March 13, 2002
Yahoo! Mail: Simplicity holds up over time Jesse James Garrett has done an excellent review/analysis of Yahoo! Mail for Boxes & Arrows. What’s so excellent about it? Well, it’s short, to the point, and provides a great example of using his visual vocabulary to document the flow of an application. He also doesn’t belabor explaning the whole visual vocab thing. He gives it to you and provides just enough “for additional info” links for newcomers to dig deeper. It’s a good example of Boxes & Arrows’ editorial aim of delivering content beyond the IA basics you get on other sites.
March 12, 2002
Boxes and Arrows Hit the Bull’s Eye
Boxes and Arrows is a new online magazine aimed at the “community of practice” that includes information architecture, information design, interaction design, and interface design. I can’t overstate how excited I am about this new site. Boxes and Arrows (B&A) is the most exciting thing to happen in the IA community for a long time. The content is top-notch, covering topics that you won’t see in other places, or covering them with a different approach.
All of the articles I’ve read in the first issue are excellent, but here are some that I think really stand out:
Boxes and Arrows is a new online magazine aimed at the “community of practice” that includes information architecture, information design, interaction design, and interface design. I can’t overstate how excited I am about this new site. Boxes and Arrows (B&A) is the most exciting thing to happen in the IA community for a long time. The content is top-notch, covering topics that you won’t see in other places, or covering them with a different approach.
All of the articles I’ve read in the first issue are excellent, but here are some that I think really stand out:
- Jess McMullin’s article “Getting into government consulting” – If I’m going to pay all these taxes at least the money should go to making better experiences for us taxpayers. Jess offers good advice, and I’m sure from talking with him in the past that it’s based on his experience as a consultant for government bodies in Canada.
- Nathan Shedroff offers an insightful essay on the titles we like to throw around and our motivations to do so. It's called The making of a discipline: the making of a title. His points hit home, and made me think about my title du jour: User Experience Architect. I'm sure this will rekindle some old topics on the SIGIA list...
- Got usability? Talking with Jakob Nielsen – Chad Thornton delivers the first truly innovative interview with Jakob that I’ve seen in about three years. He asks a lot of new questions, and from the perspective of those of us who already buy into usability as a goal. I think it shows a more moderate Jakob than what you get elsewhere. He’s talking to the choir here, so no need to preach.
Six months after September 11th
Watching the History Channel's program on the World Trade Center (pre-attack) it struck me how buildings and architecture reflect our various cultures. We build things that represent the thinking, technology and society of the day. You have to wonder when, as a society, we'll ever again feel up to building a huge skyscraper.
From the archive: You matter more than you'll ever know: about Paul Battaglia and what the story of his death represents.
Watching the History Channel's program on the World Trade Center (pre-attack) it struck me how buildings and architecture reflect our various cultures. We build things that represent the thinking, technology and society of the day. You have to wonder when, as a society, we'll ever again feel up to building a huge skyscraper.
From the archive: You matter more than you'll ever know: about Paul Battaglia and what the story of his death represents.
March 11, 2002
Please take a number(ed beeper)
It often seems some of the best ideas are simple ones. Six Flags amusement parks recently announced they'd be offering visitors the option of paying $10 a day for a fancy pager that allows them to reserve a place in line for rides. When it's their time to ride it pages them.
"Instead of having to wait in long lines, park visitors can pay extra for the luxury of registering at a special kiosk for each ride. The devices will then notify them when they can return and get on the ride without having to wait"
"In Atlanta, guests "loved it" despite the fees, because the devices allowed them to eat meals, visit shops, watch entertainment shows and more without having to wait for hours at many rides...And the company likes them because if customers aren't in ride lines, they are often spending money in other parts of the park.
Popular restaurants that don't take reservations have been using pagers for quite some time to notify people waiting that their table is ready. Six Flags is just applying the same concept in a different business. Of course if customers aren't waiting in line like cattle, they can be shopping in a gift shop, getting a drink at the bar, or doing something else more enjoyable -- hopefully generating some revenue. It's the old concept of service order numbers used at so many grocery store deli counters over the years, but with more mobility.
I expect that businesses that regularly have long wait lines will eventually move to something similar. And in cases like Six Flags' where freeing customers from waiting in lines opens the opportunity for more revenue, I would expect that the paging service will ultimately be free.
It often seems some of the best ideas are simple ones. Six Flags amusement parks recently announced they'd be offering visitors the option of paying $10 a day for a fancy pager that allows them to reserve a place in line for rides. When it's their time to ride it pages them.
"Instead of having to wait in long lines, park visitors can pay extra for the luxury of registering at a special kiosk for each ride. The devices will then notify them when they can return and get on the ride without having to wait"
"In Atlanta, guests "loved it" despite the fees, because the devices allowed them to eat meals, visit shops, watch entertainment shows and more without having to wait for hours at many rides...And the company likes them because if customers aren't in ride lines, they are often spending money in other parts of the park.
Popular restaurants that don't take reservations have been using pagers for quite some time to notify people waiting that their table is ready. Six Flags is just applying the same concept in a different business. Of course if customers aren't waiting in line like cattle, they can be shopping in a gift shop, getting a drink at the bar, or doing something else more enjoyable -- hopefully generating some revenue. It's the old concept of service order numbers used at so many grocery store deli counters over the years, but with more mobility.
