The same product doesn't mean the same sales
Let's assume we have two entrepreneurs running online stores with similar assortments. Both sell natural cosmetics. They have similar prices, a similar number of products, and compete for the same customers.
At first glance, one might think their stores should be almost identical. - Nothing could be further from the truth.
The first owner builds a brand around quality and ingredient composition. He wants to convince the customer that his cosmetics are safe, thoughtfully made, and genuinely natural. He therefore needs space for detailed information about ingredients, certificates, origin of raw materials, production processes, and educational materials.
The second owner runs a business primarily focused on sales. His advantage lies in promotions, product bundles, and fast order fulfillment. For him, visible discounts, product recommendations, cross-selling, information about free shipping, or a maximally shortened checkout path may be more important.
The same assortment. The same industry. A similar customer. Yet two completely different shopping experiences.
And that's precisely why designing a site from a template from the very beginning is risky.
The site should reflect the way the company sells
When designing a website, we are not just designing a screen. We are designing a process.
A user arrives at a site with a specific need. They then look for information, compare options, assess the company's credibility, resolve their doubts, and finally make a decision.
Depending on the business, this process can look completely different.
- For an online store, the decision will be to purchase a product.
- For an industrial company — to send an inquiry and start a commercial conversation.
- For a law firm — to schedule a consultation.
- For a software house — to contact about a project.
- For a machine manufacturer — to download technical documentation or request a quote.
- For a service company it might simply be a phone call.
Therefore, there is no single universal CTA button, a single ideal form length, or a single information architecture that works everywhere.
CTA — call to action
CTA, or Call to Action, is an element of the page that encourages the user to perform a specific action.
It can be:
- "Buy now".
- "Request a quote".
- "Schedule a consultation".
- "Download the catalog".
- "Check availability".
- "Talk to an expert".
- "See projects".
These are not just different button texts. They are different models of guiding the user through the site.
If a client first needs to learn about the company's competencies, a "Buy now" button will not be a good solution. Conversely, if a user knows exactly what they want and is ready to buy, forcing them to go through three extra educational sections may only hinder conversion.
Good UX takes this context into account.
One company can even have several different user paths
This is another reason not to look at a website merely as a set of subpages. In practice, we often deal with multiple audience groups.
A manufacturer of industrial devices may simultaneously serve:
- an engineer looking for technical parameters,
- a purchasing department comparing offers,
- management looking for a supplier,
- a service technician needing documentation,
- a potential business partner.
Each of these people comes to the site with a different question.
The engineer wants to know if the device meets specific requirements.
Purchasing wants to know the cost and lead time.
Management wants assurance that the company is reliable and can handle the project.
The technician is looking for instructions.
A business partner wants to know the possibilities for cooperation.
If we show everyone exactly the same path, some users will have to wade through information they don't need at all.
Therefore, good information architecture is not about cramming as much content as possible onto the site. It's about ensuring the right user finds the right information as quickly as possible.
Information architecture — the invisible foundation of a good site
Information architecture is the way content, functions, and elements of a site are organized so that the user can easily understand where they are, what they can do, and where to find the information they need.
The user usually doesn't think about information architecture. They simply know or don't know where to click.
And that's exactly why it's so important.
- If the menu is incomprehensible, the user won't say: "This site's information architecture needs improvement."
They will probably just close the site. - If the form is too long, they won't say: "The conversion process was improperly optimized."
They will simply not fill it out. - If the most important information is three screens down, they won't say: "The information hierarchy is wrong."
They will simply not find it.
UX is, among other things, about solving such problems before the user encounters them.
"I like it" is not a design strategy
This sentence may be a bit uncomfortable, but it's worth saying plainly.
In the website design process, the owner's opinion is important. However, it should not be the only criterion.
The owner knows their business better than the designer. The designer, on the other hand, knows interface design mechanisms, user behavior, and principles of building digital experience. Both perspectives are necessary.
The problem begins when the decision: "This button should be here because I like it more"
replaces the question: "Will the user know what to do at this point?"
The same goes for colors. We may prefer a particular shade of blue, but if the brand's visual identity, contrast, accessibility, and interface hierarchy require a different solution, aesthetic preference should not be the deciding argument.
UX design is not a contest of tastes — it's a process of solving problems.
Why you shouldn't start with "show us some designs"
Inspiration can be very helpful. It's even worth collecting. The problem arises when inspiration becomes a specification.
"We want something like this" can tell a lot about what the client likes visually.
But it doesn't yet say anything about why that solution works and whether it will work for us.
A competitor's site may have a completely different business model. It may serve a different audience. It may have a larger marketing budget. It may sell impulse products, while our client decides over weeks. It may have a ten-person sales team, while we want to generate leads automatically.
Therefore, treat inspiration as a starting point for conversation, not a ready-made recipe.
Design begins with understanding the client
A well-designed site is not created solely at the designer's desk. It is also created through conversations with the client, data analysis, getting to know their audiences, and understanding the sales process.
Depending on the project, it's worth analyzing, among other things:
- personas and target groups,
- traffic sources,
- existing analytics data,
- user journeys,
- most visited subpages,
- points where users leave the site,
- questions asked by customers,
- arguments used by salespeople,
- most common customer objections,
- competitor actions,
- lead handling process,
- purchase process.
Only from such a picture does a true project begin to emerge.
And sometimes its result will be a minimalist site. Sometimes a very extensive service. Sometimes a store optimized for the fastest possible purchase. And sometimes a site whose main purpose is to build trust and lead the user to contact a human.
There is no contradiction in this. These are simply different business problems.
Why at Web24 we treat each project differently
Not because we want to force something "original" into every project. Quite the opposite.
Sometimes the best solution is very simple.
If a user needs to quickly find a phone number, we won't build a complicated path.
If a store should shorten the checkout process, we won't add extra steps just because they look good.
If an industrial manufacturer primarily needs to generate inquiries from specific customer groups, we won't design the site like an e-commerce store.
Individual approach therefore doesn't mean every project must be spectacular. It means every project should be justified.
Every element should have its place and purpose. Every function should address a specific need. And every design decision should arise from context.
The best site isn't always the most flashy
This is an important point, especially at a time when it's increasingly easy to create visually attractive designs.
Today we can quickly generate a beautiful screen. We can create animation. We can prepare an impressive hero section. We can add motion, microinteractions, and dozens of visual extras. But to what end?
If the user still doesn't know:
- what the company does,
- why they should trust it,
- what exactly it offers,
- how it differs from competitors,
- what they should do next,
then even the most beautiful interface doesn't solve the basic problem.
Design should support communication, not cover it up.
A website should be part of the company, not a separate entity
This is perhaps the most important conclusion of this section.
The site should not live beside the business. It should be its digital extension.
If a company emphasizes personal consultancy, the site should reflect that. If it differentiates itself by speed, the user should feel that speed while using the site. If it sells knowledge and experience, the site should present that knowledge. If it competes on price, the user should easily find and compare offers. If quality is most important, it's not enough to state "highest quality" — it must be proven with case studies, processes, certificates, technology, reviews, or other credible arguments.
The site cannot say something different than the company. It should reinforce the way the company operates.
What about ready-made templates?
A template in itself is not bad. It can be a great solution for a small company that needs a simple site, has a limited budget, and no special requirements.
The problem arises when the template starts dictating how the business should operate.
If a company has to change its sales process because it doesn't fit into a ready-made solution, the situation has been reversed.
Technology should serve the business. Not the business serve the technology.
For more demanding projects, custom UX, proprietary information architecture, and tailored functionalities can be far more important than the savings from using an off-the-shelf solution.
Design is about trade-offs — but they should be conscious
There is no site that will simultaneously be:
- maximally simple,
- maximally feature-rich,
- blazingly fast,
- full of animations,
- perfect for every user,
- optimized for every traffic type,
- and very cheap to maintain.
Design is also about prioritization.
That's why a good team should be able to tell the client not only: "We can do this."
Sometimes they should say: "We can, but let's consider whether we really need this."
This is the difference between executing a wishlist and designing a solution.
Not every company needs the "most modern" site
Sometimes a client comes with the expectation: "We want a modern site."
That's a good starting point for a conversation, but definitely not enough to start a project.
Because what does "modern" actually mean? The look? Technology? Animations? Responsiveness? Speed? Integrations? CMS? Personalization? Accessibility? Or simply a site that doesn't look like it's from ten years ago?
For each client the answer will be different.
So instead of asking: "How should your new site look?"
it's better to start with: "What should this site do for your business?"
Only the answer to that question gives us a starting point for design.
So what does a custom design really mean?
It's not that the designer will invent a different shade of green than the competition. It's not about unusual animations. It's not even about every site looking completely different.
A custom design primarily means tailoring the solution to a specific problem.
We design differently for a site that should sell products. Differently for a site that should generate leads. Differently for a service platform. Differently for an informational portal. Differently for a B2B platform. Differently for a web application. Even two online stores selling the same product might require completely different user experiences.
Because we don't design for an industry. We design for a specific company, a specific user, and a specific goal.
What next?
In the third and final part of the series we'll move from theory to practice. We'll show how the process of designing a company-tailored solution looks — from the first conversation and business analysis, through UX and information architecture, to technology, implementation, and subsequent project development. Because a good design is not only the end result visible in the browser, but the whole process of decisions that led to its creation.
