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!

Clarity vs. Simplicity

09 Dec 2004 by Jason Fried

Simplicity is dead. It’s been dead for quite a while, and mostly because simple doesn’t mean a whole lot. To some people simple means sparce. To others it means white. To others it means something else entirely.

What really matters is clarity. Clarity in visual design. Clarity in copywriting. Clarity in purpose, mission, and statement. Clarity allows someone to “get it” while simplicity only allows someone to “see it.”

We’ve been wrestling with this on the Basecamp signup page. This is how the “plan chunk” from the sign up page looked from February 1, 2004 until this morning:

And today we changed it to be chart-based instead:

You can click on each to see them at full size. You can see the actual HTML chart version on the real Basecamp sign up page.

Now, at first glance the one with the big grey badges looks simpler. But is it clearer? The chart version provides additional context, is proactive in answering some frequently asked questions, and brings the Free and Personal plans into focus better than the grey badged version (the Free and Personal plans are small links at the bottom of that version).

So, while the grey badged version may be simpler in appearance, does it give me enough to make a clear decision? Does it give me enough of an edge to see the distinction between the plans? Does it tell me enough about what is the same and what is different between the plans?

We’re going to run with the chart version for a few weeks and see how that goes. We also plan on introducing some new features for certain plans so the chart system will definitely allow us to grow more consistently.

What do you think? Are you intimidated by the chart version? Are you turned off by the “that’s it?” feel of the grey badged version? Does one version make you feel like the product is more real or serious? What say you?

54 comments so far (Post a Comment)

09 Dec 2004 | Will Hayworth said...

The new look also feels slicker and more full-featured (due to the additional information that's presented upfront), IMHO.

Oh, and I'm saying this for some others as well as myself: thanks for making the "other plans" section larger. I've been a Basecamp user for a while now (and I'm hooked; it's so incredibly useful for managing my time and resources), and I've wanted to recommend the free one to friends to try out, but I told them to "look for the link" and they couldn't find it (don't ask me why; I'm incredulous, too).

09 Dec 2004 | sammy said...

why not include both on the page? or, if there's a real estate issue, hide the chart and include an option above the plan chunk for simple / detailed so the user can switch them out on their own

09 Dec 2004 | Hunter said...

Me thinks the new approach is better. Clearer. Yes.

10 Dec 2004 | Micah said...

Finding the free plan on the grey badged version reminds me of digging through the Real website to find the free player.

10 Dec 2004 | Goynang said...

The badges give you the differences in a very clear way. You can very quickly see that more cash = less limits and ultimately SSL security.

I think the chart repeats itself too much. The different options are all too similar to warrant bothering with - it's just noise. I have to spend more cognitive power to work out what the badges tell me up front.

For the chart to have value I personally think it should be on a "more detail..." page and then break down the features to a more granular level (although I suspect this would just mean a load of duplication as the plans are all so similar).

My 2 cents.

10 Dec 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I definitely think the chart is more effective. The badge approach lets me know the pricing tiers more quickly, but the pricing tiers tell me nothing without seeing what's behind each. The grid spells all that out pretty quickly and easily.

Plus, it takes some of the presumption out of the equation. The badges, in an attempt to quickly explain what the differences are among the tiers, have the "great for whomever" copy - which pigeonholes things unnecessarily and almost certainly inaccurately. A larger firm may have a need for a collaborative PM tool only on a limited basis. A freelancer may have a lot of things going on and need a more robust approach. The grid makes it more apparent that the differences are based on what you need, not who you are, and leaves the decision making up to the purchaser.

Not to mention, charts and graphs consistently show greater response and perceptions of utility online than text, no matter how short that text is.

10 Dec 2004 | Lee Dale said...

Well, count me in as one of the people that didn't realize there was a Free Plan. Based on the 30 day free trial, I didn't even consider to look for a free plan. Though I would have signed up if I had seen it as our company is currently evaluating software -- now I'll just leave it to someone else to evaluate.

The chart is a lot clearer, but it could possibly be shortened to only note the differentiating items. i.e. if Messages, to-dos, milestones are part of the app. in all cases, don't bother mentioning it as this will be noted on the description page what features the application has.

Though, if you are adding additional differentiating components, it is perhaps a good idea to leave Messages, to-dos and milestones (maybe outline the feature comparisons specifically, below the usage details?)