I expect that businesses that regularly have long wait lines will eventually move to something similar. And in cases like Six Flags' where freeing customers from waiting in lines opens the opportunity for more revenue, I would expect that the paging service will ultimately be free.
March 05, 2002
Time to bring back vinyl?
Looks like the music companies and the new CD copy-protection measures they're testing have little regard for usability of the end product and also don't comply with existing standards.
"BMG, part of Bertelsmann, was forced to drop copy protection on two CD's it released in Europe when consumers complained that the music would not play on their CD players."
"the advent of silvery discs that do not quite act like CD's have angered Sony Electronics and Philips Electronics (part of Royal Philips Electronics), which co-developed the compact disc format, first introduced in 1983. "We do not approve the use of the CD logo on such products," said Rick Clancy, a spokesman for Sony Electronics of America. "It puts us in a position where we can't guarantee the playability or sound quality of discs that may be used with our devices." -- NY Times
How to copy a copy-protected CD
Of course what the clueless record companies don't get is that pirating will still take place, just as it has for decades with any other type of music format. "Dubs" can easily be created by going from digital to analog to digital. Using good quality analog equipment to make the copy, a listener wouldn't notice much difference on a typical stereo setup when playing back the copy. Sure, audiophiles might notice a difference, but they are unlikely to use pirated copies -- they want the real thing since they also tend to be collectors.
Digital isn't all it's cracked up to be
Further evidence that analog copies will happen is the tradition of bootlegs in the music culture. Hard-core fans create their own live recordings ("bootlegs") -- sometimes even with the band's blessing. Bootlegs are then traded or given to other fans -- a simple web search turns up many examples of available "boots" online. What's important to note about bootlegs is they are often very poor quality recordings, yet they are collected by rabid fans. If people want the music bad enough, they'll settle for lower quality recordings. From what I can tell, piraters could use a simple two-dollar low-tech analog patch cable between a CD player and a CD-R to defeat multi-million dollar hi-tech digital copy-protection measures -- and people would be satisfied with the results. As the old saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way," and piraters will find a way. Ultimately, the music industry isn't going to prevent illegal copying of CDs.
Caveat listener
Even so, music companies are designing new "CD" products that only work with certain types of CD players without telling consumers what the new equipment requirements are. Another issue is that most music retailers don't allow consumers to return CDs -- a "defective" product can only be exchanged for a replacement of the same title. An exchange won't help an end user if the product design is flawed; an exact replacement fixes nothing. The unsuspecting person who usually listens to CDs on headphones with their CD-ROM drive, but who suddenly can't get a new CD to play correctly, will have no recourse. Oh, and there'll be no error message to tell them that their problem is an intended one.
The root of the problem: lack of user-centered-design
The core of the problem the music industry is creating is that they've forgotten their target user -- the music lover who buy CDs. They obviously haven't profiled and segmented their users. I would guess that many younger music lovers -- teenagers to thirty-somethings who follow current music trends and have more expendable income for entertainment -- are much more likely to use MP3 players and CD-ROM or DVD drives in computers to listen to and, yes, copy music from CD to hard drive or a mix CD-R. My assumption is that this is a very profitable market segment for the industry -- but more importantly, it's the new generation of music buyers. It's also the generation that is more technology savvy, more likely to use the web and e-commerce, and more open to change in music buying habits than the others. Why would the industry want to risk pushing these buyers away? My only answer to that question is it must be because they haven't spent enough time researching their users and designing innovative products that meet BOTH their users' needs and the needs of the industry. They've simply over-reacted with a crude application of available technology with little fore-thought on the implications.
My predictions:
The good thing to keep in mind is that markets work. Music companies and bands that sell copy-protected CDs will get bad press and will risk alienating their target market. Consumers who, for years, have been able to enjoy a music CD on their computer at work will suddenly find that the industry has "fixed" something that wasn't broke...and they will complain to retail outlets, which will flood distributors with exchanged or returned CDs. Warning labels will appear, and like the american NC-17 movie rating, in time they will be avoided at all costs. Only the biggest artists who already command a large market share will be able to withstand a copy-protection warning label. And eventually, the industry will find that CDs with copy-protection will sell fewer units than those without it, and they will drop copy-protection altogether. If not, they will create a huge market opportunity for un-signed artists and independent labels to sell their works online sans copy-protection.
Usability and products that meet the standards consumers demand will win out. The question is, what side will the existing music industry be on?
Looks like the music companies and the new CD copy-protection measures they're testing have little regard for usability of the end product and also don't comply with existing standards.
"BMG, part of Bertelsmann, was forced to drop copy protection on two CD's it released in Europe when consumers complained that the music would not play on their CD players."
"the advent of silvery discs that do not quite act like CD's have angered Sony Electronics and Philips Electronics (part of Royal Philips Electronics), which co-developed the compact disc format, first introduced in 1983. "We do not approve the use of the CD logo on such products," said Rick Clancy, a spokesman for Sony Electronics of America. "It puts us in a position where we can't guarantee the playability or sound quality of discs that may be used with our devices." -- NY Times
How to copy a copy-protected CD
Of course what the clueless record companies don't get is that pirating will still take place, just as it has for decades with any other type of music format. "Dubs" can easily be created by going from digital to analog to digital. Using good quality analog equipment to make the copy, a listener wouldn't notice much difference on a typical stereo setup when playing back the copy. Sure, audiophiles might notice a difference, but they are unlikely to use pirated copies -- they want the real thing since they also tend to be collectors.
