There are many strong arguments for building towards so-called “universal” usability. A site that can be accessed by 100% of prospective users on every possible computer configuration has enormous appeal as an information and communications tool. A “universal site” can, ideally, be accessed by users with visual or physical impairments, and by users with all different makes and models of PCs, on anything from slow speed modems to high-speed corporate networks (let’s leave aside for now the quest for accessibility by mobile devices).

On the other site of the fence is the desire to build a distinctive “e-brand” for a company, creating an innovative, interactive experience for the customer that will keep him/her coming back for more. The goal to create buzz, fun, and a high-end visual appearance is first and foremost in the minds of the designers and developers in this camp. Sites that focus on entertainment or consumer goods are often developed with these goals in mind.

Is there a right or wrong in this debate?

The best approach I’ve always found to delivering practical interactive design solutions, is to ask first, who is the user? Secondly, unless you are defining for a known set of users, as in an enterprise situation, I usually recommend going for the 80% solution.

Can 80% of your users easily find and use 80% of what they need? Although the universal usability purists will balk, I have found that this formula keeps end-users happy and budgets closer to earth for our client organizations. That way, you don’t end up with the “click here for HTML” version, and “Click here for Flash version” choices that confuse visitors to too many major consumer sites.

If 80% of your users are teenagers or young adults, your site can be more videogame-like than a site where 80% of the users are corporate users on similar platforms. The more diverse your audience, the more you need to be concerned about broad-based usability.

A site oriented towards a broad-based group of American consumers, or a diverse international audience needs to be focused more towards usability and accessibility. This is particularly important for information sites, but should be taken into account on shopping sites as well. Recent market research (September, 2001) from Jupiter Media Metrix indicates that U.S. consumers prefer sites that are fast loading, customizable and informative to those featuring rich media. This tendency is apt to be valid for international markets as well, as processors and connection speeds are even more variable outside the U.S.

Keep in mind that dynamic interactions with the user – not graphics – ultimately define the online brand experience. An online brand experience is at heart an interactive experience – and speed and overall impression on the site visitor are critical.

Three key elements that help build dynamic interactions are: 1) the intelligent use of language, 2) attention to the details of navigation, and 3) personalization. Are you really talking to your user? Can s/he do what s/he wants to do? Is your site sufficiently tailored to his/her needs?

Resolve the “brand vs usability” debate on sites targeting a broad consumer market of users by paring down the use of bitmaps to the minimum, and skipping rich media such as Flash altogether. And forego (please) those introductory splash pages that force an extra step on your user. Don’t lose your potential customers by trying to impress them with your beautiful artwork. For the most part, they just want the facts (or the goods).

By focusing on the quality of the your interaction, rather than on quality of your visual presentation, you can take your brand forward more powerfully, and at the same time make your site accessible to the widest possible audience of users.