The following screenshots were taken from the Internet Archive’s records for Apple and Microsoft. Take a look at how both companies have changed over time:

1996/1997

The internet archive didn’t have any records for Apple in 1996, so you’re seeing Apple’s 1997 website next to Microsoft’s 1996 website.

1998

Apple adopts a drastically simplified, center-aligned design. Microsoft ditches the yellow sidebar.

1999

Apple promotes the colorful iMac. If you watched any TV or movies during that time, you’d think it was the only computer ever made. Microsoft pushes IE5, which will give Netscape a run for its money (if only there were money in the browser market).

2000

Apple adopts a top navigation bar. Genius! Microsoft looks about the same.

2001

Microsoft adds some more saturated color, and further expands the little rounded corner swoop thing.

2002

Microsoft adds more blue and takes away all other colors. Apple experiments with a blue version of their logo.

2003

Apple adopts their grayscale logo.

2004

Apple uses some strange reasoning in their promo headline that makes me think “Wow, the rest of my life can suck now”. Microsoft makes some major changes, dropping the “Microsoft Home | MSN Home | Subscribe | Manage Your Profile” navigation menu, and adding some serious color and much clearer calls to action.

2005

iPod frenzy and Microsoft tries to be more warm and fuzzy.

2006

The year that the Mac vs. PC ads started, reflected in the smug headline on Apple’s website.

2007

Apple continues to rock the giant header, and Microsoft finally adopts a center-aligned design. I’m fond of center-alignment on just about everything but Wikipedia and web apps.

2008

2009

2010

That’s all until next year! Post your thoughts, critiques, or comments below.

In the past, I’ve been a staunch defender of the idea that “the fold” is an outdated concept in web design. I celebrated this article on the subject, which essentially boils down to the fact that website users know how to scroll and will scroll, given enough visual cues that there is additional content on the page.

However, I’d like to add another guideline regarding the fold:

“Make sure that each page’s primary function is at least partially visible above the fold.”

I was recently tasked with redesigning the contact page for Polar Leasing (a refrigerator rental company), because the marketing director had a hunch that something wasn’t right.

The original page:

On the original page, the contact form is pretty far down the page, after the general contact info. My theory is that the user would  scroll past the Flash header until he or she  saw the company phone number or live chat, and then either use one of those contact methods or leave the page. Because there weren’t any visual cues hinting at a contact form below, most users weren’t even aware of it.

The redesigned page:

Here are the changes I made:

• Removed the Flash header so it didn’t take up as much space on the interior pages
• Moved the address, email, phone, fax, and live chat information into the right column
• Moved the contact form to the top of the page
• Made the form more prominent by applying a light blue background

The fold for 1024 x 768 users was originally just below the “Find your state representative” link; now it’s just below the comments field on the contact form.

The Result? 3.5 times more contact form submissions per month.

By increasing the prominence of the page’s primary function, I increased the conversion rate of this page by a significant margin. What are your thoughts? Do you have any examples of similar “fold redesigns” or realignments of purpose?

I just read an excellent examination of the excruciatingly slow death of Internet Explorer 6, by Popular Science. Right at the end, there’s this quote pulled from a comment thread on one of Microsoft’s blogs:

“I work for a large financial services company with 40,000+ employees. And yes, every desktop PC and laptop runs WinXP and IE6. More than 85% of all browsing is intranet. Basic news sites etc deliver the information without the frills. For our vendors who offer Web portals (eg home loan valuations, stationery suppliers etc) – we’ll simply dump them if we can’t access their sites after a ‘no-IE6 revamp.’”

In other words, if you improve your website based on W3C Standards, but neglect our antique browser of choice, we’ll sever our business relationship with you. I guess I always assumed that businesses would upgrade if they had the money, but this person seems to suggest that it’s not a priority at all and that he or she is perfectly justified in ditching valuable business partnerships if they don’t comply with IE6.

How many of those partnerships are you willing to dissolve before upgrading your intranet becomes a viable option? 10%? 50%? 100%? And to those partners: why should you have to absorb the cost of supporting IE6 rather than expecting them to join the modern world? It seems to me that the vendors hold the real power, but they are being bullied into prolonging the issue for fear of losing business.

Microsoft has stated that it will continue to support IE6 as long as it supports Windows XP, which ends in April of 2014. But with this kind of attitude, I doubt that corporations will even care. Until then, I can only hope for more exploits that assist in the demise of IE6.

Illustration by Chris Fletcher.