Digital isn't all it's cracked up to be
Further evidence that analog copies will happen is the tradition of bootlegs in the music culture. Hard-core fans create their own live recordings ("bootlegs") -- sometimes even with the band's blessing. Bootlegs are then traded or given to other fans -- a simple web search turns up many examples of available "boots" online. What's important to note about bootlegs is they are often very poor quality recordings, yet they are collected by rabid fans. If people want the music bad enough, they'll settle for lower quality recordings. From what I can tell, piraters could use a simple two-dollar low-tech analog patch cable between a CD player and a CD-R to defeat multi-million dollar hi-tech digital copy-protection measures -- and people would be satisfied with the results. As the old saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way," and piraters will find a way. Ultimately, the music industry isn't going to prevent illegal copying of CDs.
Caveat listener
Even so, music companies are designing new "CD" products that only work with certain types of CD players without telling consumers what the new equipment requirements are. Another issue is that most music retailers don't allow consumers to return CDs -- a "defective" product can only be exchanged for a replacement of the same title. An exchange won't help an end user if the product design is flawed; an exact replacement fixes nothing. The unsuspecting person who usually listens to CDs on headphones with their CD-ROM drive, but who suddenly can't get a new CD to play correctly, will have no recourse. Oh, and there'll be no error message to tell them that their problem is an intended one.
The root of the problem: lack of user-centered-design
The core of the problem the music industry is creating is that they've forgotten their target user -- the music lover who buy CDs. They obviously haven't profiled and segmented their users. I would guess that many younger music lovers -- teenagers to thirty-somethings who follow current music trends and have more expendable income for entertainment -- are much more likely to use MP3 players and CD-ROM or DVD drives in computers to listen to and, yes, copy music from CD to hard drive or a mix CD-R. My assumption is that this is a very profitable market segment for the industry -- but more importantly, it's the new generation of music buyers. It's also the generation that is more technology savvy, more likely to use the web and e-commerce, and more open to change in music buying habits than the others. Why would the industry want to risk pushing these buyers away? My only answer to that question is it must be because they haven't spent enough time researching their users and designing innovative products that meet BOTH their users' needs and the needs of the industry. They've simply over-reacted with a crude application of available technology with little fore-thought on the implications.
My predictions:
The good thing to keep in mind is that markets work. Music companies and bands that sell copy-protected CDs will get bad press and will risk alienating their target market. Consumers who, for years, have been able to enjoy a music CD on their computer at work will suddenly find that the industry has "fixed" something that wasn't broke...and they will complain to retail outlets, which will flood distributors with exchanged or returned CDs. Warning labels will appear, and like the american NC-17 movie rating, in time they will be avoided at all costs. Only the biggest artists who already command a large market share will be able to withstand a copy-protection warning label. And eventually, the industry will find that CDs with copy-protection will sell fewer units than those without it, and they will drop copy-protection altogether. If not, they will create a huge market opportunity for un-signed artists and independent labels to sell their works online sans copy-protection.
Usability and products that meet the standards consumers demand will win out. The question is, what side will the existing music industry be on?
February 27, 2002
Practicing Usability in the future
You could say web design and development today is practiced by more people than just a few years ago, and you'd be right -- if you ignore the quality and complexity of the work. Lightweight HTML development and graphic design tools have opened the field to a much broader set of people. But companies didn't throw away their graphic designers and HTML developers -- they are still at work, but now focus on more difficult, more important, more risk-intensive projects.
Will the same thing happen with Usability and Information Architecture? Should we worry about it?
Yes and No.
Lightweight usability methods will continue to gain popularity. People like Steve Krug and Jakob Nielsen are acting as evangelists for usability. Those two "gurus" are very different in their approach to the unwashed -- Jakob can rub many people the wrong way -- being perceived as dogmatic, and Krug sells simplicity with humor and encouragingly says "you can do it too, this is easy" -- but both effectively convey the principle that "usability" as a concept revolves around being user-centric.
Yet while in the future there will be more developers and designers doing guerilla usability testing -- they will remain novices when it comes to the finer points of User-Centered Design. They won't know a heuristic from a urologist. The good news is that those same novices will get hungry for knowledge and skills...and they will promote usability-as-business-advantage within their organizations. In effect, they will create fertile ground for "the experts" -- who I'm afraid will remain in short supply.
Good information architectures will still be created by the pros in the future. Information Architecture (IA) is not a simple discipline -- just like building architecture -- you might be able to blueprint and build a shed for your mower, but a house or an office building is a whole different story. IA projects in the future will continue to get more complex, and integrating multiple sites, content, and workflow-intensive applications will require an experienced information architect with real training.
In the end, big, critical and risk-intensive projects will involve usability professionals and information architects with significant training and experience. Less experienced practitioners -- usually trying to play many roles -- will take care of the smaller, simpler efforts. We shouldn't worry about this. Instead, we should focus and enhance our skills so we can meet the new challenges ahead: systems that involve more integration, the need to design and test for multiple platforms and devices, and users that will come to expect an even higher level of usability and utility.
