Phased Redesign Of The Site | What Are Its Advantages?
No site can exist for years without design updates, because modern web design is developing at a tremendous pace. Therefore, there is no doubt that sites need to redesign from time to time. But it’s not always possible to determine what is better – a comprehensive deep redesign or a phased redesign of a site. And you need to evaluate what are the advantages of a phased redesign to make the best decision.
A comprehensive redesign of a site usually implies that all the necessary changes are made immediately “in one fell swoop”, transforming the site literally in the blink of an eye. And if the redesign is solid, then regular users may not recognize the familiar site at all. In this regard, several characteristic problems may arise.
Regular users may not be ready for change.
If the site has a strong “backbone” of regular users, then drastic changes in its design can lead to the site losing its loyalty to such users. Site traffic and conversion will drop, and this will negatively affect the efficiency of its work, and hence the site’s profitability for the company.
Some elements of the site may not work correctly.
When making any changes to the site, it is always important to check whether they have disrupted the operation of any elements of the site. And if we are talking about a thorough redesign, it is not always possible to follow the correct operation of all forms, buttons, etc. As a result, after a redesign, it may turn out that the site does not work as it should, and this leads to the loss of potential customers.
Redesign may take too much time.
A deep website redesign takes time and a lot. That’s just even the most loyal users of the site, having seen the characteristic inscription “Under reconstruction” on it, will not wait too long for the site to return to work again, but to leave for competitors.
If we are talking about a phased redesign of the site, then this implies a gradual introduction of changes. This helps to cope with the problems described above or to avoid them altogether. For example, regular users are more loyal to changes in design, because in this case, they affect only one small part of the site. And to monitor the correct operation of all functions is easier, because, again, the changes concern only certain parts of the site.
As a result, a phased redesign of a site in many cases proves to be a more suitable option than a deep redesign. For example, with a phased redesign, you can more accurately assess the impact of changes on the conversion, because when the redesign is carried out gradually, you can easily track how and what changes have affected the site, the conversion of visitors to customers or customers.
In addition, if after the redesign it turned out that instead of improving the site, changes provoked problems, it is always easier and faster to return everything back if the changes did not affect the entire site at once. Well, of course, you can make changes to anyone small part of the site much faster than to the whole site right away, which means you won’t have to wait long for the results of the redesign.
It turns out that a gradual redesign really has several advantages over a one-time large-scale redesign. But, of course, such a redesign must be carried out correctly, otherwise, its advantages can easily be nullified. For example, before a redesign, it is always important to check with the help of special tests whether the expected increase in conversion will bring changes in the design, and also to monitor the reaction of the target audience after the changes are made. If these simple rules are neglected, then you can lose visitors and potential profits.