Archive through June 08, 2006

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #3
1

I have the unique opportunity to meet with a company executive in charge of their website. The meeting is specifically to discuss improving their website to meet the needs of architects, specifiers, and construction professionals.

I’m looking for examples of websites that you feel are exemplary in how they present their information, ease of use, organization, navigation, depth of content, etc…

I am much less concerned about graphic appearance, as that’s very subjective. However, particularly bad examples might be fun as well.

To start off this list here are good sites (IMHO):

What are your thoughts?

2

The ones I like the most and meet my standards:

http://www.wrmeadows.com/ - lots of products and in French and Spanish - generally good info

http://www.portafab.com/ - shows what they do and works well with the search engines. While this may not be important for the specifier using 4specs, it is critical for the manufacturer.

great target page for architects, I plan to use all three in a newsletter showing good examples.

Plus point them to the manufacturer’s area on 4specs for our ideas:

3

Some general ideas without specific examples;

  • show me company/division/group names up front
  • show mailing address, phone and fax numbers up front
  • show direct contacts at all levels, early on
  • require no log-in or other “secret passages” [are you interested in me using your products? then make it easy for me]
  • good menus to get to products and elsewhere I might wish to go [don’t be encyclopedic!]
  • no glitz, electronic wizardry, film clips, commercials, shows, etc. - straight “stuff”
  • I’m pretty dumb so make it all easy and in terms I can understand
  • if you need to have me fill out a form, make it work easily-- much prefer direct e-amil with NO form.
4

Bad example I just encountered:

The immediate start-up is a spec wizard; I couldn’t get any other information and I only wanted to know if they manufacture acoustic wood doors!

And to add to Ralph’s list above, if you want glitz, fine, but provide me a place to click where I can avoid all that (skip intro) and quickly enter the technical part of the site.

5

Include information on Colin’s creation of guidelines for manufacturer’s websites - WebFormat - Web Format

6

Here’s an entry for the “graphically grevious” category:

http://www.cor-guard.com/

I find it visually stunning, in its own way. Beware the after-image when you look away.

I’ll second Mr. Liebing’s criteria, to which I’ll add: Actual technical data, ideally as a CSI spec (if practical), or at least major product characteristics (and available options!) clearly listed.

7

Ms. Koplowitz-- You are obviously both spec writer AND perfectionist.

Wow! what expectations!!!

8

I don’t want to have to download anything in order to use the website (certainly no flash stuff!). I would rather have straight html coding (copies easier), but .pdf works too. Word documents are about as easy for me to deal with as .pdfs since I usually wind up doing a lot of reformatting.

I would like to second the motion about having to log on to get information; I have been tempted to write such manufacturers out of my specs especially when I am trying desperately to get last minute information (usually at 9:00pm before the documents get printed 8:00am the next morning).

I used to like Armstrong’s ceiling site, but they have recently modified it so that I find it more difficult to use. I find both SherwinWilliams and PPG’s sites extremely difficult to use unless I know what I want. The absolutely worst used to be 3M. They made so many different products and offered no way to find the particular product being sought.

My suggestion to all the manufacturer’s is to ban marketing from involvement in putting these sites together. In addition to spec writers and designers (seeking technical information both in verbal and graphic form), I would suggest that many if not most users are contractors, subcontractors, fabricators, etc. Unless you are offering consumer products, don’t put together a website that is attractive to consumers; put together one that is useful.

9

And PU-LEASE PLEASE stop using that annoying Spec-Wizard! I can put together my own spec if I’m given the information. When I click on “specification” I don’t need to be stepped through a series of questions to compile what the manufacturer considers the “perfect” spec. (can you tell this just happened while I was trying to get information?)

10

This is a topical post for me Ive been volunteered to coordinate our CSI chapter program in April, on Effective Websites, for which Colin has generously agreed to be our featured speaker. May I quote some of your comments in our introductory panel discussion before Colins presentation? The focus of the discussion is what specifiers are looking for in product websites.

By the way, my all time pet peeve on websites is passwords and registrations. Especially those sites that I visit once, then not again for 18 months, and they wont let me back in because I have already registered, and forgotten the password. And those stupid clues. Do I really need to remember my mother-in-laws canarys maiden name to get back in?

11

You’ve got my permission. I never say or write anything publicly that I won’t stand behind.

12

Use mine as well; I would be interested in what you put together.

13

Me, too, George
Might also check other threads about what we want reps to know-- some of that applies to web sites also.

14

Likewise. And I second the password complaint.

GE has also improved; there are still multiple sites and arcane navigation, but at least now I can get to the technical data without a password. Once I find it.

