Kenneth Ormandy

Review review

Published over 2 years ago • 1 min read

You probably already know instinctively your type foundry site doesn’t need reviews. Likewise, if you are deciding between fonts on another foundry’s site, it’s not something you expect to see.

Baymard Institute investigated this for Direct to Consumer (DTC) sites, as part of their ongoing user experience research. I think these tests are often a decent approximation for type foundry sites (albeit without a digital download focus). The outcomes suggests that DTC site don’t benefit from having on-site reviews.

While these kind of sites might have existing reviews that don’t appear to do much for them, it’s even harder for me to imagine reviews seeming natural on foundry sites. There is nothing technical stopping you from requesting them: it might effectively be place for someone to give you a testimonial, or if they did run into a technical issue that you could reply to and say it’s been fixed. However, even if you built this, it seems likely visitors wouldn’t trust them on your own site.

Reviews can seem more trustworthy on marketplace-style sites, and I imagine that could extend to font marketplaces. Still, there are other, more expected mechanisms that fill this gap on font marketplaces, like ranked lists rather than than free-form reviews from any customer.

In the research, potential customers also didn’t “penalize” DTC sites without product reviews. Instead,

users may have off-handedly commented that a site was lacking reviews, but continued on with their exploration (rather than abandon the site, which was a commonly observed outcome for products with no reviews when testing traditional e-commerce sites).
—Baymard Institute, DTC E-Commerce: User Reviews Are Much Less Important for DTC Sites

In short: there is no need to enable this feature on your own site. Efforts to help differentiate yourself through reviews—and the unexpected extra elements of it, like automating follow up email to request reviews in the first place—can probably be put towards other forms of social proof and differentiation instead. In our case, that likely means work that is both encouraging and useful for designers deciding between fonts.

Until next time,

Kenneth Ormandy

Read more from Kenneth Ormandy

The word random took on a new meaning in the 2000s. Everyone I knew labelled things as random. Almost as often, my dad pointed out that what was being called “random," was not random at all. It was just slightly unexpected. As Paul Hiebert wrote in 2011 for The Awl, the dictionary definition suggests something random is: without pattern or objective; it’s perfectly unbiased. To judge by the pop-culture usages cited above, however, the word has shifted away from its traditional usage, and now...

over 2 years ago • 1 min read

I finally put away the holiday decorations over the weekend. When I went to pack up the artificial tree, I was again pleasantly surprised to find this diagram I’d left for myself: Years ago, the first time I had to re-pack it, I found it difficult to get it back properly into the original cardboard box. After struggling with it for a while, I eventually sorted out the arrangement. Then, I drew myself the diagram for when I inevitably encountered the same issue again. In our typographic work,...

over 2 years ago • 2 min read

Type foundry websites can’t follow the recommendations prescribed for all websites. Sometimes, a foundry or type specimen site will need to break “best practices,” or even do the exact opposite. For example, the site might: Load many, many, fonts A fairly obvious one. The typical recommendation is to limit the number of fonts a site uses, to improve the page load time and size. A foundry will be loading many fonts, and more as time goes on. Wait indefinitely for fonts to load There are many...

over 2 years ago • 1 min read
Share this post