Comment by jonathanlydall
4 hours ago
She had no shortage of patients from word of mouth, but old website was minor liability in its datedness potentially putting off prospective patients.
People already knew about her and website is essentially just “this is what I do, where I am and how you can contact me”.
> but old website was minor liability in its datedness potentially putting off prospective patients.
Anecdata: I’d be more likely to use the services of a company with a good, old-style site than a bad, new style site. Things like pop-overs, text that animates in as you scroll, banner images that take up most of the “abive the fold” are all red flags for me.
Oh, and the most common one: “Read more”.
A modern site that avoids all those can be great. But those are rare, IMO.
The new web page (since it's a single page website now) is also mobile friendly and intentionally not "flashy".
Another goal with the website I didn't note before is that its "quality" or "style" should generally not be consciously noticed, it shouldn't stand out for any bad reasons, people see it, get a good impression, do what they were looking to do with ease, success.
I got this philosophy from my interior designer (not to be confused with decorator) brother who told me how when he's done a good job, no one notices, but when he's done a bad job then people either almost instantly notice or simply feel uncomfortable without necessarily being able to exactly identify why, e.g. first impression of your hotel room should instantly be "feels nice" (and same with a public space in a building) and then you remain feeling comfortable throughout because the space is actually big enough for its purpose and laid out practically.