The Smoking Foot

Top Ten Mistakes of Shopping Cart Design

Chances are if any of these things happened to you in an actual
store you would quickly leave your cart behind. However, these are only
a few of the things shoppers must face to purchase online. Maybe we
shouldn’t be surprised that 60 – 75% of shopping carts are abandoned in
e-commerce sites (Thumlert, 2001; Gordon, 2000). Have web designers
forgotten that the purpose of using the terminology ’shopping cart’ is
so that users assimilate the behavior of a ‘real’ shopping cart to a
‘virtual’ one?

In our Software Usability Research Lab (
www.usabilitynews.org),
we have examined the usability of many shopping web sites and are
always surprised by the inconvenience of ‘convenient’ shopping.
Typically when people shop in a store, they are rarely aware of our
shopping cart, unless it has a squeaky wheel or is hard to steer. If
this happens, at least they can trade it in for one that runs smoothly.
Online users, unfortunately, do not have that choice.

The Shopping Process

Table 1 shows the process you may encounter shopping for two items
in a brick-and-mortar store versus a typical e-commerce site.

It is not surprising, given the nature of online shopping, that
extra steps may be necessary at the payment process (Of course, adding
the use of a gift certificate, special offer, or shipping to multiple
addresses only complicates the online experience even more.) After all,
the convenience of not having to get into the car and drive to a store
is worth a few extra clicks and keystrokes, right? Popular dot-com
companies (i.e., amazon.com) are continuously trying to streamline the
buying process by offering predefined accounts and one-click buying.

However, the process before buying – shopping, browsing, and working
with the shopping cart – is in many ways more critical to a site’s
success. Users frustrated with the online shopping will never even get
to the point of online buying. In our usability studies, we have
observed many shopping features that impact user performance and
satisfaction. The following is a list of Top Ten Mistakes of Shopping
Cart Design that we have compiled.

Top Ten Mistakes of Shopping Cart Design

1. Calling a Shopping Cart anything but a Shopping Cart.

Calling a shopping cart anything other than a shopping cart only
causes confusion. Users are accustomed to the cart terminology and
while certain domains may find it ‘cute’ to use a term specific to
their product line (i.e., bookbag, order, basket) it is best to
maintain consistency and stick with the ‘cart.’ Adding a graphic of a
shopping cart also helps quick access.

2. Requiring users to click a “BUY” button to add an item to the shopping cart.

Adding Items to the shopping cart should be effortless and
noncommittal. After all, the user is putting items into the cart for
possible future purchase. When users are required to click a BUY button
to add an item to the cart it is often unsettling since they are not
necessarily ready to buy the item at this point – they just want to
place it in the shopping cart. Buying is the final step in the shopping
experience and it should not be presumed that adding an item to the
cart is a commitment to buy. Users in our studies are very hesitant to
click the BUY button and search for an Add to Cart button on the page
instead.

What if a user is not yet ready to buy an item – how does he simply add it to the cart?

3. Giving little to no visual feedback that an item has been added to the cart.

Some sites do not automatically take users to the shopping cart page
when an item is added. This allows them to continue shopping without
interruption. Generally, these sites have a shopping cart indicator
somewhere on each page that updates and summarizes the cart content. A
problem with this method, however, occurs when the visual feedback of
the change to the cart’s content is too subtle or nonexistent, or is
not in the users’ current browser view. In all cases, users do not
believe anything has been added to the cart. As a result, they click on
the Add to Cart button again and add the item a second time (and maybe
again for a third time). Users end up having to go to the shopping cart
page anyway just to see if the item has been added. Often times, they
are surprised with multiple quantities of the same item.

4. Forcing the user to view the Shopping Cart every time an item is placed there.

As long as there is adequate visual feedback of the cart’s content,
there is really no need to take the user to the shopping cart page
every time an item is added. In fact, it is disruptive for multi-item
shoppers, requires extra mouse clicks to continue shopping, and
potentially limits how many items a person buys (they may be more
inclined to checkout if they are already at the shopping cart page).

