To Splash or not to splash?

**ThomasAesir** · Jul 7, 2002 07:28

Ok, my main site is set to redirect to the product page. It looks kind of lame, so I'm thinking of adding a splash screen. Now, I know lots of people hate splash screens but wouldn't it be better than what I have now?

To Splash or not to splash, that is the question.

**okrogius** · Jul 7, 2002 08:13

Don't use a splash page.

Create like a home page that is just search engine optimized introduction to your website but NOT SPLASH.

**M. Johansson** · Jul 7, 2002 11:05

Never, ever splash. Never. It's like with hostage negotiations - never do it.

**MCHost-Marc** · Jul 7, 2002 11:55

Don't use splash pages ...potential customers want to get straight to the product.

**goma** · Jul 7, 2002 12:28

I'm building a splash page right now coz that's what my client wants. I never want to add one but they want it. But I'm making it more useful by putting in a nav bar to the main pages of the site. It's their site anyway and I'm just doing as I'm told.

**astericks** · Jul 7, 2002 12:58

splash pages with an "enter" button are just such a waste of space, time and very boring.

if you got your site in flash and html, maybe you can 'consider' a splash page...

or if you have to make one, make it more than just a BS page, add some links [wisely] to the main features of the website.

But in general, no splash pages plz

**MarcusJT** · Jul 7, 2002 18:06

I loathe splash screens - particularly those which are either utterly pointless or just supremely cr@p!!! Also, if you are going to do one, a "skip" link is a must.

I wrote this site while working at a local design firm last year, and they stuck a horrible flash animation on the front! Aaargh!

However, note my cunning use of layers to create an (almost) one page site!

**Fluffykins** · Jul 8, 2002 00:10

I'm with everyone else. Splash pages are a bad idea - all they're effectively doing is putting one more click in between the user and the information you're wanting to give them.

Ady

**ThomasAesir** · Jul 8, 2002 00:14

I wrote this site while working at a local design firm last year, and they stuck a horrible flash animation on the front! Aaargh!

Actually, that one's not too bad. It could be shortened though.

If only the company title came up and it hits the redirect a second later that would be ok, wouldn't it?

All the Swish(v1.52) effects look corney anyway

so I guess I'm going to have to put it on the backburner for awhile . . . or forever.

OK ok the masses have spoken ... "NO SPLASH!".

Thank's guys I almost turned to the dark side.

**Bill Posters** · Jul 8, 2002 01:12

Imho, it *all* comes down to the objective of the site.

On an entertainment site, a splash page would not neccessarily be out of place.
Even non strictly-entertainment sites may wish to entertain in some way.

No one stops watching TV shows because of the opening credits, so I'm not overly convinced that web-users would *avoid* sites using one.

Doing something right doesn't neccessarily mean not doing it at all.
Of course, all things in moderation- think 'sting' rather than 'extravaganza' (unless that's what your users expect from you).

The bottom line is that is should *add* something to the appeal of the site, whether it be used to establish a mood or just as a brief ident that captures the essence of the offer in a way that the homepage perhaps can't.

If it doesn't really add anything, *then* it should be left out. But again this is all down to the expectations and limitations of the target audience.
It's true that most people want to get straight down to business, but it is also true that some people want a 'ride'.

It is for this reason that I think carte blanche dos or don'ts on this subject is a blinkered view that doesn't appreciate the different objectoves websites can have.

It may turn out that a splash page isn't right for a particular site, but believing that an umbrella 'No' is best for all websites is equally wrong.

I think that the problem lays in the way websites are too often regarded as 'adverts' rather than 'programs' and as such aren't credited with being able to convey anything more than facts, pricelists and contact details.

Anway...

There is always the added option to use cookies to ensure that users aren't required to sit through them with every visit.

<edit>This post was mostly responding to the generalisations in previous posts rather than the merits of a splash page for the site in question. Just in case you thought I was off on a tangent or something

</edit>

**iTec** · Jul 8, 2002 02:58

I spend hours and hours a week looking at websites, and i seen 1 maybe 2 splash screens that i enjoyed, (2design.org is one) and they were both because of the content that they showed, the OH MY GOD factor wasnt the animation or the gizmos it was what was said or what was not said.

**creole** · Jul 8, 2002 05:14

For the record, I don't mind splash pages unless they are poorly designed.

If you follow the logic that most of you are using then we shouldn't have covers on books. Maybe we should just start putting the first page of the text on the cover right? That way you won't have to make the "user" take an extra step by turning the page to get to the content.

You internet geeks DO know what books are right?

Use your heads...splash pages can be a great tool for giving information to your users. Don't discount them just because some people don't use them properly.

**TheOriginalH** · Jul 8, 2002 05:39

Don't waste your visitors time!!

**iTec** · Jul 8, 2002 06:11

Originally posted by creole
If you follow the logic that most of you are using then we shouldn't have covers on books. Maybe we should just start putting the first page of the text on the cover right?

Average page load time is what? 20 seconds on 56k.. 20 seconds waiting for a splash page and then another 20 seconds waiting for the home page to load... i dont ever recall it taking me 40 seconds to open a book cover!

The book cover also serves a purpose.. splash pages dont!

