It’s a great place to find information on different types of automotive sports offered in the DC metropolitan area. Some of these automotive sports include Club Racing, Solo (Autocross), Time Trials, Road Rally and Rallycross. 

The Washington DC Region’s website is not bad, but could be improved with a stronger focus on information architecture and visual hierarchy. The navigation, particularly needs a cogent sense of organization. The visual design is also heavily dated and would benefit from an update. In this case study I will attempt to improve this website by addressing a few of these issues. 

The Issues

One issue I’ve always had with this website was the navigation. Sometimes looking for information across this site can be an enigma. There are no indicators that a link might take a user offsite or reveal a sub navigation. Many of the links could be combined to reduce confusion. For example, About the Region and Region History do not necessarily need to be two separate pages. These pages could be placed under a larger category clearly labeled About Us.

In addition to combining links, the different automotive genres should be separated or at least have greater hierarchy. This is important as it helps define the purpose of this homepage which is essentially showing the automotive sports offered in the DC metropolitan area.

The welcome/introduction statement is nice, but it’s value doesn’t warrant the amount of real-estate it’s currently occupying. This section could possibly be removed or demoted to a lower area on the page. Moreover, the “2011 Season Schedule” and “Upcoming Events Calendar” sections should be combined. The 2011 Season Schedule adds additional functionality to the event calendar, but it’s disjointed and carries the user to another page.

The Redesign

For my proposed solution, I wanted to add excitement and impact to the site. To do this I used photos taken by automotive enthusiast in the DC metro area. Some of the photographs are extremely good and it would be a crime not to use them for the site. Once selecting an image to establish a tone, I turned my attention to restructuring the navigation.

The navigation is simplified and split into two groups. The first group contains the usual utility items while the second contains the different automotive sports. An icon is used to represent each sport and is accompanied with text to explain the genre. By setting these items apart, the design has a stronger focus on directing the user to a specific place. The Event Calendar has also been tweaked and now includes a filter to list events by category. Users will no longer have to dig into the subpages to filter the event calendar.

As usual these case studies are merely a personal exercise and to perform a real redesign would require extensive research and information from the client.

It left me with work of which I wasn’t proud. There was something wrong with this method, but yet this practice is followed without question. In certain cases an extra design is thrown in simply for a “backup” to show the client’s money is hard at work. It wasn’t until I watched an episode of Andy Rutledge’s Design Pro Show that it became quite clear. This approach to designing is simply flawed and rooted in the lack of understanding the needs of the client.

Showing the client three designs or more is equivalent to blasting a target with a shotgun. Sure it gets the job done, but it’s sloppy, wasteful and leaves holes everywhere. As design professionals we are paid to come up with the best solution to a problem. This doesn’t mean a designer shouldn’t explore different options or directions, but that the design you present to a client is the best and only solution based on your professional experience. When we fail at understanding the client’s problem we enter the shotgun method in hopes that one design will hit the nail on the head. While wishful thinking, this is hardly ever the case and results in a compromised design.

In addition, we invite design decisions from clients who are not design professionals. By presenting multiple concepts we are essentially telling the client, “We are not sure which design solves your problem, but look at these options and tell us what works best.” From here the client may suggests mixing parts from one design to another which can drive a designer nuts. This is not the clients fault, but the lack of understanding on the designers end.

So you maybe wondering how do we solve the issue of the Shotgun Method? Well, it’s very simple: an effective discovery process, much like the process advocated by Andy Rutledge. By spending time with the client to fully understand their issues and concerns we can create a design that hits the mark 99% of the time. Moreover, having a solid discovery process helps the client build confidence in the designer. This removes any second guessing and creates a positive and professional relationship. Understanding the problem removes the need to present multiple concepts. Why use a scattergun when you need the accuracy of a long range rifle? Remember, we are the design professionals not our clients.

It’s amazing to view the industries concept sketches and how they progress into three-dimensional icons which for Americans, like myself, can represent personal expression and freedom.

As a spectator of this design process, it’s quite clear to the engineers and potential consumers that each step is merely a representation. There are no expectations that the concept sketches have to appear as the showroom car. Furthermore to expect a two-dimensional representation of a car to operate like a three-dimensional automobile is ludicrous. While this concept of thinking is solidified in the automotive industry it doesn’t appear to be exactly understood in the web design field.

There seems to be a notion in the web design industry that each step is lockdown and is unchanging throughout its process. This can be particularly true for large design teams that have specialized groups. Wireframes are locked down with areas that can not be altered. Visual comps are designed around “lorem ipsum” instead of real content and style sheets are created for comps that have yet to be developed. All the while, the client approves each step and is not informed or expecting significant alterations.  None of these steps by themselves are a website. Therefore each step is subject to change and radically changed based on providing the BEST solution for a functional interactive website.

It is important that both design teams and clients understand this aspect of building websites. This is not print design.