Quoting from the article: An experiment conducted by Kevin Larson and Rosalind Picard looked at how typography affects mood and performance of the readers. It happened across two studies, where they took three kind of measurements: Relative Subject Duration (RSD), Likert Scale and through a cognitive task which was different for both studies.
There were twenty participants, half of them got the text with poor typography and half got good typography.
In the first study, the participants were given twenty minutes to read the passage, amid which (after 15 minutes) they were interrupted and asked to estimate how long they had been reading for. After the RSD data was recorded, they were asked to fill out the Likert preference questionnaire with 6 statements, where one of the statements was whether they found the text easy to read.
Next, they were given a cognitive task, which for the first study was a Candle problem.
The second study was very similar to the first one, except for the RSD data, they were interrupted 17 minutes into reading, and the cognitive performance task was changed to remote associates test.
Results
- Participants with good typography underestimated their time by 3 minutes 18 seconds in the first study and by 5 minutes and 21 seconds in the second study. This shows that when a passage is well structured, the readers are more engrossed in the text.
- With the Likert scale questionnaire in the first study, the results were not reliable. But in the second study, some scores were in favor of good typography.
- For the Candle problem, out of the 10 participants who were shown good typography, 4 successfully completed the task, while 0 participants completed the task in the other group.
- In the Remote associates task, the results were not statistically significant or reliable with the good typography group succeeding on 52% of the task at an average speed of 6395ms, and the poor typography group succeeding at 48% of the task at an average speed of 6715ms.
Even though the result was not reliable enough in the second study, the good typography group did perform better. This can be attributed to the fact that they were in a better mood before starting the task. Hence, they were better at problem solving.
> There have been a few times I've seen an ad on a website that looked like it was for something I wanted, and wanted to click it.
Absolutely. IMO, Banner Blindness alone is the biggest reason why web publishers are facing difficulty in monetising web inventory.
Many a times, people don't notice ads even if they were relevant to them, just because of banner blindness. In fact, 3 out of 10 display ads are never seen [1]
Thanks! From what we've been told, 50 is somewhat large - I personally don't know of any other startup which has done that, in an angel round.
We'll have a dashboard for each investor and if something requires investor approval - it comes from a select few, who have the Power of Attorney from the rest of the group.
I'm based out of India and hate the Taxation system here (it's worse than what you read for the US) - software attracts Service Tax and VAT (Sales Tax) both - you pay reverse service tax for services you take from abroad and you even pay TDS (Withholding Tax) from your pocket for entities not incorporated in India. I could just go on and go on here.... it's just stupid.
I'm planning to incorporate my startup soon and want to do it in a country where I can:
1) Use a PG like Stripe.
2) No Service/Sales Tax just flat out corporate tax on profits.
3) Easy, Simple and Affordable Registration and maintenance process.
Yes and a lot of very talented people would not be able to focus on doing what they currently do full time (and love to do) as they'll have to worry about making money.
OR
As a content consumer, you'll have to pay for the content directly which is currently available for free.
Yes, I know everyone hates ads and I'll probably get downvoted here too but - You should punish publishers who serve malware, popups, JS & other bad stuff BUT you don't punish ALL the publishers - many of them don't do that and are just fine.
I agree and I think everyone would - we've all seen such businesses and no likes getting spammed.
Although I wonder if it makes sense financially to do that. It would be great to see if someone has data on this. I'm not really sure if one can actually improve conversions or whatever they want to improve by sending emails that way.
Actually, two emails a month is the upper limit, which we use for actively engaged new signups. With 2 emails a week in this category, we were able to get about 4 times more engagement and time spent on the app than single email a week.
Also, we measure when people use the emails we sent and it's generally of no use to send more emails, after two consecutive emails not being clicked on - so one can stop there.
I don't see why one should not send two or even more emails, when the user wants them. Users have understood our product better and it helped achieve what we define as activation, much faster.
On the other hand, If you were a normal trial signup who just registered and never actually used the product, we'd email you thrice in the first month (including the first email) and then once every 3/6 months. We're also thinking of sending some informative blog posts once in a while. This system isn't old enough yet to give significant data about the effectiveness of the mailers sent after the first month.
We are not talking about boycotting a company or industry here. That's boycotting the Internet because Publishers who provide free information here make a large part of the Internet.
In the end, you won't find so much content freely available and would have to pay for it directly - most likely.
Interesting. Another reason why text only emails are better is they make it to Gmail's primary tab and get more attention.
However, I disagree with the only two more emails part. Email is a very strong tool, often underestimated.
Depending upon the stage in the lifecycle, you can send emails to:
1) Convert trial signups to Activated users.
2) Re-activating users.
3) Convert activated users to paying customers.
4) Upselling paying customers.
5) Improving retention.
It goes without saying all emails should depend on what the customer has done with your app so far. For example, if I'm losing an activated user, the script can check which important sections of my app have not been visited and send an email informing about what he missed and why it's important - you get the point.
So, it is best to collect extensive data about how your customers use your app and fire customized emails accordingly.
I normally don't send more than 2 emails a week for the first one month and then this number decreases. I'm wondering what others do here.
You should punish publishers who serve malware, popups, JS & other bad stuff BUT you don't punish ALL the publishers - many of them don't do that and are just fine.
In fact, instead of an AdBlocker, it is better off if there is a plugin which blocks such sites completely. Why use their content if you don't like them anyway.
Quoting from the article: An experiment conducted by Kevin Larson and Rosalind Picard looked at how typography affects mood and performance of the readers. It happened across two studies, where they took three kind of measurements: Relative Subject Duration (RSD), Likert Scale and through a cognitive task which was different for both studies.
There were twenty participants, half of them got the text with poor typography and half got good typography.
In the first study, the participants were given twenty minutes to read the passage, amid which (after 15 minutes) they were interrupted and asked to estimate how long they had been reading for. After the RSD data was recorded, they were asked to fill out the Likert preference questionnaire with 6 statements, where one of the statements was whether they found the text easy to read.
Next, they were given a cognitive task, which for the first study was a Candle problem.
The second study was very similar to the first one, except for the RSD data, they were interrupted 17 minutes into reading, and the cognitive performance task was changed to remote associates test.
Results - Participants with good typography underestimated their time by 3 minutes 18 seconds in the first study and by 5 minutes and 21 seconds in the second study. This shows that when a passage is well structured, the readers are more engrossed in the text. - With the Likert scale questionnaire in the first study, the results were not reliable. But in the second study, some scores were in favor of good typography. - For the Candle problem, out of the 10 participants who were shown good typography, 4 successfully completed the task, while 0 participants completed the task in the other group. - In the Remote associates task, the results were not statistically significant or reliable with the good typography group succeeding on 52% of the task at an average speed of 6395ms, and the poor typography group succeeding at 48% of the task at an average speed of 6715ms.
Even though the result was not reliable enough in the second study, the good typography group did perform better. This can be attributed to the fact that they were in a better mood before starting the task. Hence, they were better at problem solving.