You could say web design and development today is practiced by more people than just a few years ago, and you'd be right -- if you ignore the quality and complexity of the work. Lightweight HTML development and graphic design tools have opened the field to a much broader set of people. But companies didn't throw away their graphic designers and HTML developers -- they are still at work, but now focus on more difficult, more important, more risk-intensive projects.
Will the same thing happen with Usability and Information Architecture? Should we worry about it?
Yes and No.
Lightweight usability methods will continue to gain popularity. People like Steve Krug and Jakob Nielsen are acting as evangelists for usability. Those two "gurus" are very different in their approach to the unwashed -- Jakob can rub many people the wrong way -- being perceived as dogmatic, and Krug sells simplicity with humor and encouragingly says "you can do it too, this is easy" -- but both effectively convey the principle that "usability" as a concept revolves around being user-centric.
Yet while in the future there will be more developers and designers doing guerilla usability testing -- they will remain novices when it comes to the finer points of User-Centered Design. They won't know a heuristic from a urologist. The good news is that those same novices will get hungry for knowledge and skills...and they will promote usability-as-business-advantage within their organizations. In effect, they will create fertile ground for "the experts" -- who I'm afraid will remain in short supply.
Good information architectures will still be created by the pros in the future. Information Architecture (IA) is not a simple discipline -- just like building architecture -- you might be able to blueprint and build a shed for your mower, but a house or an office building is a whole different story. IA projects in the future will continue to get more complex, and integrating multiple sites, content, and workflow-intensive applications will require an experienced information architect with real training.
In the end, big, critical and risk-intensive projects will involve usability professionals and information architects with significant training and experience. Less experienced practitioners -- usually trying to play many roles -- will take care of the smaller, simpler efforts. We shouldn't worry about this. Instead, we should focus and enhance our skills so we can meet the new challenges ahead: systems that involve more integration, the need to design and test for multiple platforms and devices, and users that will come to expect an even higher level of usability and utility.
February 22, 2002
The Krugmeister, Krugeroonie, Krugster...
Okay, I don't know Steve Krug that well...I mean I know him a bit...alright, I had to pay for his book, and I've emailed him a couple times -- he even emailed me back once and didn't mention a restraining order.
Anyway, you should check out an excellent interview with Steve on an Irish site called webBusters. I think the things that've made Steve an instant hit are his sense of humor, practicality, and tone. He connects with people actually practicing usability and design in the trenches on real-life projects. Put simply, he doesn't claim to be a guru and knows how to have fun. Those of us practicing or selling usability can learn from the way Steve presents his material and opinions.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from the interview:
"I wrote my book in hopes that I could make life a little easier for people who've been handed the job of designing a site, by teaching them how to think like a usability expert, an information architect, and an interaction designer. (It's really unpleasant to be doing a job when you don't feel like you know what you're doing.)"
On accessibility:
"...the people building the sites are between a rock and a hard place. If they want to do the right thing, they have to get educated about how to do it, which is not easy. ... And then they have to do all this on top of the design, which they don't have enough time for in the first place. ... I think the real solution in the long run is probably improvements to browser and screen reader technology so they work together better."
When asked which web sites will be around in 15 years:
"Sears.com."
And if you happen to be someone involved in web projects who'd like to get started just understanding what usability is about, READ STEVE KRUG's BOOK: Don't Make Me Think. Stop by sometime, I'll let you borrow my copy.
Okay, I don't know Steve Krug that well...I mean I know him a bit...alright, I had to pay for his book, and I've emailed him a couple times -- he even emailed me back once and didn't mention a restraining order.
Anyway, you should check out an excellent interview with Steve on an Irish site called webBusters. I think the things that've made Steve an instant hit are his sense of humor, practicality, and tone. He connects with people actually practicing usability and design in the trenches on real-life projects. Put simply, he doesn't claim to be a guru and knows how to have fun. Those of us practicing or selling usability can learn from the way Steve presents his material and opinions.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from the interview:
"I wrote my book in hopes that I could make life a little easier for people who've been handed the job of designing a site, by teaching them how to think like a usability expert, an information architect, and an interaction designer. (It's really unpleasant to be doing a job when you don't feel like you know what you're doing.)"
On accessibility:
"...the people building the sites are between a rock and a hard place. If they want to do the right thing, they have to get educated about how to do it, which is not easy. ... And then they have to do all this on top of the design, which they don't have enough time for in the first place. ... I think the real solution in the long run is probably improvements to browser and screen reader technology so they work together better."
When asked which web sites will be around in 15 years:
"Sears.com."
And if you happen to be someone involved in web projects who'd like to get started just understanding what usability is about, READ STEVE KRUG's BOOK: Don't Make Me Think. Stop by sometime, I'll let you borrow my copy.
February 18, 2002
Requirements gathering is like sex
Peter Van Dijck's take on how clients fantasize about their conceptual applications. This short post is really great -- I think he's right on target. Of course, the analogy makes you feel a little dirty, and after reading it I don't think I can ever use a certain quote from the movie "Field of Dreams" in a client meeting again.
Peter Van Dijck's take on how clients fantasize about their conceptual applications. This short post is really great -- I think he's right on target. Of course, the analogy makes you feel a little dirty, and after reading it I don't think I can ever use a certain quote from the movie "Field of Dreams" in a client meeting again.