Visual feedback is very important when adding an item to the cart.

5. Asking the user to buy other related items before adding an item to the cart.

This is the online equivalent to “do you want fries with your
order?” and is not only irritating to users but also disorienting.
After clicking a button or link to add an item to the cart, users are
ready for some kind of feedback that the item has been added. Asking
them to make a decision about other items makes them second-guess
whether they actually pressed the correct button or link to add the
desired item, or it aggravates them by soliciting items they do not
want. A better approach is to place related items (i.e., batteries) on
the item page or on the shopping cart page so they have the option to
purchase them before checkout. Placing the control on the users makes
them more willing to purchase.

Users are forced to accept or reject ‘related’ items before adding a desired item to the shopping cart.

6. Requiring a user to REGISTER before adding an item to the cart.

Some sites we have tested require a user to register with personal
information before an item can even be placed into the cart! This is a
turn-off to users who may be browsing or comparison-shopping. They may
or may not purchase the items, but they definitely do not want to
commit personal information just to fill the shopping cart and will
leave the site because of it.

7. Requiring a user to change the quantity to zero to remove an item from the cart.

Updating the shopping cart’s content can be tricky to program but
should be seamless to the user. Many sites still require a user to
enter ‘0′ in the quantity field and click an Update button or link to
delete the item. Use of a Remove or Delete button next to an item is a
far more intuitive way to achieve this.

“To remove or delete items, change the quantity to zero.” Huh? Why not just delete it?

8. Requiring written instructions to update the items in the cart.

Requiring users to read instructions on how to update the shopping
cart is, in itself, a sign of poor design. First of all, users do not
read such instructions. Second, if instructions are required, then the
shopping cart interface design must not be intuitive. Users should be
able to figure out how to remove or change the number of items desired
from viewing the cart itself.

9. Requiring a user to scroll to find an Update cart button.

Most carts offer an Update button or link to update changes made to
the shopping cart (such as quantity). This function should be located
such that it is always visible and clearly distinct from the rest of
the shopping cart, regardless of the number of items in the cart.

The Update Cart link (left) may be less evident than the Update Quantities button (right).

10. Requiring a user to enter shipping, billing, and all personal
information before knowing the final costs including shipping and tax.

Shipping costs and taxes (if applicable) are a big factor in whether
or not users complete their online orders. Users cannot access whether
their purchase is truly a ‘deal’ or not until they have the final cost.
Many sites require users to enter all shipping, billing, and credit
card information before a final cost is provided. Access to shipping
rates and tax from the shopping cart or item pages (before the user
ventures down the purchasing path) is critical.

Users prefer to know shipping and tax costs before filling out final payment information.

Conclusion

If an e-commerce site is to succeed, designers must consider the
usability of the entire shopping experience for its users. Probably the
most critical part of this process is the shopping – finding items,
adding them to the cart, understanding total costs – and not the
buying. Studies show that 51% of online shoppers state that they shop
online and purchase offline (NPD Group, 2001). In this article we
identify ten mistakes in shopping cart design, which we have seen,
impact a user’s willingness to purchase. While these design flaws are
not the sole reason why users leave their carts abandoned, fixing them
can only improve a users’ willingness to stay online to purchase.

References

1. Gordon, Seth (2000). Shoppers of the Web Unite: User Experience and Ecommerce, March 3, 2000 (Online)

   http://www.zdnet.com/devhead/stories/articles/0,4413,2448211,00.html

2. Thumlert, Kurt (2001). Abandoned Shopping Carts: Enigma or Sloppy E-Commerce? June 27, 2001 (Online)

   http://ecommerce.internet.com/news/insights/trends/article/0,3371,10417_792581,00.html

3. NPD Group, Inc. (2001). NPD e-visory report shows Offline sales benefit from online browsing. bLINK Magazine.

The Shopping Cart, Total Cost

Once online
shoppers have found items and have successfully added them to their
cart, their most common complaints: delays in receiving information
about total cost. In fact, one of the most common uses of shopping
carts is not purchase-oriented. On most retail sites, entering the
checkout process is the only way to receive accurate pricing
information, including tax, shipping and other charges. Online shoppers
routinely use the checkout process to evaluate pricing.

