If Your Website Burst into Flames, What Would You Keep?

Like an attic in an old house, websites tend to be a place where we set something down for the time-being, and that time-being turns into eternity.

And it ends up being very cluttered.

It’s the web, after all. It’s virtually limitless. We can upload as much as we want, we can trick out navigational elements to contain as many items as we want, and we can load as much stuff onto our homepage as humanly possible just in case someone, somewhere, might need it sometime.

Our server can surely handle the burden. But can our readers? According to research, probably not. Studies have found that the more choices you give a person, the less likely they are to make a decision. 

Wikipedia defines the phenomenon:

The term “analysis paralysis” or “paralysis of analysis” refers to over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation, so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.

When we aren’t judicious with the options we present our readers on the web, we run the risk of stalling them – and ultimately scaring them off – with too many choices. The scenario has played out several times in real-world research.

From The Economist:

… [R]esearchers set up a sampling table with a display of jams. In the first test they offered a tempting array of 24 different jams to taste; on a different day they displayed just six. Shoppers who took part in the sampling were rewarded with a discount voucher to buy any jam of the same brand in the store.

…[W]hen it came to buying afterwards, fully 30% of those who stopped at the six-jam table went on to purchase a pot, against merely 3% of those who were faced with the selection of 24.

The more choices consumers were presented with, the less items they bought. It turns out that in many cases, a simple menu puts people at ease and results in them pulling the proverbial trigger more often.

A survey by branding consultant Siegel + Gale furthers the argument. Their results found that U.S. consumers were willing to pay a 4-6% premium for brands they believed to offer a greater degree of simplicity over their competitors.

Simplicity spawns action.

But our cluttered websites try to swim against this powerful current. Why? Because:

• “What goes on the homepage” is often political.
• We want to show our readers every option to show our depth.
• We’re afraid that if they don’t see what they want instantly they’ll flee.
• We think that if it’s not stuffed above the fold than it might as well not be on the page at all.

It’s this kind of thinking that paves the way for the crowded attic effect seen on tons of websites across the web. But what if we designed websites like they were about to catch on fire? We could only save the things that truly mattered, only the things we can’t replace, only the things that can’t be found anywhere else.

What if we forced ourselves to make a decision to keep only the handful of things our site absolutely needs to do in order to succeed? It’s a scary, anxiety-inducing thought.

But it just might make things lot simpler for our readers. And they just might stick around a bit longer and get something done.

If your website was on fire, what would you absolutely have to keep?