common denominator” since that is who is looking at automotive web sites, to a great extent. What you might find boring, others would applaud for its ease of use and ability to read. I have to smile when someone says to get rid of all the old technology. Do we now recycle all the books and magazines in our personal libraries? There’s a saying that hardly anyone uses anymore, certainly not in the information technology business: if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Many of us still live by that motto. The challenge is to bend to the consumer, not make the consumer bend to you. An arrogance of attitude, is what leads people to disdain Microsoft – well that, and the fact that it is, essentially, a monopoly. But then again, I could be wrong.
http://www.audiusa.com/audi/us/en2.html
Jonny, it’s your link. The site works for me.
As for the Jeep sight being an example of a good site, I’d have to disagree. Totally buggy build it yourself function. It would start me on page 3 of 4, intermittently. Clicking on any of the package codes gives you a pop-up of a list of all the package codes you have to dig through to find what you clicked. Other than that, it’s better than most US manufacturer’s sites.
Here’s another vote for Porsche as the best manufacturer’s site. I don’t know why Forrester would call them out on submenus, Porsche has a boatload of content and their submenus are well-organized creating an overall “clean” design. What would be the alernative?
Their configurator is also the best I’ve seen. The difference is dramatic enough where you have to wonder what’s wrong with the other configurators, when design firms have access to the same techniques. Their configurator is even more impressive when you realize that the customization available on a Porsche is far greater than other companies and the configurator implements the option codes logic near-flawlessly.
A couple of points on the new site design. TTAC currently appeals to a relatively small number of literate, intellectual pistonheads. That's you. And we love you. Rest assued that we won't be changing our editorial length, style, stance or independence. While we're [still] working on a number of add-ons to "monetarize" our street cred amongst the faithful, it's imperative that we capture some more eyeballs. To do that, we want to become more of a resource for car buyers. A surprisingly large number of people find TTAC through Google searches of individual car models. When they arrive, well, you can imagine that it's a bit, um, disconcerting. The new site design will make it easier for visitors to quickly find a car or topic that interests them, and understand the depth of information available. In other words, TTAC won't be so intimidating for the newbies. As part of this process, we'll be bringing back the star rating system. While it will be a LOT of work (bet you didn't know THAT TTAC contributors), the user-friendly analysis will help define our role for people who don't know WTF we're on about. Anyway, tell me more.
RF
As several others have noted, the full specs at the bottom of the reviews would be greatly appreciated. MSRP, basic 0-60 stuff, 1/4 time, braking, maybe even a dyno graph for discussion (since we’re mostly pistonheads, and that would be something nobody else offers).
Also, maybe some kind of mission statement tagline up at the top, just so peple don’t think they’ve stumbled onto a satire site (well, not a full-time satire site, anyway!)
I don’t see the need include all the zillion model specifics on the review. That’s not TTAC mission, is it? Just provide a direct link to Michael’s nice model info pages on truedelta.
Somewhat non sequitor and I’ve touted (begged for) it before but here goes: I think the addition of comparision/best in class tests would draw more newbies AND keep pistonheads coming back…
agmathai:
And as I said before, we’d love to, but we don’t have access to cars for this kind of gig.
TTAC is still in beg/borrow mode. Thanks to our style and content, we’re still persona non gratis re: the press fleets for five (count ’em five) major manufacturers.
RF, i think the old / present layout is clean, simple, elegant, unique and to the point.
the new one looks cluttered and gives me a case of “i’ve seen this before”. the green color looks cheap too.
and really, i dislike websites that say “welcome” as much as i dislike car stereos that say “welcome” when you turn them on. i think it is a false metaphor: you are supposed to feel like you are entering a place, but of course you are not; you are just opening some pages.
Thanks for your reply Robert, I must have missed the previous one.
Another suggestion I’d like to repeat (apologies if you’ve addressed it already) is to find a way to display which articles have most recently been commented on. Any chance the new site has this capability?
bestertester:
Try and see the new site’s Home Page with a newbie’s eyes. The new design reads VERY quickly for someone looking for specific info, rather than simply devouring what’s here– without affecting the ravenous amongst us.
[NB: this is not the final, final version, and the link pages remain as they are.]
agmathai:
Hmmm. How would we do that?
