February 26, 2008
Previous Banner Next Banner
Previous Banner Next Banner
Interaction that explains the products value...I like the simplicity.

Shame it requires a click (well, click and hold) to get the point - this usually means a user is taken away to a new site, so is this the right way to showcase the product benefit, especially as there is no call to action?

Perhaps it just needs a call to action? Also, how does it work after interaction, simply transport user away or is there something missing?

I want to like it, but something makes me wonder if it's not missing an element of sorts.

Posted by:purplesimon on February 26, 2008 4:03 AM

I had no idea of what I needed to do. I thought at first the mouse animating to the center of the banner was it. What was wrong with having the click and hold effect happen on roll over?

Classic example of a creative getting to close an idea and assuming the general n00b'ish public would get it.

I bet it had to be explained a few times to the client. And a banner that needs an explanation of how its works = FAIL.

Posted by:DrJones on February 26, 2008 6:39 AM

I agree with Simon on this one... the expected interaction seems strange. Also, the way that it forces the effect to only the middle of the banner seems lazy. Lastly the effect itself feels kind of... lame?

Posted by:Peter Huynh on February 26, 2008 10:49 AM

Yeah weird that they used a click there. I was hovering thinking that all it did was take the cursor to the middle. Nice idea, but I think most of the people that actually interacted wouldn't click and get it.

Posted by:Nic Hodges on February 26, 2008 1:29 PM

i didnt even notice the click until i read the comment

Posted by:freddy on February 26, 2008 3:31 PM

Like the 'feely touchy' aspect which is seldom achieved in banners or most flat media. But could easily have taken this one more level by giving users freedom of movement and interaction across the entire banner. Trapping the mouse cursor like that is kinda meh.

Posted by:Ray on February 26, 2008 7:14 PM

Bit wanky ain't it? Isn't the purpose of our jobs to communicate?

Posted by:everyonesacritic on February 26, 2008 10:15 PM

i like it, but looks like a first attempt. no copy, cta resolve... and considering 'A to S' did the same thing better and without the locking to the centre a while back makes it a bit lackluster imo.

Posted by:stuart on February 27, 2008 3:05 AM

Sorry, but I don't like it. Too easy to miss the point. And, since a 160 x 600 often appears at the fold, it's likely the logo will be missed as well. Art direction run a muck.

Posted by:James Hipkin on February 27, 2008 6:15 AM

People have already articulated why I think it's rubbish, so I'll confine myself to saying... it's rubbish.

Posted by:Rob on February 28, 2008 2:22 AM

This one is all in the execution. It's not a bad banner, and the interaction - once you figure it out - is somewhat gratifying. It's the hurdle of deciphering the interactivity teamed with zero instruction or CTA that kills it. In the wild I don't think I would have given it a second glance, or perhaps think it was broken.

Posted by:Pace on February 29, 2008 3:10 AM

Not intuitive, and a click means a click-through as a standard.

Posted by:Benn on February 29, 2008 10:57 AM

couldn't agree more with the above comments.

I want to like it but it's way too minimal for people to get it - even awards folk.

Posted by:bather12 on March 3, 2008 8:07 AM

i am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girli am a nice looking girl

Posted by:beatris on March 4, 2008 6:16 AM

blog comments powered by Disqus