I do like seeing unlimited people, clients, and logins as I wonder if there are limits on this (based on pricing from other products).

Anyway, the chart is much clearer for me. There's way more information, so it does take longer to read, but it's much easier to key in on the information you care about and note the differentiation between the plans.

10 Dec 2004 | Derek said...

I think the context of the different designs made the difference to me. When I looked at the screenshots above I kind of liked the badge version, but when I see that this information is going on the sign-up page, I think the chart version is much better. I have probably already read about the app and know I want to sign up, now I just need to know what plan to sign up for, so it's nice to be able to compare them all before I do. Had this been on the front page, I think the badge version might be better. Didn't the badges used to be on the front page?

I find the current front page to be very "wordy". It's overwhelming and looks like way too much to read just to find out what this thing does. Too many bullets, too many paragraphs, too many answers to questions at the bottom. It makes the whole thing look more complicated than it is in my opinion.

10 Dec 2004 | Josh Armantrout said...

I like the chart, though I agree with previous suggestions that it might be nice to use a modified version of the panels above the chart.

Also, based on the principle of contrast as discussed in the book Influence, it may be best to reverse the order of the items in their respective section. Lead with your fullest featured and most expensive plan and go down from there.

Either way, I agree that clarity is where it's at moreso than simplicity.

10 Dec 2004 | Regnard Kreisler Raquedan said...

The chart version helps in giving the potential customer what he is going to get and puts the free account in a better place.

However, the badge version gives a better overview of the plans.

I would recommend a hybrid layout where it would absorb the badge version's overview and the chart version's account presentation.

10 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Also, based on the principle of contrast as discussed in the book Influence, it may be best to reverse the order of the items in their respective section. Lead with your fullest featured and most expensive plan and go down from there.

That is interesting. I think we'll try that.

10 Dec 2004 | Darrel said...

I like both. The first one seems like the quick overview, while the second is the 'more details' view.

10 Dec 2004 | Anil said...

I think these two approaches are appropriate for different audiences, and it's impossible to judge them without understanding the goals for the page.

I'm a user, not a designer, and I've recently signed up for QuickBase, which isn't too dissimilar from BaseCamp. I've also used BaseCamp as well. When a site identifies either my role, the task I'm trying to complete, or the goal I'm trying to accomplish, I'll tend to follow its recommendations for a product or service. ("freelancers" or "small firms" in the old design were useful.)

I'd expect to have the first page as my default choices, and the chart as an option if I wanted more detail. That's especially true since there's just an extraordinary amount of information in the detailed chart.

Finally, I think part of this decision may be driven by the desire to reduce pre-sales questions. That's a perfectly legitimate tactic, especially given the stated desire to require as little human overhead as possible to run Basecamp, but it does come at the expense of having a much more intimidating introductory page.

Has there been any measurement or metrics of views, click-throughs, or signups that you could generalize into statistics to provide some evidence for the effectiveness of either design?

On the plus side, I like the new colors better. :)

10 Dec 2004 | jason said...

love it. i love the distinction you make between simple and clear. also i've hated for a long time when companies hide their free versions. the ability for me as a user to make a clear decision is like a gift from you the company. too often i feel negatively against a service provider because they've made my decision making difficult -- putting all the information out there, with no fine print, no jargon, no crap, it just makes me happy as a user.

10 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Has there been any measurement or metrics of views, click-throughs, or signups that you could generalize into statistics to provide some evidence for the effectiveness of either design?

We just launched the chart today so we'll see how it goes and then report back if there's anything interesting to report.

We'll also continue to make tweaks to the chart based on our observations and people's feedback. We've already made a few.

We'll share if there's anything of note to share. Thanks for your feedback.

10 Dec 2004 | Lloyd Dalton said...

The chart version definitely communicates more.

You can make it less noisy by moving the "select" link button to the bottom, so it replaces the "select plan" link. That seems like unnecessary repetition - the type of thing you probably teach clients not to do :)

The tan cells make the table look a little unbalanced. They already have bold text (which looks nice) - is it necessary for them to have a different background too?

Finally, if you move "secure 128-bit SSL data encryption down one row, the table will look more organized.

Cheers!

- Lloyd

10 Dec 2004 | Josh Armantrout said...

Changing the order there is another great example of how well that subtle psychological tweak works. If you look at the before and after it's pretty impressive how your mind reads it. You're left with a much better value perception overall and the thought process is definitely different.