More often than not, online shoppers are forced to wait
until late in the checkout process to receive this information. Worse,
visitors are often forced to register or volunteer personal information
to receive price totals.

Many Web retailers are concerned about shopping cart
abandonment, and with good reason. High levels of abandonment means
losses in potential revenues. However, it is difficult to accurately
assess these losses without removing contributions to “abandonment”
that are unrelated to actual purchase intentions, in this case, using
the checkout process to obtain pricing information that is unavailable
to them otherwise.

For these reasons, Keynote recommends that Web sites provide
an estimate of the total cost of items (using the most common shipping
method elected) as early in the shopping process as possible. Online
shoppers are largely cost conscious and are not enthusiastic about
being forced to wait for accurate pricing information.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/38972.html

Reducing fear is the killer app

The high-pitched screech of the drill. The sickly smell of
antiseptic and fear. The long nervous wait for the attendant to call
your name and take you… back there. We assume that people are afraid of the dentist, but we don’t usually think of software
as scary. Maybe we should rethink that. Our users might be more afraid
of us and our products than we think. And those who can reduce or
eliminate that fear have a huge advantage. Not to mention a
passionately loyal following.

Something extraordinary happened to me yesterday, but before I tell that story I want you to look at these pictures:

One, a drab but typical medical office. The other, a warm, inviting, spa-like environment. The spa-like place is actually my dentist’s office.
And I would drive 100 miles to go there, because the people there work
their a** off to reduce my fear. And the pictures don’t do it justice
because you’re missing the smell (freshly ground coffee beans and warm
cookies) and the sounds (jazz, not drills).

Here’s another picture, of the Boulder Community Foothills Hospital, the first hospital in the US to earn the LEED certification for being “green.”

It doesn’t look like a hospital. It doesn’t feel like a hospital. And it doesn’t smell
like a hospital. I’m not sure how they do it, but no matter when you
go, it smells like fresh popped popcorn. Think about that… almost
nobody has a bad association with the smell of popcorn. I instantly
think movies and theme parks. (And the live piano music reminds me of shopping in Nordstrom’s.)

In a medical scenario, reducing fear means a lot. But think about all the ways our
users (or potential users) might be afraid. Not in mortal terror, but
afraid nonetheless. The fear of not being smart enough to learn
a new product, programming language, or procedure. The fear of being
taken advantage of by an unscrupulous company and/or sales person. The
fear of making the wrong purchasing decision. The fear of looking stupid or slow in front of our co-workers.

I’ve often said that reducing guilt is the killer app, but now I’d put reducing fear
way up there too. He who reduces fear better than the competition can,
potentially, stop competing on price, convenience, or just about
anything else. Reduce my fear, and I’ll be grateful forever.

So here’s my story:

Y’all have probably seen a lot of pink lately, inspired by the fight against breast cancer.
Yesterday, I went to the Boulder Foothills Hospital (in the picture)
where I was scheduled for a mammogram. I was terrified. I’m not
exaggerating. As many of you know, my mother was diagnosed with breast
cancer at a young age, younger than I am now. She did not survive. The most tragic part was that she probably would
have, if it had been detected earlier. But she was too afraid to have
the exam… afraid of hearing the results she ultimately got.

Cancer has been on my mind a lot this year. Less than a year ago both myself and
my daughter were diagnosed with a form of cancer that had not yet
become invasive, but that could have killed both of us had we not been
tested.

But worst of all, I have–quite irrationally–not had a mammogram in
10 years. A monumentally stupid choice, given that I’m at very high
risk for breast cancer. But… I am more terrified of that test than
anything I’ve ever done, and I’ve spent the last few years convinced
that it was already too late. Thinking about it sends me straight to
the childhood moment when I learned the results of my mother’s
mammogram (and the awful period that followed). It was selfish of me,
as a mother myself, to not do everything I can to stay healthy and
alive, but fear does bizarre, irrational things to the brain. Finally,
though, all the pink-awareness and a visit to this extraordinary
hospital convinced me.

