Why do these sites work? First of all, they’re fun. In the Wario Land case, it also reinforces the whole idea of the game, which is to smash the environment. Beyond that, they all play with the constraints of standard grid-based websites. Both begin looking like standard pages of their respective sites (HEMA and YouTube). User’s expectations of a static site with elements fixed on the page like normal are broken as things get more and more perturbed, as what looked liked fixed HTML turns out to be animated Flash elements which fly all over the screen.

From this common basis there is some divergence. The Wario Land page takes great care to preserve the illusion of a normal page: though a YouTube channel, standard channel features are pushed down below the user’s initial screen and in their place is a Flash-based replication of the YouTube video page UI that has the video, comments, and everything else a casual YouTube user would expect. Even more impressive, the UI elements have clickable links and remain usable throughout the destruction on the UI arrangement.

In contrast, more of the total HEMA page is taken up by the Flash animation, and the page does not have working UI elements. While standard navigation bars exist, attempting to click on any of the options reveals they are simply text, not hyperlinks. This perhaps suggests a fear that users would click away, either in alarm or inattention, before the full animation has run. The Wario Land page does not seem to have this worry. However, the HEMA site is not afraid to direct the user’s attention, automatically scrolling the browser to ensure the window viewbox always shows the current action. Thanks to complete control of the page, the HEMA UI destruction is more coherent and more complete, though the Wario Ware page might have had to restrict the destruction to a section of the page due to the limited amount of UI the ad’s creators could change. This would explain why the standard YouTube page elements exist lower on the page and why the page doesn’t scroll with the falling UI elements. I can imagine advertisers are now demanding from Google more complete UI control of pages to avoid this cludge in the future.

Since the HEMA ad was made a year before the Wario Land one, it’s safe to assume that the latter was built with full knowledge of the HEMA ad and sought to improve upon the concept. I would say they have and would love to see more such ad campaigns. Of course, these ads only work because they’re fun and novel, and I would the first to find them incredible annoying if they become common place, just like page takeovers have become. Everything in moderation and don’t annoy your users!

Many websites have flashy animations or videos automatically playing when you come to them. I find this very ugly and annoying and I am not alone. Most users now have pop-up blockers and some are starting to block Flash. In addition to being annoying, this practice has several other drawbacks. Users are forced to download large media files in order to see the site. This will slow the loading of the site when speed, particularly the first time a user visits a website, is essential to a pleasant experience. It is better to let users explicitly request the videos they wish to view, letting those on slow connections make a conscious choice to download the media. This way users will not erroneously attribute slow speeds to the site. Likewise those in a public environment, such as libraries, often wish minimise sound coming from their computers and will not look kindly on a site that blares music or sound effects without warning. Their initial response is usually to close the offending site, not turn down their speakers.

These annoying site ‘features’ are implemented, I believe, by people that think their sites need eye- and ear-catching elements to bring users to their sites. This is a mistake: users are already at the sites, so the challenge is to keep them there. Web surfers are a notoriously fickle lot and anything that creates an unpleasant experience will cause them to immediately surf elsewhere and never come back.

The best way to encourage users to stay on a site is to create a pleasant experience that quickly gives the user the content they are seeking. If you are writer, the content that users are seeking are examples of your work, in whatever form you chose to share it. If you are a business that is much more physically-based, the content is often your business details: address, opening hours, and contact information. A website should be designed around the main reason users would come to it. For more on this, I encourage you to check out Jyri Engeström’s thinking on social objects (I will post on this in the future).

Don’t make the user hunt or beg for this information! A web surfer looking for a plumber to fix the toilet currently flooding her house is not in the mood for a video about the company’s history and specialities! Instead, she will take one glance on the site, not see a phone number, and go to the next result in Google. Incidentally, web advertising is moving away from pay per click ad sales towards time-based sales, so the incentive is all the stronger for websites to encourage users to linger, rather than scare them away.

But by creating a pleasant and efficient experience on your site, aren’t you reducing the amount of time users spend on your site? For one browsing session, this is may happen. However, a pleasant site will attract repeat visitors. Your goal with your website is ultimately to make money, so you want to turn website visitors into customers. A pleasant website builds relationships with potential and current customers so that they wish to stay in contact with your company and will look favourably on your products and services.

Simply put, happy visitors are repeat visitors and repeat visitors are repeat customers.