We're designing our new site and have done some of the same things and I was impressed with the effect.

--Josh

P.S. Any plans for the Basecamp workshop in the Chicago area down the road?

10 Dec 2004 | Holger Dieterich said...

The new layout is much better. I didn't even realize before, that there was a free plan for try-out.

The chart for product comparison is a well known design pattern, which makes it understandable immediatly.

10 Dec 2004 | Simon said...

Anil summed up the situation very well, it depends on who you are aiming to entice. For me (a self confessed 'techie') the chart is best as I can clearly see what I'm getting for my money and can easily decide which plan I require.

For a non 'techie' user options like 'Unbranded & transparent to users' would quite likely confuse them (I deal with non technical users on a day to day basis, and come up against this all the time). For them I can see the 'plan chunk' format being clearer.

As an aside, as the basic plan is free is it not worth offering only that option first, get people signed up and then allow them to upgrade the account to the level required. By removing all options there is no barrier to sign up as there is no choice a 'wrong' decision can't be made.

10 Dec 2004 | Dave Marks said...

I think the new one is better for getting people to "trade up" you can see what you're missing out.

I guess this could work in reverse though - you realise you don't need the extra stuff.

But I like it, its very slick

10 Dec 2004 | Alex King said...

Wow! This is great guys! And thanks for not hiding the free link anymore :)

10 Dec 2004 | Sean Devine said...

Data density is "in" - communicate more in less space.

We are leveraging this principle in strategic sourcing (my business) a lot. I think that it works best if you use font size, weight, color, borders and icons to add depth and to data dense tables.

10 Dec 2004 | Elliott said...

The fact is:

On the old version i didnt find the free version of basecamp
On the new version i did. i love it. im planning on handing over money.

So basicly, yeah it worked!

10 Dec 2004 | Egor Kloos said...

The two examples are not the same, they communicate differently. The first seems to be more promotional and focused on guiding the user to make a particular choice. The second seems to facilitate choice itself. they're both clear but the first one is a bit halfway between promotional and informational (is that a word?). The second is clear because its purpose is. I you feel that the products need a certain kind of promotional communication depending on how and why users entered the site then make the communication purely promotional. The context is often already provided in the sales path and at which stage the user entered the site. So I can't really tell if the second choice is the best way to go. I can say that's is better than the first because that's just not clear enough. Good to see Art direction being discussed as a part of UI design.

10 Dec 2004 | ak said...

When purchasing software with multiple levels of subscription, I go through the following checklist:

1. Does it have the features that I need?
2. Does the interface look intuitive (screenshots, not a demo!) so I don't need to read a manual?
3. How much do I get per subscription?
4. Try before you buy?

The grid layout works well but it even on a small graph it was difficult to separate what the differences between each version are. My suggestion is to make the greencheckmarks different so the difference between an available and unavailable option is clear. The difference between the two is currently a 10px by 10px icon.

10 Dec 2004 | Sara said...

I think the new approach is better, since I can see exactly what each option entails without having to visit a separate page. There's just enough information without being overwhelming.

10 Dec 2004 | chris said...

I posted this in the last post where you guys introduced the new Basecamp homepage:

I was just wondering if you meant to not include a background color for your body. Since I've changed my default background color from white, I've noticed many sites don't bother to declare a background color and was wondering if this was intentional or not.

And I clicked to the sign up page and noticed that there wasn't a background-color declared for it, as well as the homepage.

I didn't get a response before, so I'm still wondering if the missing background-color is being done on purpose or not.

10 Dec 2004 | Ian said...

Needs work in terms of accessibility - using a screen reader it's close to impossible to understand the benefits of each plan.

11 Dec 2004 | Ben said...

It's pretty idioitic to give SSL only to premium subscribers. That's just silly. Security should NEVER cost more. It just should be a given.

- Ben

11 Dec 2004 | JF said...

It's pretty idioitic to give SSL only to premium subscribers. That's just silly. Security should NEVER cost more. It just should be a given.

Well, unfortunately security does cost more -- both in cash, server power, and development time. SSL is far more taxing on the servers than straight HTTP. It can take up to three times the processing power to deal with secure requests. So for now we're only able to include it on the Premium plan.

