Transform your business on June 26th at our customer experience eventMore about the CX forum

Our thinking

Every year Webcredible has a Team Day where we all partake in mostly embarrassing team activities for a day.  This year we combined our annual values session, a communications profiling session and to finish off, a nostalgic sports day in Hyde Park.

The values reflect how we all feel about being a Webcredible and enables us to all share a vision and work towards a common goal both internally as a team and with our clients.  These will be updated over the next few days in our History & culture page, check out what we came up with!

The communications profiling session was about establishing our own communication styles and learning to adapt our own styles to suit other people, there are four types of communication styles we talked about:

  • Driver – Fast & short tone, directive, ‘I’, Likes Facts, Assertive
  • Analytical – Logical, speaks long tone, questions, ‘We’, Likes facts
  • Amiable – Mostly ‘we’, open dialogue, question & suggestions, long tone
  • Expressive – Animated, ‘I’, informal, dynamic, fast & inflective

It’s great as we have a good mix of different communication styles within the company, and it was no surprise being the office manager that I am a driver : )

Picture of Webcredible staff on team dayAfter this we hiked to Hyde Park with a nice bottle of Pimms and lots of sports day equipment.  We started gently with some general knowledge questions then got stuck in with egg and spoon races, sack races, bean bag balancing races and plenty more, I think most of us definitely felt the pain the next day!

I must say it was worth all the aches and pain the next day as the winning team got to pie (with a Victoria sponge cake) the two directors of Webcredible!

The digerati have been talking about the decline of print and broadcast advertising revenues and the continued growth of digital for some time so I won’t bore you by going on about that. But there was an interesting story published in Brand Republic yesterday about a joint venture agreed between magazine publishing giant IPC Media (the publisher behind high profile magazine brands like NME, Marie Claire, Wallpaper, Nuts and dozens of others) and YouTube.

Screenshot of Youtube homepageThe strategy of syndicating your content onto a platform like YouTube is about taking your compelling material to the people, wherever they are. Because, after all, content is king and a lot of users will typically use Google and ‘content marketplaces’ like YouTube to discover and consume to their hearts content.

YouTube has evolved into a free marketplace, combining the content produced by the amateur and the hobbyist alongside professional producers and even our esteemed HM Government. However, often the desired outcome for the commercially-minded content producer is the generation of traffic to their website, thus giving would-be advertisers a flow of motivated and interested unique visitors.

The reason why this joint venture is so interesting is because YouTube has effectively met IPC Media ‘half way’ on the monetisation of their content on YouTube. Clearly, the content produced by the likes of NMETV and Nuts.tv is very compelling indeed (I don’t have any experience of the latter I hasten to add).

So, what does this mean for others wishing to monetise their content directly on YouTube? Well, I’m not convinced that YouTube will necessarily be rushing to draw up contracts with any old Tom, Dick or Harry but it does set an interesting precedent for others. Perhaps user-generated content really can be commercialised if there’s real, proven appetite for others to consume it?

This is my first of a new monthly update on Webcredible – what’s been happening in the company, changes to the website, what we’ve got coming up… In case you don’t know me, my name’s Trenton Moss and I founded Webcredible in 2003. I still work here, overseeing the day-to-day running of the company.

So June’s been a relatively busy month for us. The weather’s been great the past month in London, although I guess when you’re stuck in an office all day that’s not much help. Open windows have been replaced by air con pumping out as the temperature has soared. On top of the great weather we’ve won quite a few larger user-centered design and web development projects. Whilst we do lots of smaller projects like one-off usability tests or quick web builds, it’s always nice for us to get our teeth sunk into a 3+ month project. You can check out some of our current projects, if you’re interested.

In case you don’t know, we run regular polls on the site, and with 6000+ site visitors each day we get a lot of people responding. Our latest poll asked, ‘What is most likely to persuade you to make a purchase from an online retailer?’ The poll results were quite interesting with Computer Weekly and Web User both picking up on the findings.

Other things to have happened in June include:

Soon, we’ll be publishing the 2009 version of our annual council report, as well putting live a new upcoming events page on the site. Our head of UX, Elisa will be participating at the IMRG usability and user experience workshop this month so if you’re a member of the IMRG then do come on down!

That’s all for now… If there’s anything you’d like to ask or tell me about Webcredible then please leave a comment and I’ll reply.

Focus groups and usability testing are two very useful but very different user research disciplines. This article will look at the difference between focus groups and usability testing, the pros and cons of each and when in the development process you should use them.

I recently attended a symposium where the objective was to explore the use of typical Human Computer Interaction evaluation methods for the assessment of creative work. Basically, they wanted to understand how best to evaluate art and design from the viewers’ perspective. I thought it was interesting how the disciplines of art and design were grouped together, with the latter, in my opinion, only requiring any serious consideration for evaluation.

Art is simply evaluated by the beholder (and I suppose the critic as well). Either it is liked and appreciated, or it is not. The artist is usually using some medium to express their views or interpretation of many things including an image, event, or emotion. The user, viewer, or the person who experiences the art does not have (in most cases) the opportunity to provide feedback that would affect the result.

Design, has a greater responsibility. Unlike art, it usually has a purpose beyond expression and is used in some way (there is an identifiable receiver or user), and therefore can be evaluated based on that premise. Design also has a whole host of challenges that art does not have.  Firstly, designers usually have to work to a brief or framework that can limit their creativity. These could be constraints as a result of the target audience, size of a product, limitations in technology or user interface structure. They also will, more than likely, have to work collaboratively with a team made up of people from a variety of disciplines, all with a contribution to the final outcome.

As a result of this, they will have to adjust their designs based on stakeholder requirements and user evaluations, and still produce something creative within what may be very constrained boundaries. Alternatively, the artist, although partial to public praise, needs only to please themselves.

The artist would lose much by having to submit to an iterative process of third party evaluation and re-design – Essentially this type of evaluation needs to come from within. The artist looks inward and creates,  where as the designer must look outward and create – Potentially a much more difficult task.

Case studies

Our success stories

  • Hotels.com

    Hotels.com gained a much stronger competitive advantage due to a great mobile strategy

  • Macmillan

    Macmillan got fantastic results from our work, including a 50% reduction in mobile homepage drop-offs

  • Hitachi Capital

    Hitachi Capital now delivers a market-leading online proposition and the best user experience possible

More case studies

Training academy

View training courses

About us

We're a user experience agency (UX agency) that creates people-centred, efficient and delightful digital experiences.

Get in touch on 020 7423 6320