When I arrived, I told the technician my story, and literally begged
her to rush the results. “7-10 days is how long it takes for the doctor
to review it and get the results to your doctor,” she said.
“There’s nothing I can do to speed that up.” I could barely breathe or
walk, but I managed to get through the exam. But now the worst part begins… The Wait.
The first wait is for the ten minutes it takes for the tech to review
the film to make sure the pictures aren’t too dark, light, or blurred.
Once they’ve checked the film, they either walk you back to repeat the
test, or send you home to start The Wait. So there I sat, waiting for
the tech.

Five minutes passed. Ten minutes. 20 minutes I sat in that
little room. Finally she walked in and said, “The film is fine, you’re
free to go.” And then something happened that I’ll remember for the
rest of my life. She sat down next to me and said, “Oh, so how would
you like to enjoy your weekend?” I was confused. “I convinced the
doctor to break protocol. He said everything’s perfect and we’ll see
you in a year.” We both cried.

Reducing fear doesn’t have to be about life or death or pain to be
meaningful and powerful. If you can help your users feel more confident
and less stressed, you’ve given them a wonderful gift. Whether it’s a
policy change, better documentation and support, or more user-friendly
design, anything you do to genuinely reduce my fear improves my life. Why not
ask customers about their needs before you agree to sell them
something? (And be willing to “downsell” rather than trying to convince
them to buy something more expensive than they need.) Why not keep Consumer Report magazines in your dealership, or give potential customers a quote from your competitors, even if it means you lose that sale? Why not
work harder to make sure new users (or students) realize that they
really ARE going to be able to “get” this, and that you’ll be there
every step of the way?

Reduce my fear and I’ll love you forever. : )

Posted by Kathy Sierra on October 14, 2006

How to Overcome Participation Inequality

You can’t.

The first step to dealing with participation inequality is to recognize
that it will always be with us. It’s existed in every online community
and multi-user service that has ever been studied.

Your only real choice here is in how you shape the inequality
curve’s angle. Are you going to have the “usual” 90-9-1 distribution,
or the more radical 99-1-0.1 distribution common in some social
websites? Can you achieve a more equitable distribution of, say,
80-16-4? (That is, only 80% lurkers, with 16% contributing some and 4%
contributing the most.)

Although participation will always be somewhat unequal, there are ways to better equalize it, including:

• Make it easier to contribute.
  The lower the overhead, the more people will jump through the hoop. For
  example, Netflix lets users rate movies by clicking a star rating,
  which is much easier than writing a natural-language review.
• Make participation a side effect.
  Even better, let users participate with zero effort by making their
  contributions a side effect of something else they’re doing. For
  example, Amazon’s “people who bought this book, bought these other books”
  recommendations are a side effect of people buying books. You don’t
  have to do anything special to have your book preferences entered into
  the system. Will Hill coined the term read wear for
  this type of effect: the simple activity of reading (or using)
  something will “wear” it down and thus leave its marks — just like a
  cookbook will automatically fall open to the recipe you prepare the
  most.
• Edit, don’t create.
  Let users build their contributions by modifying existing templates
  rather than creating complete entities from scratch. Editing a template
  is more enticing and has a gentler learning curve than facing the
  horror of a blank page. In avatar-based systems like Second Life, for
  example, most users modify standard-issue avatars rather than create
  their own.
• Reward — but don’t over-reward — participants.
  Rewarding people for contributing will help motivate users who have
  lives outside the Internet, and thus will broaden your participant
  base. Although money is always good, you can also give contributors
  preferential treatment (such as discounts or advance notice of new
  stuff), or even just put gold stars on their profiles. But don’t give
  too much to the most active participants, or you’ll simply encourage
  them to dominate the system even more.
• Promote quality contributors.
  If you display all contributions equally, then people who post only
  when they have something important to say will be drowned out by the
  torrent of material from the hyperactive 1%. Instead, give extra
  prominence to good contributions and to contributions from people
  who’ve proven their value, as indicated by their reputation ranking.