12 Dec 2004 | Adam Shostack said...

Why three checks across, rather than something that says

"All accounts include...free trial, messages, and unlimited people"?

The clutter of 4 rows without much variation made me stop reading.

Regarding Ben & JF's SSL discussion, how about make SSL a $5 or $10 a month add-on to any plan? And is it complete session SSL, or login session only? If I don't buy, what does that mean?

Adam

12 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Regarding Ben & JF's SSL discussion, how about make SSL a $5 or $10 a month add-on to any plan? And is it complete session SSL, or login session only? If I don't buy, what does that mean?

It's a complete SSL session.

We've considered this, but we don't currently offer any services this way. We'd have to spend development time building an extra $/month add-on system, plus a good chunk of extra dev time configuring and installing new servers, dealing with additional load balancing, etc. Right now we think our dev time is better spent on building more productive features.

If SSL is important to you and your clients, go Premium. At $59/month it's only about $1.90/day. If security is a top priority for you then it's a tough sell to say no to that.

12 Dec 2004 | Adam Shostack said...

It is of course, your call. I'm not quite in your target market. (someone pointed here for your chart re-design) If I were, the $9 or $19 service would be good for me, and my small company, except it's insecure. So you'd be asking me to pay a 5x or 3x premium for security, which I think is off-kilter. That would force me to consider, what other security decisions, invisible to me the user, have they made that I might not like?

Again, it's your call, but I figured I'd share with you how I, as a prospect might think.

13 Dec 2004 | Ben said...

To JF: Before you made SSL paid-only, it worked on all accounts, even trial, just by using "https://" instead of "http://". I'm not saying that I feel you took that away from me or something, but that you obviously didn't feel it was "taxing" back then.

Again, with a good server conf, there shouldn't be any problems with SSL anymore. Or is the problem that you have to buy certs for every single server since you use subdomains? Or do you have a wildcard cert?

Anyway, please forgive me for saying out loud that offering SSL for money only is idiotic. I still think it is, though. It just sends the message that you let all non-premium subscribers stand in the cold, cleartext rain that's the WWW. Also rethink it from a marketing standpoint. I really wouldn't advertise with SSL as "premium only". At least not to your web-savvy target group. Heck, who would like to pay you 19+ bucks a month only to find out that some idiot with DSNIFF et. al. in their shared office read out sensible customer data.

(I'm not sure how you do logins currently, but if it's not via hash or something, he would also sniff out every password.)

13 Dec 2004 | David Heinemeier Hansson said...

Ben, this discussion has been covered in length at the Everything Basecamp site.

The short story is that https was available only to people who accidently stumbled across it, so the load was insignificant (no one knew about it). When we go out advertising it as a feature and automatically turning it up for a lot of accounts, the load goes way up (lots of people know about it and use it).

Sniffing is a problem for any service that doesn't run secure. Lots of people don't seem to mind checking their email over GMail or keep discussions on a password-protected wiki. The no-SSL versions of Basecamp are no different from that.

We note your discontent, though, and will factor it into future decisions on this issue (as we do all feedback).

13 Dec 2004 | Jake said...

Small quibble, but if "usage may vary," how can a plan be "pefect for..." someone. It sounds contradictory.

14 Dec 2004 | Robert said...

I like the new design better cuz, yes, it is clearer and more concise.

Even tho I love the colour 'grey', the big dark grey boxes look dirty to me!

14 Dec 2004 | Ian said...

I'm happy to add myself to the many individuals complaining about the significant cost of SSL. As a small business, I simply can't justify the expense.

This SSL issue has made me wonder if I should use a different product management product.

I have made previous suggestions regarding basecamp and I feel I received excuses, nothing more. Hopefully if enough people think the same way, 37 Signals will have no choice but to reconsider this issue at least.

14 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Hi Ian-

I'm sorry you feel this way. We're a small business too (37signals/Basecamp is just 4 people). We understand the pressures you are under, and we hope you can understand the pressures we are under as well. Offering SSL for thousands of people with heavy use requirements is an expensive proposition. We wish it wasn't, but it is. So for now we're just offering SSL on Premium. We may make it an add-on option for other account levels in the future. We'll note your request.

