Something most of us already know but Im sure some would be interested in reading. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4616700.stm
I wonder how much this has to do with good color use and design principles like balance and focal point. Because that's about all you can see in that short of a time. So in my opinion it's a valid study but even if the site looks like a plie of manure and the content is what the user is looking for, they'll still hang around. A study like this cannot proove anything about content. and a website is a mix of many different contributing factors
I can agree to that as I'll hang around if it provides me with the content I am looking for, couldnt care about the how the site looks. What drives me away and keeps me away is pop-ups, I hate them
I think if a site looks decent, you do wanna stay. However, I really can't stand sites that look like crap and please please I hate animated gifs especially annoying ones that reapeat over and over again. When I site looks ugly, I sometime question the source of information. Skinny
Well there is that too but I think it all depends on the topic of information being provided, well for me to question its source - I find this with SEO sites that have bad designs
Here is the link to the original article at Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060109/full/060109-13.html I have found that I definitely respond quickly to websites. If I am just browsing, I can be driven away quickly. I have always put it down to uninteresting content, but this suggests my gut reaction is playing a bigger role than my logical appraisal. It cannot hurt to ask for immediate reaction to a design . . . instead of a reasoned one. Sad to sasy, but my existing sites would have benefitted from a quicker review