First and foremost, do whatever you have to do to keep the site going RF, as long as the writing remains the best, have no fear I will be here. Add some photography that rivals the best of the British mags (that should be cheap..) and you will have achieved perfection. One can hope.
As a perpetual vehicle shopper, I find most of the bike and auto websites seem to be built and maintained by the part time guy who comes by on alternate Thursdays. Pictures are usually small (what good is a 19″ LCD if the picture measures 2 inches by 3 inches?), navigation is more often than not annoying at best, and it seems that the price paid for a page on the internet must be extraordinary. My major complaint (I know how to hit the ‘x’ to get away from the flash intros) is the lack of creativity that afflicts almost all of them. Of course after watching way too much football over the last few weekends I am pretty sure it is not just their internet sites that need help. Yeah, Dodge, I’m talking to you.
When firefox gets to 30% then I’ll bother with it or if a client asks specifically I’ll worry about it. It might be the best thing since sliced bread but with the deadlines I’m under and the margins I have I can’t bother with it. And guess what I use a PC not a Mac wow a designer who doesn’t use a Mac and has been doing design since 1992. Most likely anything I design will work in Firefox, if Netscape 4.7 can handle it I’m sure whatever flavor of Firefox can as well.
The same as any industry whether is the web, cars, electronics, appliances, wheelchairs, you need a good designer and a good engineer/programmer. That and management/customer that will let you do good design, most times its giving the customer what they want.
Please increase the size of pictures. Winding road-style!
CliffG – "Perpetual Vehicle Shopper" Good one..same here.
I’m very glad to hear the star rating system is coming back–i’ve missed that greatly.
Please also bring back the final summary phrase like “undertired grocery getter” or “perfect for pistonheads on a budget” etc…i really liked those.
I know it’s just dumb personal preference, but I really, really, really don’t like the blue and green. I think the best banner images on TTAC right now are the red ones–the carbon fiber ferrari mirror and the red car with rain on it. I also really liked the red used in myaudittsucks.com.
Having said that, I like the sorting/selecting feature on the new site. I think it would make it easier to find specific car reviews.
What kind of categories will you have for the editorials?
Do you have a contingency plan if attracting a wider audience ends up diluting the concentration of “literate, intellectual pistonheads?” I would hate to see spirited lawnmower balljoint debate devolve into 1.8T NEVAR LOOSE.
Steve_S:
You want to know why Flash is liked by designers? It allows me to do what I want, the type I want, it will show up the same as long as you have the plug-in, it allows for animation, transitions, video, sound, cool shit! I’m not stuck with freaking Times, Verdana, Arial and Georgia any more, worrying if someone has JavaScript on, are they using their own style sheets, do they have Google freaking toolbar on which changes input fields to yellow so they can’t see my white type on a black background, etc. You get to see my design exactly as I intended it, the way it should be.
Got that loud and clear, Herr Oberdesignkommandant. When I come across such sites, I project this attitude right back to the products and brands they’re trying to push to me, leading to me keeping my money or giving it to a competitor. This has the happy side effect of avoiding to contribute to these designers’ salaries.
Carry on.
I’ll refrain from grading manufacturers’ websites. But if TTAC is looking for any suggestions about their own website, here is what I’d like to see:
1. How about some pics taken by the reviewer to amplify whatever point they are trying to make on fit or finish of particular parts? Closeups might help. These stock manufactuers’ photos don’t (to me anyway) always really help me in picking up on the criticisms/praise the reviewers point out.
2. How about some video of the reviewers when they are actually driving the car, say from the driver’s seat, when they are making a point about performance, handling, etc.? Don’t just say it handles bad in a turn. Show it with video to help make your point.
Not that I’m illiterate, but a picture does say a thousand words. I love the prose on the site, yet would prefer to see some actual pics of what you are judging.
Keep up the great work.
The Flexible Despot: The photo/video issue is at the top of our agenda, post-makeover. But the written word will always be our predominant focus. NICKNICK: I have a list of 18 banned commentators and dozens of warning emails that say the barbarians will never make it inside the gates– at least not for long.
2. How about some video of the reviewers when they are actually driving the car, say from the driver’s seat, when they are making a point about performance, handling, etc.? Don’t just say it handles bad in a turn. Show it with video to help make your point.
Rob, requisition me a helmet.