If you think Basecamp is overpriced, you should see what the competition charges. They're charging between $35-99+ per user per month. Remember, they charge you by the person. Basecamp doesn't. Basecamp as fixed monthly pricing. 1 person or 1000, you pay the same fixed monthly fee. And our most expensive plan (Premium which includes unlimited projects and unlimited people) is currently only $59/month.

As far as "excuses" go...

We listen to every request. Some we implement, some we don't. Some are because of technical reasons, some are because we don't think the requests are in the spirit of the application. Here's a list of everything we've added since we launched just 10 months ago.

15 Dec 2004 | gabe said...

I don't want to go all semantic on you, but I'd say that simplicity is a kind of clarity (and in a lot of ways the easy path to making something clear). If you make something simple, it's very likely to be clear (even if it's not so well designed). To design something that's thick with information, then it's a hell of a lot harder to be clear.

15 Dec 2004 | Ian said...

JF, thanks for the reply.

If you have so many users that implementing SSL would be a problem, you really ought to have enough users to provide the money to provide adequate resources for it to no longer be a problem!

It shouldn't be necessary to cheese off a significant part of your client base (i.e. freelancers and small businesses) by forcing them to purchase a much larger package than the one they need, just because its the only way they can get SSL.

While we're on the topic of security, please, please introduce the ability for Basecamp to handle Secure FTP or similar - I don't like having to switch on basic unsecure ftp just so Basecamp can upload files...

All the best...

15 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Ian, you sound unhappy. If you don't like Basecamp, don't use it. We'd rather have people that enjoy using Basecamp using Basecamp. If you think we're out to get you, we're not. We're just trying to do the best we can with what we have. We'd love to keep you as a customer, but if you think there's a better product out there at a better price point then go for it. In the end it's better that you use a tool you believe in.

15 Dec 2004 | jsp said...

I for one strongly disagree with the (intentionally provocative) declaration that simplicity is dead. Just to pluck an example out of the air, consider cell phone plans. Do you think the tens of millions of people on nationwide plans are great travelers? Not in my experience. They're people who embraced the simplicity of a plan that says "Call from anywhere, to anywhere, in the continental U.S. for no additional fee." That beats "your local calling area is approximated on this map. When you're outside the blue zones, you will pay a tower fee, plus a roaming charge. In the light blue zones..."

You would have us believe that simplicity is about expression, whereas clarity is some sort of structural element:

Clarity allows someone to “get it” while simplicity only allows someone to “see it.”

Wrong. In fact, backwards: clarity is an attempt to make things simple to understand. Clarity comes late in the process, when the marketing decisions (and their associated artificial strata, such as 1, 3 10, 25 projects) have been determined. Simplicity comes at the beginning. Simplicity is the voice saying "let's not charge users for clients, or seats, or processor cores, or KB transferred. Let us not clutter out customers' minds and introduce anxiety over these details." Clarity is the voice saying "let's make the chart nice and neat."

Strive for simplicity, settle for clarity.

(And on the SSL issue: what about an approach where just username/password exchange is encrypted, à la Hotmail? Assuming the greatest sniffing threat is on the LAN, all of the other information [e.g., clients] could be determined by traffic/DNS analysis anyway.)

15 Dec 2004 | jsp said...

Damn, if I'd known the e-mail address field was just displayed as a simple mailto: I would have done that differently. Hello, spambots!

15 Dec 2004 | dean said...

i think the old version is much better imo. 1 quick look and I can see the 3 major plans and what they will cost me. i find the chart intimidating and cluttered. original version seems to weight more with clarity than the newer verison in my mind.

16 Dec 2004 | Ian said...

JF, I'm saddened by your "Ship up or shape out" message.

Up until now I've been a real basecamp evangelist, demonstrating the product to all the people I think may be interested. Your email suggests this isn't important to you.

I'm not unhappy - I'm just disappointed that basecamp isn't as good as it could be because 37 signals (which has done some great usability work for other websites) clearly has a problem listening to customers of its own products.

It's interesting to contrast the way you've handled this discussion with how Six Apart handled the feedback customers provided regarding their licensing. How would you advise a client to handle this dialogue?

I urge you to reconsider this SSL decision, add secure ftp and think a little about how you deal with your own customers, preferably over a nice bottle of wine in relaxing surroundings.

Best...

16 Dec 2004 | JF said...

I'm not unhappy - I'm just disappointed that basecamp isn't as good as it could be because 37 signals (which has done some great usability work for other websites) clearly has a problem listening to customers of its own products.

