Which is better – in general terms? A homepage that has a static image and a link you need to click in order to get to the main content? Or a homepage that has everything on it?
Filed under: blogging, web design
23 January 2009 • 6:15 pm
Which is better – in general terms? A homepage that has a static image and a link you need to click in order to get to the main content? Or a homepage that has everything on it?
Filed under: blogging, web design
Just put the main content on your homepage. Why bother with the extra click? Also, having content on your homepage will be better for Mr Google.
Anthony: my thoughts exactly.
The static image link thing was pretty common on the web in the mid-90′s. Print designers used them as a ‘cover’ for their sites, programmers as ‘splash screens’. Eventually, web designers used them for pre-loading images and specifying requirements (monitor this big, browser version this new, color depth this deep, etc.).
Can’t think of why I’d use one now. Unless there was something relevant that I really, really want visitors to look at first.
Having said that, I wouldn’t put “everything” on the home page either. Just what has to be there.
(Oh — it was also common practice back then to load up the ‘splash page’ with keywords in the same color as the background to game search engines.)
I say I’d prefer the latter. I get to confirm (or not) in a glance what I expect the content to be. This first impression defines how much time future visits will be dedicated to this newfound site, if at all. My own rule of thumb is: If I don’t find what I’m looking for in three clicks, I’m outta here.