Your website’s design undoubtedly influences participation inequality
for better or worse. Being aware of the problem is the first step to
alleviating it, and finding ways to broaden participation will become
even more important as the Web’s social networking services continue to
grow.

Bokardo: Paul Rand on design

“To design is much more than simply to assemble,
to order, or even to edit; it is to add value and meaning, to
illuminate, to simplify, to clarify, to modify, to dignify, to
dramatize, to persuade, and perhaps even to amuse.”

Note how Rand goes way beyond the common notion of design, incorporating not only the editing of content, but the embellishment
of it. I think we need that sort of broad view of Web design, a field
that is far too focused on the technical aspect of publishing, and
hardly, if ever, focused on the verbs Rand was occupied with.

Also, Rand was a graphic designer, as opposed to an interface designer,
so he only had to deal with one-way communication instead of two-way.
In addition, today’s Web designer is also tasked with the social
aspects of design, concerns that go beyond the conversation between the
corporation and the person, but include conversations between people as mediated by the corporation as well.

On reading

“The
following statistic might threaten you,” Trout writes, “but
today’s business managers are expected to read one million
words per week.” Let’s do some basic math here. I estimate that
we can comfortably read about 150 words per minute.

So, if you need to read one million
words, that would take you 6,666 minutes. That’s 111 hours, or almost
16 hours a day, seven days a week. And that’s reading non-stop,
without any coffee break!

So, that statistic couldn’t possibly be
right, could it? But even if you were supposed to read 250,000 words
per week, that still requires 4 intense hours of reading every day,
seven days a week. Now, I like reading, but reading for more than a
half hour tires me out.

The end of deference and the rise of customer power

The Web empowers the customer more than it empowers the organization. This shift in power is only beginning to be felt.

One of the greatest achievements of the baby boom generation is that they helped bring about the end of deference. This is according to baby boomer, Jack Straw, Leader of the UK House of Commons. We don’t tip the cap and bow the head to authority and the establishment like we used to.

We don’t know our place today. Nor do we automatically assume that the doctor, the politician, the preacher, the teacher, or the brand, have the ‘right’ answers. Yes, the brand. Because major brands used to be like a religion, a belief system. They were trusted and deferred to and left unquestioned.

Not any more. The Web gives customers the power to talk back and be heard by other customers like them. The Web strips away authority from the establishment. In fact, the Web is leading a backlash against traditional authority figures.

According to the recently released Edelman Trust Barometer:1. Trust in the Internet as a source of information is growing, while trust in TV is declining.2. Employees are more trusted as spokespersons for an organization than CEOs.3. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are more trusted than governments.4. “A person like me” is more trusted than doctors, academics and other such experts. In the U.S., trust in “a person like me” has shown a dramatic increase from just 20 percent in 2003 to 68 percent today.

“We have reached an important juncture, where the lack of trust in established institutions and figures of authority has motivated people to trust their peers as the best sources of information about a company,” said Richard Edelman, president and CEO, Edelman. “Companies need to move away from sole reliance on top-down messages delivered to elites toward fostering peer-to-peer dialogue among consumers and employees, activating a company’s most credible advocates.”

Customers relish the fact that they have a voice today. They are tired of being talked at and down to. They demand to be listened to. “Perpetuating blindness or ignorance to what customers are saying about you, your products and your services is just plain stupid,” my friends at Grokdotcom state.

“If there are customer concerns out there, folks will find them,” they continue. “Awareness and understanding of how customers are talking about you-from their interests to their issues to the very language they use to express themselves-present you with chances to develop specific, necessary content that tackles matters head on. Even negative information gives you an opportunity to develop good will and better meet the needs of your customers by having the courage to address it rather than run from it.”

It used to be that organizations decided how they would like to be perceived by the public, and then they employed PR agencies to make it so. The assumption was that perception repeated enough became reality. Today, the Web is just one of the tools customers use to find out whether the organization really is what it markets itself to be. On the Web, it’s hard to hide.