Again, I share with you the list of new features and improvements we've made in just the past 10 months -- nearly all based on customer feedback. I have no idea where you get this idea that we don't listen. And the fact that I've responded to each one of your comments should show you that we care.

In the end we have to consider hundreds of requests and make the decisions about which ones are most important and most realistic at the time. We have limited resources and a product to keep simple and focused. It's not easy. Try it sometime.

BTW: SFTP is coming in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks for your feedback. We've noted your requests.

16 Dec 2004 | Randy said...

Ian, what's your prob? They're clearly listening (see that list?). Just because they don't do what you want doesn't mean they aren't listening. They have thousands of opinions to deal with. You've made your request and Jason has PERSONALLY responded (a few time). He said they'd consider. Leave it already.

17 Dec 2004 | eos said...

To 37 Signals,

Please raise the price of the basic plan to $59/month.

This way, you can include SSL for everyone and eliminate the leechs from your client base.

Get real suckers, you're managing your entire business for $19/month, if security is so important, spring for the extra $40 and save the excuses because the legitimacy Basecamp provides to your business should net a wee bit more than $40/month in revenue.

And if it hasn't, it's because YOU SUCK, not because Basecamp does.

Anyone here ever tried to build even a fraction of what Basecamp does? I have, for the last four years, and when I saw Basecamp I entered my credit card without even taking it for a trial. It's so obviously earth shattering to anyone who needs this type of web based software, 37S could charge $99 per project and probably make similar revenue with fewer clients and significantly less resource usage, but they've chosen marketshare over margin, be thankful and pony up yer duckets for SSL.

Wankers.

/e

PS - I personally do not want SSL. It's slow and frankly I'm not that concerned. I receive usernames and passwords via email from companies that have stored my credit card (drives me crazy) do you think I'm really worried about someone seeing my To Do list?

17 Dec 2004 | JF said...

Hey, eos, need a job in PR? ;)

20 Dec 2004 | Ian said...

Randy and EOS, An additional $480 a year is a lot of money for freelancers or small businesses to pay for the addition of SSL. When basecamp launched, it did so on the back of such people, so I'd hope 37signals would wish to carry on supporting them. Yes, they may have listened elsewhere, but if you view pages elsewhere on this website, rather than just this discussion, you'll see there are plenty of people disappointed about the SSL discussion. You don't have to agree, but don't kick my butt for expressing my own view. Please note that I'm repeating my point only because you seem to both misunderstand it.

20 Dec 2004 | Randy said...

Randy and EOS, An additional $480 a year is a lot of money for freelancers or small businesses to pay for the addition of SSL.

Then don't pay it. You aren't entitled to anything and 37signals isn't entitled to anything. You have this sense of entitlement that baffles me. If you can't afford it then you don't get it. This is a business arrangement. That's how a business works.

When basecamp launched, it did so on the back of such people, so I'd hope 37signals would wish to carry on supporting them.

Launched on the backs of such people? What does that even mean? I think it's really impressive that 37signals even offers a low-cost plan for small business. They even offer a plan for $9/month! WHAT DO YOU WANT, IAN??

Yes, they may have listened elsewhere, but if you view pages elsewhere on this website, rather than just this discussion, you'll see there are plenty of people disappointed about the SSL discussion.

It's not plenty, it's you over and over.

Look Ian, you should write software one day. And make it free so I can afford it. And then I'll complain over and over and over even after your failrly explain yourself. And then I'll complain some more. And more.

20 Dec 2004 | Lee said...

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, because I have NO idea what this software/service you're advertising is used for [friend forwarded the site to share the "clarity vs. simplicity" concept], but I do have a thought about the presentation of the info. Maybe you could combine the two approaches by using a "step up" model (place badges in appropriate column "on top of" the table in a staircase manner) - let me see if I can explain this clearly. List the features of the basic plan under it's badge, and then the next badge is to the right and slightly higher than that and simply lists what is in addition to the basic plan, and the third plan (again, up the "staircase" visually) list the additional features available. That way you get a sense of how each plan "builds" on the other, or exactly what the extra value is. Not sure if that makes sense without an actual drawing, but, for what it's worth.....

05 Jan 2005 | Larry Amis said...

Love the clarity of the chart over the simplicity of the badges.
Text to link

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^