Steve_S, I’ve been in this business since 1989, web exclusive since 1992. National TV sites, national foundations, movies, music, business, featured in books, interviews, etc. Blah, blah, blah. Anyway, just some background.
Any designer who still codes for Netscape 4.7 is wasting their client’s time and money (I’ve found that it takes about +20% on any budget to accommodate outdated browsers in a graphical manner, as opposed to “text only”). I just took a look at the aggregate stats for all of my “hobby” sites, this month to date. 29,000 unique visitors. 11 brave people browsing with Lynx. 109 braving it with Opera. The oldest version of Netscape is 6.0, with 2 people still resisting upgrading–and it should be noted that Netscape 6 was a Gecko-based browser. No one browsing with Netscape 4.7. For good reason.
This isn’t meant as a personal attack, but you’re not coming off as an authority here.
Design is a craft, not an art. Not everyone can do it (what’s the quote, “Everyone’s a designer, not everyone’s good at it”), and the greatest designs are beautiful–but design is always in service to the information it’s presenting. It’s not an end into itself; if it was, it wouldn’t be “design.”
I like the new TTAC design, not the most spectacular but certainly not bad. Everyone ALWAYS bitches about a redesign. Sometimes they are worse, but a lot of the time they’re better, and mostly it’s resistance to change you’re seeing.
Forrester gave more insight into the value (or not) of their study rather than the quality of automotive websites with their evaluation of the BMW and Mini sites.
Like others who posted, I also find the Mini site cute, sure, but useless and frustrating for info. It has one of the featuers of a website that I cannot stand the most:
You click on an image link for more info, it transforms the screen into a 3-minute Flash movie, without skip option, and that is about “lifestyle” rather than the product. (I’m referring, for e.g., to the “Mini Soho edition” — the Flash takes you through a figurative hip Soho, and nothing on what makes this edition special, or what is in it, or the car itself for cyring out loud).
On the other, I find myself visiting the BMW site several times per month, and each time for the “build your own” configuration. It should be a model for other manuf sites! (And for higher end “build-your-own”, Porsche’s takes the cake. The 3-D version is outstanding).
I agree that branding is important on a site, but it is a double-edged sword: if the site does not provide data, information or makes it hard and frustrating to find, I will probably associate those feelings with the (now) well-branded site.
RF,
Of course it’s the writing that’s most important, but I’ll cry when you switch over to the new format. I understand your rationale, but hey, what can I say? I’m an emotional guy. For the love of all that’s good and right in the world, could you at least lose the green and blue? Red, white, black/grey and minimalism work SO well for this site – especially when contrasted by the splashes of primary color in the top banner grapic. (Just saying is all).
Steve_S and others:
Firefox is indeed the browser of choice for a lot of people. Of course IE6 & IE7 are what most people use, but you can not ignore #2 market player. Hell, that would be like Microsoft saying we’re not making a mac version of Office. Think of the money they’d lose and the (even more) hate they’d generate.
Flash…so much to talk about so little time. Flash, to me, is like marijuana, tequila, dynamite, nitrous, and emotional sensitivity…a little bit, properly applied, goes a long, long way but too much can lead to serious problems. Designers love Flash because they can create their ‘art’ and people will see it the way it was meant to be seen. Typical users hate it because they don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the designer’s art, they want to check their stocks or learn about cars or read the news or whatever. When used appropriately, however, Flash can be an excellent tool for both designer and user (good example mentioned above was on the Maybach site).
All that said, yeah…car websites are mostly crap, even (especially?) Mini…spent a half hour there tonight trying to show my wife that union-jack mirrors could indeed be cool – if only Flash would work. I spend a lot of time on manufacturer websites, and wish there was somekind of industry standard that *worked*.
Good luck with new format, RF…I’ll keep reading, no matter what you do.
PS – I 100% agree with the comment about Jalopnik. I *want* to read it, but can’t seem to get past the horrendous design. Here’s to hoping for (positive) change : )
Anyone notice the graphic accompanying this post?
RF,
Just took a look. Nice — I like having the reviews and editorials separated. Been needed.
I also always like TTAC’s clear, uncluttered look when I arrive at the site. Try to keep that feel.
Cheers.
p.s. Big LOL @ ash78‘s comment
/casts another vote for “no green and blue highlights” and “less clutter”.
Constructive Criticism:
I can’t say that I anything but hate the idea of covering up the snazzy header photos with buttons or tabs or anything.