6 Ways to Fix a Confused Information Architecture

Six Fixes

Our example site’s designers have several options for correcting user misconceptions about the IA:

1. Merge the two sections into a single area so that
users won’t have two similar options and mistakenly select the
wrong one. Users who previously went to “Foo Basics” or “Using Foo”
won’t necessarily go directly to a new, unified section to find
information. However, we can assume that roughly the same number of
people who visited the separate sections first would choose the unified
section, giving us a 75% success rate. That percentage might even prove
to be bigger, since the unified section might attract users who went to
other sections in tasks D, F, and G. Of course, it might also be too attractive and get clicks from users who need to go elsewhere. Only additional testing will show.

As for the (distinct) downside, merging two sections would create a
larger, more complex section. This new section would have twice the
features of the old individual sections. As a result, users would be
more likely to get lost within the new section and would have to spend
more time scanning the section overview page to find the subsection
they need.

2. Rename the two existing sections. Different labels
could make the distinction between the two Foo areas more clear and
thus users might be more likely to click the right one. In this case,
the solution isn’t likely to work because the two sections are
inherently too similar for a single label to clearly denote the
difference. For other sites, however, simply relabeling a site section
using words with much stronger information scent
can greatly increase users’ success. This is particularly true if the
original labels were made-up terms and they were replaced with familiar words that people understand.

3. Explain the two choices. Instead of (or in addition
to) new labels, you can help users by providing additional information
next to the navigation labels. Pictures can sometimes help,
particularly when you have categories for two distinctly different
products. Other times, a line or two of text for each option can
explain what they mean. Although such text can be pure exposition, it’s
often better to list a few specific examples of the information
contained in each category.

Of course, we know that users don’t like to read a lot online,
so brevity is essential. Also, the homepage is typically the only place
with room for such explanations; navigation menus must stand on their
own. For users who arrive through a deep link or who decide to keep using the site once they’ve completed their initial task, clear navigation labels are a must.

4. Restructure the site. In our example case, the
designers might be able to split the two problem sections’ information
up in a way that better resonates with users. Alternatively, they could
restructure the entire site, which might also address cases like task
F, where most users went to the wrong site section. Site restructuring,
of course, is a lot more work and thus it’s rarely the option of
choice.

5. Move information around. In a case like task C,
where most users went straight to a wrong section, you could simply
move the target information to the place where users looked for it. The
potential downside here is that it undermines the integrity of the
site’s structuring principle, which might make the structure harder for
users to master in the long run. But it’s often equally appropriate to
simply stick the information in the other spot. If that’s the case,
just do it.

6. Add cross-reference links. Finally, you can
recognize that you’ll never have a perfect IA where users always click
into the right section every time. Even though it’s a kludge, you can
add interface elements to overcome common mistakes before they snowball
into true usability catastrophes. The Web is built on hypertext, so
there’s no reason to restrain yourself to offering users a single way
to find important information. If you know many users are going to the
wrong site area, add a cross-reference link. Obviously, every extra
link is an additional feature that will delay users who don’t want to
visit the other area, so use cross-references judiciously.

Add speed to your writing with the find & replace key

There are some bad writing habits we all slip into from time to time.
One is wordiness. If you tend to be wordy, here’s a fast way to
fix the problem:

Use your “find & replace” key [hit Control + F in MS
Word], then type in “tion” in the “find” box
and search through your document. Each time you find a word that ends
in “tion” (for example: observation, translation,
allocation), try to eliminate it. Why?

There are three big problems with “tion” words.

1. They are usually long – three to four syllables. Readers tend to stumble on long words.
2. They
   usually don’t create a picture in the reader’s mind. (If I
   write “dog” you are likely to see a dog in your
   mind’s eye. If I write “allocation” you will see
   nothing). Good writing is all about pictures.
3. You
   usually form these words by taking a perfectly good verb (eg: observe)
   and adding “tion” to turn it into a noun
   (“observation.”) To make a sentence, you THEN have to add
   ANOTHER verb – usually a boring one like “is” or
   “made” (eg: “He made an observation.”) This
   makes your writing dull and wordy.

