If you take a look at this site: http://www.kooaba.com/ - there are some external links ("As seen on" section) for which there are no rollovers. These links, however, do not lead user down in the funnel (they do not lead to conversion point, even though they may boost the conversion anyway).

In general, providing no rollover for a link is bad UX. On the other hand, degrading some elements to emphasise the other is a common way to shape the user journey towards the conversion point. This degradation, however, can be achieved using other methods (different placement, smaller font etc.).

So the question is: is it ok to use bad UX to provide better conversion? Or is it going too far?

Please, share your thoughts.

  • You're asking the question "is it OK to use bad UX" on a User Experience Q&A site? I'm not sure what you're expecting the answer to be here. In specific regards to that site; they are missing lots of alt-text for images and links there, because of this it's not an accessible site so it is not OK, no.
    – JonW
    Commented Jul 1, 2013 at 9:54
  • Somewhat related - 'Is user experinece evil?' ux.stackexchange.com/questions/5444/is-user-experience-evil Commented Jul 1, 2013 at 10:06
  • @JonW - yes, because UX is not only related to UCD, but also to CCD. And this situation somehow shows the conflict between these approaches. Commented Jul 1, 2013 at 10:15
  • The site you linked as an example comes up as a "site built by lazy designers" in my book. Here is another example for you: windowsazure.com/en-us see the customers section.
    – Rayraegah
    Commented Jul 1, 2013 at 10:27
  • Maybe - but I'm not referring to the website as a whole, just to the missing rollovers. Commented Jul 1, 2013 at 10:35

2 Answers 2


I guess you have to decide if you are personally OK with it as a designer and if you should fear some long-term backfire or even legal liability as a brand/company.

Looking for a way to reach business goals while at the same time improving the subjective experience of as many users as possible is of course great but otherwise, if it does demonstrably increase conversion and that's the main goal for the employer/client, I would say it's a good design. Framing the question as good UX vs. conversion hides the fact that different stakeholders have different objectives and there is no such thing as a “good UX” with no reference to a particular goal and a particular user group.

Of course, it could also just be some short-sighted decision with no real benefit by people who don't know what they are doing…


In that particular case, I would say those icons are there for credibility, which contributes to the ultimate goal of conversion.

Also, if you consider the reason the user is there, it's not going to be to go to the next web or mashable. If those links do anything for them, it's because they already know those brands. I would think any serious converters would, at most, click one of the links and close the subsequent tab.

For these reasons, I think the mouseover is useful if it brings the logo into full color and kindles their feelings about that brand on their way to conversion.

If it was decided that links to these other pages was distracting, I would consider making them non-linking full-color images (if possible) and putting them in a less obvious place such as the bottom of the page.

Either way, I don't agree with putting something you wish to understate in such prime real estate.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.