Simple is good, even if it doesn’t scan quickly for newbies, I propose that a website that is at least slightly esoteric, somewhat difficult to use will help to keep the dregs of the world wide web away. (seen the YouTube comments lately? Augh! YouTube is easy to use.)
I like TTAC because it is smart (most of the time, but not all, as the 18 banned participants would show) but unlike_most_ places online I can come here and reasonably expect there to be thoughtful analysys of a subject instead of the stupefying diatribes you find on most others.
Man you guys are brutal. Tis certainly hard indeed, but methinks you have to try to keep the content up front and easy to access. Larger type is also nice where so many sites are going to micro-type sizes.
Ad-supported sites also constrain the design as you have to allot so much page real estate to income-generating content.
Any feedback on ARC (http://www.autoreviewcentral.com) would be appreciated. Send to wayne@avimedia.com.
(Sorry for the plug RF) – delete if you must
Doing so qualifies for a draw to win a 1978 Ford Pinto with trailer hitch.
Lets clarify. I have no desire to code for Netscape 4.7, it’s a requirement, NS 4.7 is outdated crap so tell your congressmen and women to allow three letter agencies to upgrade past windows 2000 and Netscape 4.7. That being said I doubt I’ll ever need to worry about Firefox since it’s not allowed on our computers, not that you could install anything anyway.
I’ve done a bunch of commercial stuff and I always try to give the customer what they need and a little bit more. KISS is the watchword. The one thing I really would like to get across is it’s not what the designer wants or the programmer it’s the customer. Sometimes they will more-or-less let you do what you should but half the time the head honcho wants what they want and that’s what you give them. Remember it’s a transaction, you tell me what you would like to have and I create it for you. Then the check gets cashed and the mortgage gets paid. It’s not like you can say “No, no, that’s not right, you need to do it this way for your customer.” If the prez says make it purple then you make it purple.
And regards to Flash at least in regards to Flash in my comments, think of it like the new iphone or Xbox which is a closed system. The designer can craft a GUI and experience that will be viewed by all users the same and as was intended by the designer. It’s like having a movie where you have no idea how the moviegoer will see what the director intended. The director has carefully selected bits and pieces and for good or bad you get to see their vision as they crafted it.
There is always the option for those that feel very strongly about it to go into design themselves and improve the industry as a whole.
You can be an adequate designer in any field just like you can be an adequate mechanic or plumber by learning the rules and the tools. To be a good designer takes talent and to be a great designer takes vision. To have a great website you need a great designer, programmer and management willing to let you do what’s best. Kinda like we say with car companies, let the bean counters and management get out of the way and let the designers/engineers make good cars.
Two way interactivity however, is NOT NOT NOT a good thing for a business web site when you can even have just the lightest whif of controversy.
Look at the Chevyapprentice.com fiasco, with such wonderful anti-SUV SUV adds produced.
nweaver:
It IS IS IS a good thing.
Re: the “make your own commerical” anti-SUV commercials: there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Seriously. A proper PR person could have spun that one with his hand behind his back (OK, the other one, without the knife in it).
TTAC has always been a First Class ticket. Something special, like Chicken Kiev at 40’000 feet. A wonderful cup of coffee at a Porsche dealership. Perhaps a stereo amplifier that uses something called “tubes”.
TTAC should remain a clean minimalist styled lounge where super smart writers entertain us in the comfort of our tastefully decorated sanctuaries.
I’ve always been a proponent of the current website design, but then I’ve also petitioned the airlines to install fixed bulkheads that separate First Class from Coach
RF: I disagree.
It was a complete disaster: not all publicity is GOOD publicity.
Rather, it allowed opponents to help mar a major product launch by keeping the focus on the bad.
Witness this. GM may be bad at many things, but they have GOOD PR Flacks. Really good ones. And they ended up getting #4 of the “101 dumbest momemnt in business” for 2006.
As a developer, I develop and test things to the majority of our customers…even if it’s Netscape 4.7. I’m sure that Steve_S would do the same if his paycheck depended on it. :) Getting browser information from the client side and coding appropriately isn’t that difficult. However, because Microsoft doesn’t comply with the W3C (world wide web consortium), IE will always have bugs that require the majority of custom coding. Yes, we developers produce customized code for a crappy product. :) I haven’t done enough testing in I.E. 7 mostly because the interface is hideous in the Windows XP environment. Once Vista is out, it’s a whole new ball game.
