Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

New From 37signals: 37express

28 May 2003 by

Major redesigns and site overhauls are becoming less and less common. Big hitters like Amazon, Yahoo, Google, and eBay know that quick, effective, subtle revisions are the new “secret weapon” for improving your site’s design, usability, readability, and overall customer experience. 37express is the first service of its kind tailored specifically to this emerging need.

The 37express concept builds on the success and popularity of the 37Better Project. In essence, it’s the 37Better Project for hire. If you know your site (or a key page) can be better, and you don’t want to invest a lot of money, time, and risk getting there, 37express is the perfect solution.

15 comments so far (Post a Comment)

28 May 2003 | fajalar said...

What I fear is that companies will come and buy a page redesign, love it, then use it as a template over the entire site. There might be two problems with this.

1) You only get paid for the one page, but they redid their entire site.

2) The design solution you came up with for the page may or may not work on the rest of the site, but they will use it anyway.

From a practical standpoint it sounds good. It may allow a company who doesn't apply UCD or usability to it's Web site a chance to see a return on investment without much risk. I would just encourage all companies to have clrealy defined (measurable) objectives with the redesign.

Form your standpoint it sounds like a good way to start building relationships with companies who are unsure/unaware of UCD and usability; companies that would look at your list of services and say it would take to much time/cost too much.

28 May 2003 | fajalar said...

Oh yeah, and Happy Birthday yesterday, Don!

28 May 2003 | son of asdf said...

I am torn. I think it's a great way to get your foot in the door. Like falajar, I would be afraid that they either hack your offering or simply stop with the "one-page patch".

28 May 2003 | pb said...

Do you provide the HTML or would the client need to create it basedon the PDF?

28 May 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Thanks Fajalar!

I don't see the risk as being that big. Truth is, many companies are going to spend the $2,500 as "oh, it's nothing to us" ... then, when they see the great work, will come back and say "You know, we'd like you to re-do our entire site. And while we're talking ...".

That's how it often goes. I went to a client for three months, ended up being there 51 months!

28 May 2003 | Darrel said...

Will you be offering a Dollar Menu too?

28 May 2003 | Mike Rundle said...

pb,

I checked it out, and they provide you with a PDF screenshot with the actual HTML code available at an extra cost.

Makes better sense this way ;)

28 May 2003 | JF said...

I checked it out, and they provide you with a PDF screenshot with the actual HTML code available at an extra cost.

Yep, that's how we do it. It would be tough to design the page and write valid HTML/CSS that worked across all major browsers in just a week. We actually design the pages in HTML but just take a screenshot of the final design and provide that to the client.

I'll be posting more 37express before and after examples later this week and early next.

28 May 2003 | JohnK said...

Overall, I agree with the approach of small design changes over time. It's probably a good way to drum up some work for your company too.

The companies mentioned above and in a similar article by Spool have good track records when creating on-line experiences. Do these companies have more to lose if they tick off their customers with a redesign? Also, would their executive teams be willing to bet the house on a re-launch of a new design when it's their only means of revenue?

Also, let's say one of the companies mentioned starts to tank, do you think they would develop a "New and Improved" version just to drum up some Traffic/PR/Marketing?

28 May 2003 | Tom said...

The same thinking is outlined in The Quiet Death of the Major Re-Launch an article by Jared Spool.

28 May 2003 | ~bc said...

I like the idea of a revenue stream from the 37Better line (other than of course its worth in marketing). However, to those in support of standards, it would be nice to see the questionaire in, say, RTF, or an HTML form instead of a certain proprietary format.

30 May 2003 | alisha said...

Way to hussel guys.
Ive noticed that companies are becoming increasingly aware of the backend importance. Ive been getting more "80-90% technical, 10-20% design" briefings, where as it used to be the other way around. The big guys have most often already gone through 1-3 redesigns and really do need "touch-ups" only.

30 May 2003 | alisha said...

hussle I mean. hussel is a german name. sorry.

04 Nov 2003 | Osoyoos said...

12 Jan 2004 | casino said...

Excellent site I have bookmarked your site and I will come back soon!

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^