A recent link on Hacker News pointed to research at Stanford establishing guidlines for Web Credibility.

I would recommend it to anybody who deals with communication, marketing or design of corporate websites.

Particularly interesting (to me) are those guidelines that deal solely with design, rather than content:

6. Design your site so it looks professional (or is appropriate for your purpose).

We find that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone. When designing your site, pay attention to layout, typography, images, consistency issues, and more…

7. Make your site easy to use — and useful.

… Our research shows that sites win credibility points by being both easy to use and useful. Some site operators forget about users when they cater to their own company’s ego or try to show the dazzling things they can do with web technology…

10. Avoid errors of all types, no matter how small.

Typographical errors and broken links hurt a site’s credibility more than most people imagine. It’s also important to keep your site up and running.

Obviously there are a number of other recommendation that aren’t design-based, but I pulled these out as a reminder that web design is intimately connected to communications and credibility-building. It’s something that all designers should be mindful of.

P.S. For those with a deep interest in web credibility, there are some great resources at the Stanford Web Credibility Research site.

Google’s Android project is in serious trouble. They’re taking too long to iterate the SDK, and aren’t providing developers with enough information about its progress. At the same time, developers on the rival iPhone platform are enjoy stellar success.

Needless to say, Android developers are not happy, and are readier than ever to jump ship. Google’s not doing much to prevent this - the only Google voice in the discussion was that of Jean-Baptiste Queru, an engineer, who also remarked that he would “get into trouble for posting“.

As a further insult, developers recently discovered that an elite few have been secretly receiving updated versions of the Android SDK. This is not a good message to be sending the development community, particularly when an attractive characteristic of the platform is openness.

Android’s success or failure will largely be determined by the degree to which the platform is embraced by developers. So surely, Google would see Android developer relations as a key priority. But rather than embracing the community, Google has antagonised it.

So why is it so difficult for Google to be on top of developer relations? Why is there no obvious liaison - somebody who has the requisite technical knowledge, a ubiquitous presence, authority to answer developers’ questions, and a desire to expeditiously resolve conflicts? Why is there no individual whose sole responsibility is to complete the communication loop?

My intuitive response is that there’s a paradigmatic reluctance among the Android team to view third-party developers as partners and assets. Perhaps this is due to the pressure of working hard on a much anticipated product, resulting in myopia. Or perhaps it’s due to Google’s cultural of producing fantastic products in a self-reliant manner, engendering mistrust or undervaluation of third party developers.

Whatever the reason, there is no excuse. Amicable developer relations are vital for the project, and not should not be difficult to maintain.