15

Mr. Everding, there was an excellent presentation on this topic at the CA/CS/PR Academy. The Powerpoint presentation was made available to the attendees, and unless I’m mistaken, permission was given to use the presentations for seminars exactly like yours.

I’m remote right now, and don’t have access to my presentation disk nor the name of the presenter, I know his first name is Sal :slight_smile:

Email me offline and when I return to my office on Monday, I will find out if I can email you the presentation.

For those of you who did not go and had the opporunity, shame on you! You really missed out.

16

I like a website that is logically organized in a logical path from the most general categories to more and more specific ones. Ive come across some websites recently that just listed all their products by their names and numbers. The only option is to click on every single product and try to figure out what it is and how it is different from the previous product. I certainly dont have time for that. Maybe they are expecting people to have their entire lists of product designations memorized. I wouldnt need their website if I had that kind of a memory.

I also find it extremely convenient when they provide comparative lists of all their products so I can quickly compare them and zero in on what Im looking for. I dont think a lot of these companies understand how much business they lose when a competitors website is easier to use.

17

In addition to coming up with a consensus on the most desired and most dreaded features of product websites, I hope lots of 4specs wonks will use this thread for voting. Let producers know what makes a good site, and then lets let them know HOW MANY of us want them.

Ralph Liebing states the fundamentals with a good list, and others have added essential points. I would order the result so far this way:

Three principles up front for producers:

  1. Follow Colin Gilboys suggested format / checklist.
  2. Follow first the wishes of the engineering department (including the senior sales engineer), and the marketers last be they in-house or consulting.

Then three principles to suit the busy specifier who must visit more than a dozen sites an hour on a busy day:
3. No glitz or kinetic wizardry. That stuff frustrates searching and selecting
4. No log-in, registration or password. That stuff ultimately creates responses that always come when the specifier is busiest. Trust the specifier to ask for help. Any good tech rep will get the info he needs more efficiently when he is contacted often for an actual project.
5. Heres a positive tip: On the main menu: after HOME, make the first items DESIGN, PRODUCTS and DETAILS:
The first is for the designer who is looking for projects and how the installed product looks.
The second is the detailed product line and all of its technical aspects. Sell the designer, then clinch the specifier.
The third is needed for the drawings.
The specifier often peeks at DESIGN and DETAILS to do her work
All this means that main menu across the top of the home page should not exceed 6 or 8 subsites for ease of navigation and to get the inquirer to the desired core info in fewer than a half-dozen clicks.

For the specifier, three more features are most appreciated:
6. Lots of real technical info, with standards cited, organized by function and levels of quality. Here Search morphs into Select, and ultimately into Specify the magic SSS key to Sales.
7. A 3-part guide spec with real qualities is appreciated. Sometimes a specifier will get the needed technical data right there in the guide, because the data is already organized.
8. Then lavish CONTACT info: Name of producer, street address, phone/fax/email addresses of representatives - or perhaps a factory contact.

All sorts of desirable corollary information flows from these basics: Completed project lists, tables of properties for complex multi-product lines, product options and accessories, access to installation instructions and warranty forms, info on code compliance and regional variations, LEED and ADA info, SI equivalents . . .

The person you heard in San Francisco on this subject was Sal Verrastro FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA.

18

Just another thought that comes up more and more-- include a list of agencies that have approved the product, system or equipment. Make sure you include tha national agencies [ICC Evaluation Service, Ul, FMG, etc.] for the widest possible audience, and then the more jurisdictional approvals [Miami-Dade, L.A., etc.]

Also, make a distinct point of this information-- don’t hide it away, as it is often a “deal maker” under some circumstances.

And be factual; this is a good attribute to dislay, but not necessarily a purely marketing point.

19

I was curious about a product mentioned on this forum so I visited their web site and lo and behold they wanted me to log in. Instead I sent them an e-mail indicating my displaisure with this inconvienience. It got their attention.

If you dislike logging in then send the offending sites an e-mail expressing your preferences in a professional manner. You need to stand firm when they try to justify the practice claiming it allows them to give you better service.

If enough people who follow this forum express their opinion there is a real possibility that the manufacturers will give you the service you want.

20

I don’t feel as strongly as some about “logging in” to manufacturer’s web sites. I see why they would want to know who’s interested in their products and why. Plus, I don’t mind being known to legitimate companies.

However, I draw the line at two things: 1) They must have an explicit promise not to e-mail me anything, ever; and 2) I will not make up a “user ID and password” to get in. I can’t and won’t keep track of passwords. And what’s with all the security, anyway? Are they afraid someone will go on the site claiming they are me and do … what, exactly??