The best way to eliminate the “tion” word is to turn the
noun back into its original verb: She observed the problem; he
translated the document.

This week as you’re writing: watch for words ending in “tion” and try to eliminate them.

How Adjectives Can Kill Your Conversion Rate

The billboard featured a
close-up of a large slice of steaming pizza. And the headline said:
“Ooey Gooey Pizza.” A woman walking by (and this is a true
story taken from a respected medical journal) read the billboard and
then promptly lurched into some nearby bushes to throw up.

Now, granted, this was a pretty severe reaction to a mere headline.
In her case, it was brought on by a bad case of morning sickness (or,
in the medical journal’s technical terms: “severe pregnancy
related emesis.”)

But I can relate. When I read too many adjectives in copy, it makes me want to lose my lunch, too.

Why are adjectives so bad?

Before I explain what’s wrong with adjectives, let’s
have a quick refresher class. As you probably remember from school,
adjectives are words that describe nouns.

For example, pink, hideous, irritating, lovely, muffled,
magnificent, scrawny, gorgeous, tart and grumpy, are all adjectives.
Adjectives don’t have a to be just one word – they can be
hyphenated, like triangle-shaped or two words, like ooey goey.

In school, teachers often tried to encourage us to use more
adjectives in our compositions. I don’t know about you, but I
remember being urged to scamper to the thesaurus to
“improve” my writing by adding more adjectives.

Trouble is, as a strategy, this is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The three main problems with adjectives

There are lots of difficulties with adjectives, but here are the three main ones…

1) Adjectives are imprecise. For words that are supposed to
improve your writing, it’s awfully funny how vague adjectives can
be. Take the word magnificent, mentioned above. Does it mean imposing
(like a magnificent lion), awe-inspiring (like a magnificent sunset),
noble (like a magnificent king) or grand (like a magnificent Manhattan
apartment)? Many adjectives are a bit like the bubble-wrap you find
surrounding cross-country courier envelopes – they hide and
cushion rather than reveal.

2) Adjectives mean different things to different people. And
here’s where you really get into trouble. The copy writer in our
pizza story assumed that ooey gooey = a good thing. But, as you can
see, some people think ooey gooey = a disgusting thing. When words are
imprecise, you lose control over the meaning the reader takes in. And
this can spell disaster for copy writing.

3) Adjectives sound too hype-y and sales-y.Today’s
reader, beset with marketing, cross-marketing and sales messages where
ever he or she turns, is more cynical than ever before. Readers are
looking for solid information from sources they can trust. But if your
website is filled with adjectives, you’re going to sound like
you’re selling all the time. This will turn readers off. Look at
this sentence for example: Pristine beaches, abundant wildlife, and
scores of Miami scene-makers make Fort Lauderdale a year-round hot
spot. Doesn’t that make you suspicious rather than intrigued?
Doesn’t it sound as though the writer is trying too hard?
It’s the adjectives that cause the problem.

So, if not adjectives, then what?

But here’s the big secret your grade

10 writing teacher probably didn’t tell you. Good writing is not about adjectives. It’s about VERBS.

Verbs – words like run, carry, heft, prevail – embody
action. Often described as the “workhorse” of the sentence,
verbs power your writing. Consider these ones for example: squander,
obstruct, plunder, poach. Each a single word and each freighted with
meaning. You wouldn’t think one word could carry such impact. But
good verbs don’t just tell the story – they create a
picture in the reader’s mind.

How you can harness the power of verbs:

If you want to amp up your verbs here are some strategies you can use:

Conversion = action

The bottom line? Forget about adjectives – they’re as
floppy as a gaggle of 98-lb weaklings. Verbs, on the other hand, are
the muscle-men of the beach.

And after all, if your goal is to make your readers ACT,
doesn’t it make sense to focus on the ACTion words in your
writing?