31–40 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you calculate what would constitute statistically significant results for each of these sites? How about any other site?
Roughly a good sample size is around -log(d/2)/(2 e a^2) where d is the significance you want and a is the difference in conversion rates you hope to measure. See http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2013/03/a-bit-more-on-sample-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea where they got that number, or what a "responsive designer" is (answers phone calls quickly?). This myth has been debunked long ago.
Link to the source ( http://www.nngroup.com/articles/scrolling-and-attention/ ) is in the comments. However, as the author admits in the comments (after being corrected by a reader), he has interpreted the results of the source incorrectly. The cited report actually only says that "Web users spend 80% of their time looking at information above the page fold. Although users do scroll, they allocate only 20% of their a…
My guess is: if you capture their curiosity, they will scroll. Otherwise, they probably won't. Simple, I know, but I'm going with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it looking more appealing is the key. Sure you can fit less, but if people don't want to use it, it doesn't really matter does it? People are usually more willing to make subconscious tradeoffs when it looks, feels, and works awesomely.
I understand all your points. But that is why I like to see some mobile specific Case Studies, just to help and give some basic rules of thumbs. Otherwise all you have is opinions. At the end you obviously have to test your different designs / approaches. But some basic and well tested rules would help to start up the design a lot.
The cases presented don't give much evidence for the impact of bigger images on conversion rates. Only the first case seems to be a direct comparison of images of different sizes. In the two others, the copy and design in general have changed significantly as well. In the second case, the image on the page is actually the same size, the button has been resized. In general, though, I do completely agree with the artic…
It's the cargo cult approach to testing: "let's change everything and if the revamp increases conversions we'll guess what factor had the most effect".
Does anyone know if there's a daily/weekly newsletter email with conversion tips?
> Responsive web designers know that on many sites, as few as 20% of visitors will bother to scroll down. Is this really an "understood" truth? In our own study for our own site, we found nearly everyone scrolled the page all the time, and that seems the be the case with every colleague I've ever talked to as well. Who goes to a page and says, "fuck it, that scroll wheel is just way too damned difficult"?
Does anyone know if there's a daily/weekly newsletter email with conversion tips?
http://www.OutConvert.com
There's only one sentence on that page and, unless there's a new term with which I'm not familiar, it has one heck of a credibility-destroying typo:
"Get our converison [sic] tips newsletter starting now:"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roughly a good sample size is around -log(d/2)/(2 e a^2) where d is the significance you want and a is the difference in conversion rates you hope to measure. See http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2013/03/a-bit-more-on-sample-...
I read that and I have no idea what those values are. Is there an example of this with actual real-life data?
Everybody should take a college level course in statistics, even poets and painters.
> Responsive web designers know that on many sites, as few as 20% of visitors will bother to scroll down. Is this really an "understood" truth? In our own study for our own site, we found nearly everyone scrolled the page all the time, and that seems the be the case with every colleague I've ever talked to as well. Who goes to a page and says, "fuck it, that scroll wheel is just way too damned difficult"?
I have been surprised to observe the number of older people who still click on the up and down arrows in order to scroll. Moving the cursor onto the scroll arrows takes precision and for someone with poor mouse skills is even more difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an old adage A picture is worth a thousand words for exactly that reason. It helps people scroll less and get the message without having to read too much text. All one needs to do is consult the artist within and choose the right image for better conversion. That's exactly the point no. 3, like you said, kudos. IMHO, images and their messaging are probably one of the spots where art and math can converge.
"There is an old adage A picture is worth a thousand words for exactly that reason. It helps people scroll less and get the message without having to read too much text." I may be combining your first and second sentences together in a way that you did not intend, but I think the adage is older than scrolling ...