This is something I realized recently, and thinking about it, it makes perfect sense to me.
I think this is about knowing and understanding the difference between the visitors who actually read your articles and who didn't. It's sort of like how you should think if you were a store manager at Prada. Probably only about 1 in 100 people who walk into the store would actually buy something. To treat all the visitors equally would be silly. Someone who reaches the bottom of the article is qualitatively different from the rest, and we should treat them differently. These days, your home page is not so important because search engines send visitors straight to individual pages. So, the visitors who come to my site are looking for specific things. After a quick scan of the page, if the visitor determines that it is not what he wants, he leaves and goes back to the search result page. This is fine. In fact, I would not want to encourage visitors that are not properly targeted because they are just wasting my bandwidth. The one that really count are those who actually read my articles. I should offer an after-care service, an appendix, a further reading section. It shouldn't just be another navigation bar (we've always had that in the footer.). It should be relevant to the interest of someone who actually read the article. A group of "share" buttons are definitely relevant. Links to other related articles are also relevant. I think highlights of what's new is good too. If you have other related websites that you want to promote, it's a good idea too. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41412 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