I see HUGE advantages to Flash. One is that folks follow your vision…if they buy in, great. If they don’t…great…you aren’t trying to convince someone who doesn’t like your automobile that they should. :) At first I was extremely annoyed with the Acura site…but now, I love it.
I visited the Audi site…the R-8 looks incredible…enough said. The rest of the site doesn’t matter. Heh. :)
I really like this site…it’s simplicity. Adding a few columns, etc. won’t bother me…but if the “Ads by google” and pop-ups start including “Girls gone wild”, “Does Jesus really exist”, etc. I usually take those sites off my favorites. I understand it’s a business thing…there’s just a right way and wrong way to do that.
Uhhh….was this article the “warning shot” across the readership’s bow?
*blinks in a daze*
When I typed in the url and saw the site, the first thing I did was think “What the hell kind of pop-up is this?!” The chick with her little sparkly shoes had me convinced that I had mis-typed and ended up somewhere other than TTAC.
*sighs* I guess you have to pay the bills somehow.
The new site design seems cluttered to me on first impression. Even though I have the browser window maximized, the initial picture of the Acura review is squished to make room for the ads. Ick.
I’ll have to give the new site some time and adjust to the new layout.
Anyone else miss the simplicity of the original layout?
Perhaps it would help if I gave the new designer info about where he can get the images I chose for the previous design so the header graphic can be, uh, “appropriately sized” for the new width. TTAC pics were purchased from istock. I’ve made that lightbox public so you can find them.
http://www.istockphoto.com/my_lightbox_contents.php?lightboxID=765706
All you TTAC fans can also buy the lovely pics (though not cropped) for backgrounds for your compys. There’s a lot of images in there that weren’t selected for the old design as we decided to go with only detail shots, but you might enjoy them, so I’ll leave them in there.
Thank for the props from the people who liked the old design. We liked it too and we’re sad to see it go. But with the new ownership and all, it’s no surprise they’d want to change it up.
Best of luck to TTAC and Robert. I hope you go far.
Regards,
Ben Huddleston
Redwing Studio
p.s. the Create account page is gone: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-signup.php
p.p.s. they’ve deleted the logo from the login page: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-login.php
Ack! The thumbnails are all wrong! Looks like they’re in a 5:4 aspect ratio, displayed on a (double-ack!) Nokia N-gage.
Other than that I guess I can adapt to this.
I guess all my favorite sites have upgrade-itis.
Retrojunk.com hadda go and make it’s forums look different too.
I wonder who’s next. :/
simply looks horrible in safari. pix are squashed. the search window intrudes upon text.
above all, i still maintain that the new design looks cluttered.
ttac used to be an ipod. now it’s a zune.
The photos look that way in IE, too. I think this is a temporary glitch that will be addressed soon. Someone took this design out of the oven a bit early.
Two quibbles on your new layout..
1) This shade of green…is not an eye pleasing colour.
2) You need to have some sort of seperator between the comment posts.
Anything else is sour grapes from me, but those are visually annoying.
man, how i like the old look! i’m glad it’s back, if only for a few days….
Same here. I really like the “old look”. I was beginning to wonder if I would be able to adjust to that new site. It was hard to navigate, confusing, and everything seemed hidden. With this layout, it’s all out front and nothing is hidden. Easy, clean, simple, fast. It just works. Works great too.
/pops in and says “newer is not better”
The _only_ thing that needs redesigning is the buttons at the top, they bunch up in Internet Explorer 7. Everything else is golden.
Honestly, this is as close to perfect as any site I’ve ever been on.
As I said before, the fact that the dregs of the WWW can’t seem to grok doesn’t particularly strike me as being a bad thing.
I’m a web designer/programmer and I definitely like the old version better than the new one. And to Steve S – sorry, but you are on the road to being obsolete. Firefox is standards compliant and I code everything previewing in Firefox, then make damn well sure it works in IE6/7 and Safari. Let me guess, you are still using tables for layouts. You better think about learning some new skills and doing things the right way (standards compliant) or you will find yourself looking for work in the not-too-distant future. Not to flame, that is a serious warning.
*breathes a sigh of relief*
Much better…I’m home, again. :)