Elegant Hack redesign
One of my favorite sites, Elegant Hack, has recently been redesigned. Not sure I like the new home page -- kinda boxy, but cool photos. Anyway, Christina's style and content are top-notch, especially her blog: "Gleanings". (Come to think of it she also has great names for both, as well as a slick, IA-geeky logo.)
And yes, Christina, you can put "mentat" on your business card. More people in the biz world would probably know what mentat means than "information architect"...plus mentat is much cooler sounding.
One of my favorite sites, Elegant Hack, has recently been redesigned. Not sure I like the new home page -- kinda boxy, but cool photos. Anyway, Christina's style and content are top-notch, especially her blog: "Gleanings". (Come to think of it she also has great names for both, as well as a slick, IA-geeky logo.)
And yes, Christina, you can put "mentat" on your business card. More people in the biz world would probably know what mentat means than "information architect"...plus mentat is much cooler sounding.
February 14, 2002
How OS "upgrades" don't make 'da grade
Excellent post (a "ManifOSto") and very lively discussion at Signal vs. Noise about things an operating system upgrade should do (or not do). The discussion covers a lot of areas including future direction of desktop metaphors.
<excerpt>
It's wishful thinking, but an ideal operating system should...
Excellent post (a "ManifOSto") and very lively discussion at Signal vs. Noise about things an operating system upgrade should do (or not do). The discussion covers a lot of areas including future direction of desktop metaphors.
<excerpt>
It's wishful thinking, but an ideal operating system should...
- Run on my current hardware.
- Require equal or less system memory than the previous OS.
- Require equal or slightly more hard drive space (for the core functionality) than the previous OS.
- Run as fast or faster than the previous OS on the same hardware.
- Include the previous GUI skin as an optional install.
- Back itself up. Automatically.
- Not reduce any of my peripherals to paperweights.
- Allow me to do more with my computer than the previous OS.
- Display error messages a human without a computer science degree can understand.
- Not reduce me to a quivering ball of cytoplasm when things go wrong.
February 13, 2002
A New Architect
Web Techniques Magazine is no more -- it's now called "New Architect". I have to congratulate them on doing one thing right that many other similar sites have done wrong in the past: their old URLs still work. Yes, that's right. They chose NOT to break the thousands of links to their old content. Why am I surprised? Because for some reason, many businesses don't think twice about revamping their site's file structure when they redesign -- they "clean up" things on the server, only to make a mess of it for their users, advertisers...and any associated revenue streams.
Resources on URLs -- why and how to not break them in a redesign:
As far as the new magazine goes, if you're curious about what's the same, and what's different...well, according to the editor:
"We've held on to many of Web Techniques's unique ideas. For instance, we still believe strongly that the cornerstones of any Internet project are strategy, infrastructure, development, and interface. This structure lets you see all sides of the problem, and its solution, before you devote your time and money to it."
"We've added two completely new sections to the magazine: Critical Decisions and Case Studies. Each article in the Critical Decisions section is written with the intent of helping you answer a strategic question."
Web Techniques has regularly covered topics on design and usability in the past, and judging from the first issue of New Architect, it looks like they'll continue that into the future.
Web Techniques Magazine is no more -- it's now called "New Architect". I have to congratulate them on doing one thing right that many other similar sites have done wrong in the past: their old URLs still work. Yes, that's right. They chose NOT to break the thousands of links to their old content. Why am I surprised? Because for some reason, many businesses don't think twice about revamping their site's file structure when they redesign -- they "clean up" things on the server, only to make a mess of it for their users, advertisers...and any associated revenue streams.
Resources on URLs -- why and how to not break them in a redesign:
- InfoWorld: Redesign 404 -- how InfoWorld did it all wrong
- Doc Searls on "Rotten Linkage" caused by some redesigns
- Merges Theory: How to make URLs user-friendly
- Keith Instone's tactics for preventing the dreaded 404 message
- Jakob Nielsen on linkrot
- Moving pages is #6 on Jakob's Top Ten New Mistakes of Web Design
As far as the new magazine goes, if you're curious about what's the same, and what's different...well, according to the editor:
"We've held on to many of Web Techniques's unique ideas. For instance, we still believe strongly that the cornerstones of any Internet project are strategy, infrastructure, development, and interface. This structure lets you see all sides of the problem, and its solution, before you devote your time and money to it."
"We've added two completely new sections to the magazine: Critical Decisions and Case Studies. Each article in the Critical Decisions section is written with the intent of helping you answer a strategic question."
Web Techniques has regularly covered topics on design and usability in the past, and judging from the first issue of New Architect, it looks like they'll continue that into the future.
Uncle Sam needs Information Architects
"The IT systems in place at the CIA and at other agencies within the intelligence community have made analysts less efficient, because they spend valuable time searching for information stored in many different locations, Louie said. The systems don't allow users to quickly find or compare data especially if the search terms aren't exact.
"We had an IT failure — all of the systems that we put together with the best intentions weren't doing the job," he said. "We couldn't fuse the data."
"This fact was made glaringly clear Sept. 11 when CIA employees at almost every level ended up printing out stacks of paper and searching them manually because it was faster than searching through data stored in IT systems, he said."