**MarcusJT** · Jul 8, 2002 06:54

I'm not completely against them per se, it's just that I can't remember the last time I saw a splash that was actually informative or entertaining - please give an example of a good splash!!!

**Bill Posters** · Jul 8, 2002 07:08

Originally posted by iTec
The book cover also serves a purpose.. splash pages dont!

Surely that's down to the designers and site owners involved to decide, not you.

Why can't people accept that some well-designed splash pages actually *add* something to the overall experience.

Some people enjoy a little 'foreplay' to whet their appetites.

It bothers me to think that people with such restricted vision are trying to impress their attitudes onto others on the one platform with the capacity to satisfy *every* taste and interest.
Sorry, but I can only assume those who are opposed in principle to them have a very bland idea of how the web should be.

**ThomasAesir** · Jul 8, 2002 07:09

The one iTec mentioned, 2design.org, is a fairly informative splash page. It has a clear message that it gets across very effectively.

**Myros** · Jul 8, 2002 08:02

While I agree with the general consensus above that splash pages are 'evil'

There are always exceptions to any rule.

e.g.
1. Adult or extreme content - do you need to give a warning regarding what the users may see or experience while visiting your site.

2. Multiple versions - do you want to give the users a choice between multiple versions or give them a chance to download a plug-in before proceeding.

3. And art or experimental site where the 'splash' is part of the artistic experience that the sites purpose is to convey.

Im sure there are a couple of other exceptions where it would be 'acceptable'. I think there is only one type of splash that I think is never good ... the "bloated flash intro" type, lol what a waste of space those things are.

Sorry, got a little side tracked there

Myros

**creole** · Jul 8, 2002 08:23

H...

Does a book cover "waste a visitor's time"?

I think you that are opposed to splash pages might want to define what you call a "splash page". I think that some of you are talking about Flash intros and some of you are talking about static pages. Some of you talk about pages that have information and some of you talk about pages that simply contain an "enter" button.

I will agree that pages that contain just an enter button are for the most part worthless. However, if the page is pretty and well designed then it can enhance the site, as Bill said. Flash intros are another thing though. But again, if it is done well it can enhance the users experience.

As for load time, it depends on the site. If I'm visiting an "artistic" site, I would be willing to wait a little longer for a more impressive visual experience. iTec...where are you getting your "average load time" statistics? 20 seconds is pretty high when you consider that would be over a meg of data (56k x 20 seconds - 1120k). Most websites strive for 8-12 seconds worth of load time.

**iTec** · Jul 8, 2002 08:44

Originally posted by Bill Posters
Surely that's down to the designers and site owners involved to decide, not you.

Yes, it is completely up to the designer to determin what function and purpose the splash page has. All i am offering is my oppinion based on my experience, 99% of websites i have visited have offered nothing on the splash page, hence if i can avoid visiting one then i will.

Originally posted by Bill Posters
Why can't people accept that some well-designed splash pages actually *add* something to the overall experience.

Would you care to show an example of an effective splash page? I would sure love to see a splash page that adds to the experience of the website! only problem is i have never found one!! (bar for those that fit 2 and 3 from myros post)

Originally posted by Creole
iTec...where are you getting your "average load time" statistics? 20 seconds is pretty high

I stuck to the rule of optimal load time being less then 20 seconds.

**MarcusJT** · Jul 8, 2002 10:13

iTec, we seem to share the same sentiments!

ThomasAesir, although (once loaded) the splash @ 2design.org is ok (it doesn't really tell me anything that is that interesting), it is the fact that it takes over minute to load!!!

Admittedly I am surfing other sites in the background, but because it takes so long to load, I leave it downloading in the background, go off and read something else, and then come back later, by which time the splash has loaded, run, and taken the browser to the main page already! Thus, I never see the splash screen anyway!

It merely delays me from reaching the real content by a minute or two - however, in practice, I would click on the "skip intro" link anyway (which it does have, at least)!!!

**Bill Posters** · Jul 8, 2002 12:30

<aside>

Originally posted by creole
20 seconds is pretty high when you consider that would be over a meg of data (56k x 20 seconds - 1120k).

I think you're getting a little mixed up here Creole.

56kb = 56 Kilobits (Kb) = 5.6Kilobytes (KB)

x 20 secs = 112Kilobytes (c. one-tenth of 1.12MB)

1.12MB in 20 secs on a 56K modem?

I wish!

Either you've got your maths wrong or your basic understanding of Kilobits and Kilobytes wrong or I've misunderstood your post...
...*or* I've been getting royally shafted by my internal 56K internal modem for the past 3 years.

</aside>

...but, don't worry, Creole. We're still on the same side

**creole** · Jul 8, 2002 13:15

Yep...had my decimal points wrong.

Sorry about that folks.

**goma** · Jul 8, 2002 16:13

this is what one of my clients wants me to add to their site, a page like this:

http://www.halcyonsingapore.com.sg/

I've got one in the works that has the same stuff, the logo and buttons.

Is this what you guys mean by a functional splash page?

**MarcusJT** · Jul 8, 2002 16:51

To my mind, that is not a splash, it is the site itself. I like the design, and it is very functional, so all credit to it!

User Tag List

Thread: To Splash or not to splash?

Thread Tools

Display

To Splash or not to splash?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions