I looked at their current design first, which seemed to actually be pretty good (at least compared to the original sites of the last few you've redesigned).
Then I looked at your redesign. And it was really interesting to see the things you highlighted. If I was a doctor, I'm sure the MU certification and $44,000 tax credit would speak directly to me. It shows me that (1) the product is trustworthy, and (2) why I would want to try it immediately.
Then I flipped back to DrChrono's original design and immediately noticed the shortcomings that I hadn't realized before:
* There are screenshots of the app above the fold, but they don't really grab my attention (the doctor in the redesign not only did grab my attention, it also made it abundantly clear this was made for medical professionals).
* I also now noticed that DrChrono was using some generic clip art below the fold - it's cute, but it doesn't sell the product for me. In the redesign, you use actual screenshots of the app which made me curious to want to click through. You also had picture testimonials at the bottom, which immediately gave me social proof of other people using the product and made me want to read their stories.
* Regarding social proof, I also didn't even notice the NY Times/USA Today/CNBC logos on the current design. Whereas, on the redesign, those were some of the first things that struck out to me. Like it or not, mass media mentions definitely make me (and just about everyone else) take your product way more seriously and so it definitely pays off to feature them.
* As I mentioned before, the tax credit and MU certification really "sell" the app to me. And on the original design, I didn't notice either. The tax credit is described in very small text and doesn't stand out in any way. As for the MU certification, I was completely oblivious to it on my first pass-over (it's a triangle in the top right). I suspect ad blindness has trained me to ignore anything featured in that way, whereas I couldn't help but notice it in the redesign (the textured background helped especially - it looked like a juicy lemon and compelled me to see it).
* Lastly, the original design definitely felt like a template to me. Almost all of the graphics are boilerplate iPad app icons to the point that you could just replace some of the text and have it work for any other app. That's not a dealbreaker by any means, but it certainly doesn't help if you want people to notice your app on its own merits.
Very nice work, Kyro! I'm enjoying this Facelift series: you do a nice job of highlighting people's work you like while explaining why they could be doing it better. Refreshingly positive.
This facelift was more interesting than the last few because you're dealing with a more complex project. I think you did a good job of presenting a number of its features navigably. The redesign doesn't "snap" like the EXEC and Flutter designs, though: it's cleaner, but visually doesn't grab my attention the way some of your others have.
This is quite a brave, interesting series of posts, so thanks for that; long may they continue.
I like the way you're breaking the grid here with the person in the white coat, which helps this feel less like a standard startup template, and more something tailored. Having someone hold/interact with the app also humanises it (as compared to their existing page), which is a lesson many tech startups (from pebble to this one) would do well to heed if they want to attract people who are not technical. The colours are very important, and I think you're right to go with white here with splashes of colour, in fact I think the dark blue is a mistake for the very reasons you argue in your post against grey/dark colours.
These 'trust us, the nytimes does' links seem to be de rigueur for startup sites now, but I'm not sure that they really deserve this placement. I'd boost the actual users of the product instead and leave the press links for lower down the page.
The only place I feel this redesign falls down is in its presentation of the key points lower down on the page. You have identified that they are not working, but I'm not convinced by the replacement:
The key points on the old website are ugly, and inconsistent (why two different styles of presentation for 6 different points, and then unrelated user testimonial beside the lower ones?).
The key points on your redesign are repeats from above, and are hidden by distracting chrome - presented in some sort of slider widget which doesn't do them justice. This is a home page - if you are going to present USPs there should be 1-3 major selling points/calls to action which you extract from the client, and those should be presented beautifully with supporting illustrations and clear actions. Navigation chrome is just getting in the way here - if necessary present them as a grid with more than 3, but there should be no clicking just to see more IMHO.
PS As a meta-point, I really feel you lose something in these blog posts by not comparing the two pages directly with a screenshot of the site as it was. These sites are likely to change, which will make your commentary and redesign difficult or impossible to understand, and also I'm lazy and don't want to have to click another link :)
This is the first one where I think the original might be better. What is "MU"? Feature headings are too subtle. The "darkness" seems fine (I actually found the facelift's dark splotches jarring). Too wide (as usual). The original feels easier to scan. No link to the demo.
Some positives: the arrows to the call to action. The image of the doctor. Spotlighting MU certification (even though MU is not defined).
This design gives me the immediate impression that this product is related to health care, something that the current drchrono.com does not do. And it's gorgeous, I think he did a great job with this one.
As far as MU, he claims, "I brought the ‘MU Certification’ badge front and center because I’ve been told that potential health incentives factor heavily in a practice’s or hospital’s decision to adopt a new platform."
So it sounds like it's relevant to actual customers.
MU is a term frequently used in Health IT field. I'm not sure if the actual customers (physicians/doctors) will know about the term. Unless of course, there is an internal "IT evaluation team" evaluating the product and then I don't think design/UX matters anymore.
The person making the purchasing decision will almost certainly know about this. A provider must meet certain "meaningful use" criteria to be eligible for tax credits, and so this designation indicates that DrChrono meets some of these requirements.
I think it's fair to say that most organizations currently looking to buy an EHR are doing so because they want to take advantage of these tax incentives.
Yeah, it's a pretty big untapped market! Did you tell them that they can get $40k from the government and replace all their paper files with iPads? It's the new hotness.
Caveat: You can throw out any data points if those providers are part of a larger healthcare network that makes all the decisions for them about what software to buy. For example, if the doctor is part of Blah Blah Medical Group and they're (probably begrudgingly) forced to use something like Relay Health, then they've essentially offloaded that decision to an administrator somewhere.
I think this is your best work yet Kyro. The re-design feels so much more professional and it looks gorgeous. I guess it's true what they say about design being subjective.
> NB: I’m selling my last three designs for anyone who’s interested. Here are the links: EXEC, Flutter, Pebble.
Am I the only one that thinks this is (morally) wrong?
I absolutely love what he is doing, especially in this redesign of drchrono, but he is using so much of the original web sites (copy, structure, logo) in his work that it just doesn't feel right.
I'm having a hard time to follow his train of thought as well.
If he's trying to get in with the startups, it would be better if he was totally transparent with his files. I'm pretty sure if any start up wants to use his visual design, they'd reach out and offer either a job or compensation or other projects.
Like you mentioned, he's reusing alot of the company's assets. What exactly is he selling? What about copyright issues? The only target audience that'd buy this are the companies themselves. There are countless tutorials, all free, that offers both code and PSD version.
Doing a company's redesign is a great way to showcase your skills, but turning it around to sell it for half a grand seems really thoughtless.
Not trying to knock the guy but it seems conflicted with the original intent of his redesign blog series.
I was a bit conflicted about whether I should post those links. I figured it'd be no different than people purchasing site templates. In any case, I'll opt for being transparent and stick to the initial intention. Links removed.
I don't see anything wrong with it. Get rid of the copy, replace the images, put it on ThemeForest. What's the difference? He has all the rights to the new designs.
What I like about all of these YC Facelift's are the call to action buttons. They all have a very predominate button to get people using/purchasing/signing up for the app. They also have very clear descriptions/videos of what the product does, examples and testimonials.
They do exactly what the homepage of a product needs to do... sell the product. Make it clear what the product is and easy to do == increased sales/conversions/signups.
hi kyro, i would love for you to write in more depth why you feel your designs are better than the originals. as an engineer looking to understand design, one subjective sentence isn't really doing it for me.
This is excellent. Really demonstrates trust and confidence, and brings attention to Meaningful Use certification, which is a big deal. Clear call to action to get started and quick points to jump into product views. Really good work, and I hope the DrChrono team jumps on this! In fact, I think their entire EHR -- while excellent -- could use a YC Facelift™.
The thing I notice most about the DrChrono site is they still don't have an answer for getting competitors to share data.
No biggie, no one has answered that question yet. Well, actually, we do know the answer: universal healthcare (aka "single payer"), where the players aren't competitors.
I designed, implemented, and supported a handful of regional healthcare exchanges. Five exchanges, 80 hospitals, plus misc guarantors, scripts, ambulance services, lab orders & results, etc. So I have some experience.
What I learned is this:
Every single player thinks our medical records are THEIR records, to use, abuse, and monetize at will.
Last time I checked, DrChrono has expanded their product offering (billing, scheduling, etc), which makes them more of a physicians practice management (much needed!).
I believe this is a recognition that truly portable medical records is a LONG WAY OFF in the USA. It's a political problem, not a technical problem.
(That DrChrono seems to be reality-based pleased me.)
The solution where I work has been to work with payers, healthcare exchanges, and other datasources (like e-pre systems and major lab result companies) on a per-client basis, bringing each client in to help "turn up the heat" as it were on the data vendor (after all, it's the client's data!) and using our product as the sort of "one-stop" endpoint for all this aggregate data.
I like this. I also like the current design. I don't particularly think one is significantly more effective than the other on the surface. I think the redesign is somewhat distracting because there is text all over the place, some big, some small, and there is no logical path for your eye to follow.
My main criticism with the current design is that it should never be that complicated to find pricing information. "What is it going to cost me?" is the first question any prospective customer is going to ask about any product once they realize that it is something they may want. So why require the user to click through to a pricing page and then click a drop-down to see a price list? You may as well put it front-and-center, because hiding the cost from customers is not going to make them forget that there is one.
I love this design. I really think the focus on lighter colors/whites is much more appropriate for something that is 'medical grade'. I also agree with the placement of key features targeted directly to the buyer.
I loved your previous redesigns but I felt this one wasn't quite there.
I had never been to DrChrono's website and didn't know much about them before this post - so your design was my first interaction with them. For the first minute of looking at your design I couldn't figure out:
-what the offering is
-what the value proposition is
I also found the headline "Efficient patient care at your finger tips" to be quite bland. In terms of design I found the page too busy and I initially didn't know where to focus. In my opinion this page is a long way from being as good as your redesign of Flutter.
As someone who works for something of a major player in this particular market:
:(
Although I'm still confident in my employer over this product; my employer's product is a web app accessible from anywhere (yes, including your shiny new iPad) rather than an iOS-only app. That plus the fact that we go to almost ridiculous lengths with our datasource partners on behalf of our clients means I think we'll be settled for a while.
And yes, we're CCHIT and MU-certified -- and were among the first companies to receive such credentials. :)
Unfortunately a PSD is not a design, esp. for a website, but I'm sure people will find that out if they choose to buy them - I think a better model would be to offer to sell services, not a 'design' which, while pretty, is static and probably in many respects wrong.
Design is a process and a way of thinking, not decoration.
I really enjoy your designs, Kyro. But, I would really like to see a side-by-side comparison of before and after. I think that will be really helpful in illustrating the design choices you make during the facelift.
While I applaud the effort, this seems like a very short-sighted project. Design is not about how things look, it's about how things work to advance a set of goals. And it's very difficult to know how things work without research and exploration. Any new design would start with reviewing stats, business goals and the competition. Projects that don't do that should more-aptly be called "re-colouring" or "moving things around to be pretty."
Incidentally, there was a designer who did a "redesign" of the American Airlines site a while back and ignited a fire store. The response from one of AA's designers is worth a read: http://www.dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html
I dont think "re-colouring" or "moving things around to be pretty." really applies to this series. The redesigns seem really effective and are based on a specific criticism of the site (“doesn’t make you feel confident in their claims of what their app does.”).
In web design that's often frowned upon because this isn't the "end" of the design. It has a whole interaction component that isn't being addressed by a picture.
The letter from the AA designer doesn't support your position at all. The reason he couldn't do a major redesign of the site was because of all the bureaucracy making it impossible. That shouldn't apply to a YC startup.
For this series of redesigns, I think it'd be helpful to include a screenshot of the current design both for easier side by side comparison and for posterity.
Then I looked at your redesign. And it was really interesting to see the things you highlighted. If I was a doctor, I'm sure the MU certification and $44,000 tax credit would speak directly to me. It shows me that (1) the product is trustworthy, and (2) why I would want to try it immediately.
Then I flipped back to DrChrono's original design and immediately noticed the shortcomings that I hadn't realized before:
* There are screenshots of the app above the fold, but they don't really grab my attention (the doctor in the redesign not only did grab my attention, it also made it abundantly clear this was made for medical professionals).
* I also now noticed that DrChrono was using some generic clip art below the fold - it's cute, but it doesn't sell the product for me. In the redesign, you use actual screenshots of the app which made me curious to want to click through. You also had picture testimonials at the bottom, which immediately gave me social proof of other people using the product and made me want to read their stories.
* Regarding social proof, I also didn't even notice the NY Times/USA Today/CNBC logos on the current design. Whereas, on the redesign, those were some of the first things that struck out to me. Like it or not, mass media mentions definitely make me (and just about everyone else) take your product way more seriously and so it definitely pays off to feature them.
* As I mentioned before, the tax credit and MU certification really "sell" the app to me. And on the original design, I didn't notice either. The tax credit is described in very small text and doesn't stand out in any way. As for the MU certification, I was completely oblivious to it on my first pass-over (it's a triangle in the top right). I suspect ad blindness has trained me to ignore anything featured in that way, whereas I couldn't help but notice it in the redesign (the textured background helped especially - it looked like a juicy lemon and compelled me to see it).
* Lastly, the original design definitely felt like a template to me. Almost all of the graphics are boilerplate iPad app icons to the point that you could just replace some of the text and have it work for any other app. That's not a dealbreaker by any means, but it certainly doesn't help if you want people to notice your app on its own merits.