Here’s a great article from the New York Times, looking at a recent study by usability expert Jakob Neilsen.
It’s a good reminder that use of generic photos/stock images may make the developer and the client feel good about the site, but may have little positive impact on the end user.
Key quote:
“big feel-good images that are purely decorative” are mostly ignored online, while stock photos or generic people are also intentionally disregarded. In contrast, when users know that a picture of a person is real they will engage with the image for extended periods of time.
Carl, what’s your thoughts on application of this concept? How do you see it applying to a website, blog, etc?
Great question. I don’t know. There is always a place to set a “mood”, and candid snapshots aren’t always the right tool.
If my site is all about specific people, use those people (Use pictures of YOUR church folks, or YOUR call-center staff). But I can also see how we would use a nice professional stock photo of a situation, to refer to that sort if situation in more general terms (like a family around a Christmas tree, or cars stuck in traffic).
Maybe it just comes down to how accurately the picture tells the real story.
Thoughts?