Federal Computer Week: Systems fail to deliver
(Via SIGIA)
"The IT systems in place at the CIA and at other agencies within the intelligence community have made analysts less efficient, because they spend valuable time searching for information stored in many different locations, Louie said. The systems don't allow users to quickly find or compare data especially if the search terms aren't exact.
"We had an IT failure — all of the systems that we put together with the best intentions weren't doing the job," he said. "We couldn't fuse the data."
"This fact was made glaringly clear Sept. 11 when CIA employees at almost every level ended up printing out stacks of paper and searching them manually because it was faster than searching through data stored in IT systems, he said."
Federal Computer Week: Systems fail to deliver
(Via SIGIA)
February 12, 2002
Why be stupid when you can keep it simple?
An article on spartan design from webreference.com. The first page is golden, the rest get down into development techniques (not all of which I agree with).
A few poignant quotes:
"The first goal I have is to convince some of you to simplify everything that you are doing. There are several reasons for this, the most enticing that your income will likely go up."
"It is not easy to create something very simple, and I believe it takes more artistic talent to create a beautiful page when the designer must work within usability restrictions. There is always one thing I keep telling myself as I ponder this age-old art question. My attitude towards producing useable work is the primary reason I have made a good living as an artist for close to fifteen years without a "day job." And isn't that what it is all about?"
An article on spartan design from webreference.com. The first page is golden, the rest get down into development techniques (not all of which I agree with).
A few poignant quotes:
"The first goal I have is to convince some of you to simplify everything that you are doing. There are several reasons for this, the most enticing that your income will likely go up."
"It is not easy to create something very simple, and I believe it takes more artistic talent to create a beautiful page when the designer must work within usability restrictions. There is always one thing I keep telling myself as I ponder this age-old art question. My attitude towards producing useable work is the primary reason I have made a good living as an artist for close to fifteen years without a "day job." And isn't that what it is all about?"
February 11, 2002
Outlook, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.
ZDNet has a good rant and discussion of Outlook frustrations. Here are a few of mine:
ZDNet has a good rant and discussion of Outlook frustrations. Here are a few of mine:
- Can't drop a contact in the To field of a new email message
- Forgets any aliases I don't use after few weeks -- frustrating
- Rules management sucks...you end up with way too many rules
- Rules performance is horrible. They take forever to run and won't run in the background
- Outlook runs rules when mail "arrives"...but not if it "arrives" while Outlook isn't running.
- Takes forever to start up over dialup. Has to process all reminders, events, tasks, etc. before you can get to your inbox. (Hint to MS developers: multitasking means some tasks can run in the background.)
- HTML email authoring is a mystery...where do I enter my code, please?
The Web Standards Project: Phase II Coming
Hmm...looks like the WaSP is undergoing a metamorphosis. According to their site, they are "retooling, and a Phase II will "launch soon". Their last signoff on Phase I leaves some clues to possible new directions:
"Browser makers are no longer the problem. The problem lies with designers and developers chained to the browser–quirk–oriented markup of the 1990s...It lies with “helpful” software that generates sites optimized for 4.0 browsers with nary a thought for document structure, open standards, separation of structure from presentation, or the long–term durability and viability of web documents...above all the problem lies with clients who confuse the web with print...who are so concerned with “backward compatibility” that they neglect the far more important issue of forward compability."
Given the focus of "phase I", my prediction is that they'll target tool makers. Developers and clients are the more difficult of the three to tackle, and in phase I they went after browser makers...Let this serve as a warning for Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia.
See previous post Whither (or wither) the WaSP?
(found via Zeldman)
Hmm...looks like the WaSP is undergoing a metamorphosis. According to their site, they are "retooling, and a Phase II will "launch soon". Their last signoff on Phase I leaves some clues to possible new directions:
"Browser makers are no longer the problem. The problem lies with designers and developers chained to the browser–quirk–oriented markup of the 1990s...It lies with “helpful” software that generates sites optimized for 4.0 browsers with nary a thought for document structure, open standards, separation of structure from presentation, or the long–term durability and viability of web documents...above all the problem lies with clients who confuse the web with print...who are so concerned with “backward compatibility” that they neglect the far more important issue of forward compability."
Given the focus of "phase I", my prediction is that they'll target tool makers. Developers and clients are the more difficult of the three to tackle, and in phase I they went after browser makers...Let this serve as a warning for Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia.
See previous post Whither (or wither) the WaSP?
(found via Zeldman)
Jakob Nielsen on false prophets
I received an email from Jakob Nielsen about my previous post on usability snake oil vendors. Here's what Jakob had to say:
"I noticed your essay on false usability a few days ago. I commented on the same phenomenon back in 1999, calling it "voodoo usability":
Unfortunately, as you point out, flawed approaches have been increasing, rather than declining, in the time since my essay, so it's good that you took the initiative to revive interest in the matter."
--
Jakob Nielsen
Author, "Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed"
Nielsen Norman Group
I've received a number of other comments via email, all supporting what I said. One person said they avoid using the term "usability" to describe what they do because it is just too vague. They think its vagueness allows an opening for "snake oil merchants". That may be, but in my book wrong is wrong, no matter how big an "opening" is provided by the victim or the environment.
I received an email from Jakob Nielsen about my previous post on usability snake oil vendors. Here's what Jakob had to say:
"I noticed your essay on false usability a few days ago. I commented on the same phenomenon back in 1999, calling it "voodoo usability":
Unfortunately, as you point out, flawed approaches have been increasing, rather than declining, in the time since my essay, so it's good that you took the initiative to revive interest in the matter."
--
Jakob Nielsen
Author, "Homepage Usability: 50 Websites Deconstructed"
Nielsen Norman Group
I've received a number of other comments via email, all supporting what I said. One person said they avoid using the term "usability" to describe what they do because it is just too vague. They think its vagueness allows an opening for "snake oil merchants". That may be, but in my book wrong is wrong, no matter how big an "opening" is provided by the victim or the environment.
February 07, 2002
False prophets of Usability - Part 1
In the past few years usability has become somewhat of a buzzword. That's both a good and a bad thing. What's bad is that the meaning of usability gets muddied, re-interpreted and sometimes even set aside. You have software companies selling "automated usability testing solutions" (no one really sells products anymore). You have traditional graphic designers passing themselves off as "interaction" this and "user experience" that. And of course most of the "buyers" don't know what is what -- they're just buying instant 'usability" -- or so they think. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but there are clearly some folks in the "usability game" who are just jumping on a bandwagon and bringing their own version of snake oil with them.
Here's an example:
NetConversions has some pretty neat software to sell. It's mostly event logging / data capture type of stuff. It could be very useful to a business or a usability engineer doing research. But, listen to this claim from the NetConversions site:
"True Usability™ is an innovative and rapid data driven method to test for website usability using your actual visitor traffic to improve the user experience and to optimize bottom-line results." [November 2005 Update: Netconversions is now "Atlas" and is still offering True Usability™]
Note that they've co-opted and trademarked "True Usability" as their product name. Of course this really has little to do with "truth" or "usability" as you'll soon see. They have a "white paper" on their site claiming to compare various "approaches to usability": heuristic evaluations (aka "experts"), focus groups, surveys, server logs, and of course "True Usability™". This supposed comparison has more errors in it than I can cover here, but here are the highlights:
Supposedly a heuristic evaluation is "an analysis of the site with respect to a set of usability guidelines. These usability guidelines are often based upon the expert’s past testing and consulting experiences." -- No, a heuristic evaluation is based on heuristics. A guideline review is based on guidelines, and most "experts" don't create their own guidelines from scratch. Clearly they don't know what they are talking about. Looking at their "about us" page, there isn't a person listed with a background in HCI, Usability Engineering or User Centered Design -- instead they are technologists and marketing data research types. Don't get me wrong -- I like those types of people, but I know usability professionals when I see them, and I don't see any at this company. If they're really selling "usability" expertise, shouldn't they show their qualifications in the field?
The "comparision" opens with a very nice quote about usability testing from the Industry Standard.-- evidently to promote NetConversions' product. Of course the types of usability testing Usability Engineers have been doing for decades -- involving humans observing and listening to users isn't even mentioned in this comparison. It seems anything that can help you evaluate usability of a system is now considered "usability testing".
Unfortunately NetConversions isn't the only company doing things along this line, and even many usability professionals can fall into the trap of promising to solve all of a customer's problems in one fell swoop. Usability (as a field) suffers when "experts" don't meet expectations. We have to set realistic expectations with clients, help them select the tools, methods and approaches that meet their needs. We can't over-promise and under-deliver. Perfect usability is a goal never attained, but great strides can be made in that direction if businesses, designers and developers work together.
There's plenty of bad usability out there -- more than enough for all the traditional usability professionals and the new entrants to the "usability game" alike. We can work together -- tool-makers and practitioners, researchers and designers, marketers and engineers. Let's just quit promising that we can get companies to the moon on the next bus leaving town.
Be realistic, helpful and truthful...and maybe Real Usability™ will happen.
In the past few years usability has become somewhat of a buzzword. That's both a good and a bad thing. What's bad is that the meaning of usability gets muddied, re-interpreted and sometimes even set aside. You have software companies selling "automated usability testing solutions" (no one really sells products anymore). You have traditional graphic designers passing themselves off as "interaction" this and "user experience" that. And of course most of the "buyers" don't know what is what -- they're just buying instant 'usability" -- or so they think. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but there are clearly some folks in the "usability game" who are just jumping on a bandwagon and bringing their own version of snake oil with them.
Here's an example:
NetConversions has some pretty neat software to sell. It's mostly event logging / data capture type of stuff. It could be very useful to a business or a usability engineer doing research. But, listen to this claim from the NetConversions site:
"True Usability™ is an innovative and rapid data driven method to test for website usability using your actual visitor traffic to improve the user experience and to optimize bottom-line results." [November 2005 Update: Netconversions is now "Atlas" and is still offering True Usability™]
Note that they've co-opted and trademarked "True Usability" as their product name. Of course this really has little to do with "truth" or "usability" as you'll soon see. They have a "white paper" on their site claiming to compare various "approaches to usability": heuristic evaluations (aka "experts"), focus groups, surveys, server logs, and of course "True Usability™". This supposed comparison has more errors in it than I can cover here, but here are the highlights:
Supposedly a heuristic evaluation is "an analysis of the site with respect to a set of usability guidelines. These usability guidelines are often based upon the expert’s past testing and consulting experiences." -- No, a heuristic evaluation is based on heuristics. A guideline review is based on guidelines, and most "experts" don't create their own guidelines from scratch. Clearly they don't know what they are talking about. Looking at their "about us" page, there isn't a person listed with a background in HCI, Usability Engineering or User Centered Design -- instead they are technologists and marketing data research types. Don't get me wrong -- I like those types of people, but I know usability professionals when I see them, and I don't see any at this company. If they're really selling "usability" expertise, shouldn't they show their qualifications in the field?
The "comparision" opens with a very nice quote about usability testing from the Industry Standard.-- evidently to promote NetConversions' product. Of course the types of usability testing Usability Engineers have been doing for decades -- involving humans observing and listening to users isn't even mentioned in this comparison. It seems anything that can help you evaluate usability of a system is now considered "usability testing".
Unfortunately NetConversions isn't the only company doing things along this line, and even many usability professionals can fall into the trap of promising to solve all of a customer's problems in one fell swoop. Usability (as a field) suffers when "experts" don't meet expectations. We have to set realistic expectations with clients, help them select the tools, methods and approaches that meet their needs. We can't over-promise and under-deliver. Perfect usability is a goal never attained, but great strides can be made in that direction if businesses, designers and developers work together.
There's plenty of bad usability out there -- more than enough for all the traditional usability professionals and the new entrants to the "usability game" alike. We can work together -- tool-makers and practitioners, researchers and designers, marketers and engineers. Let's just quit promising that we can get companies to the moon on the next bus leaving town.
Be realistic, helpful and truthful...and maybe Real Usability™ will happen.
February 05, 2002
Megway TH. Bigger than Jesus
This is amazing! I gotta find out where to get me one of these.
"Due to its unique Opposable Digits Technology™, each Megway is capable of carrying up to 120 pounds in its front cargo compartment in the form of either boxes or bags. The optional broom, mop, and floor buffing attachments (not shown) turn Megway into a powerful cleaning machine.
The advanced technology behind the Megway is really cool.
Thanks to Jason Kottke...great stuff.
This is amazing! I gotta find out where to get me one of these.
"Due to its unique Opposable Digits Technology™, each Megway is capable of carrying up to 120 pounds in its front cargo compartment in the form of either boxes or bags. The optional broom, mop, and floor buffing attachments (not shown) turn Megway into a powerful cleaning machine.
The advanced technology behind the Megway is really cool.
Thanks to Jason Kottke...great stuff.
Don't let your web site fall out of the window
The question of whether to open a new browser window for offsite links came up on CHI-WEB. Lois Wakeman has a nice article about why this generally presents a problem for users. She includes some good examples and usage scenarios (see the sidebar). Personally, I've seen every one of the scenarios she lists occur with users in usability testing. I've seen users with 6 or more windows open (unbeknownst to them) as well as users who accidentally close their only browser window thinking it was another popped-up window. She also covers the topic of popup (or pop-up) windows with a nice working example.
I'm still looking for some guidelines that talk about good uses of popups. If you know of any, please drop me an email and I'll post a link here. I think areas where popups MIGHT be useful are user assistance (e.g. help, glossary, etc.) and showing full-size images when browsing thumbnails.
Generally I avoid designs that open new windows for users. I've yet to find a web user who couldn't find the Back button or some other way back to the previous site when needed.
The question of whether to open a new browser window for offsite links came up on CHI-WEB. Lois Wakeman has a nice article about why this generally presents a problem for users. She includes some good examples and usage scenarios (see the sidebar). Personally, I've seen every one of the scenarios she lists occur with users in usability testing. I've seen users with 6 or more windows open (unbeknownst to them) as well as users who accidentally close their only browser window thinking it was another popped-up window. She also covers the topic of popup (or pop-up) windows with a nice working example.
I'm still looking for some guidelines that talk about good uses of popups. If you know of any, please drop me an email and I'll post a link here. I think areas where popups MIGHT be useful are user assistance (e.g. help, glossary, etc.) and showing full-size images when browsing thumbnails.
Generally I avoid designs that open new windows for users. I've yet to find a web user who couldn't find the Back button or some other way back to the previous site when needed.
February 04, 2002
Faceted Classification Example
I've been trying to get my head around the concept of "faceted classification." This topic has been discussed a bit lately on the SIGIA list, and I wanted to understand what's different about
"faceted classification" from my previous understanding of "classification". FacetMap is an online example and tutorial on faceted classifications. I guess I've never thought of web "taxonomies" or classification systems as using strictly mutually exclusive categories -- where items only fit in one location. Maybe this is why facets don't seem to be a big revelation.
I think providing the user "multiple paths to success" is important whenever possible. For example, "Salt Products" might fit under both "Food" and "Industrial" categories since there is table salt and road de-icing salt. On an intranet, one user might think to look for an organization chart under "about us", while another user might look under "contacts". Where they look might depend on the task they are trying to accomplish at the time. I seem to run into examples like this all the time. Sometimes you can get away with supplementary navigation to get the user to the one spot where something resides (e.g. "Related Links"), but other times you have to actually place the content/item in multiple places.
So there is value in being able to distinguish between "faceted classification" and "hierarchy" or "taxonomy" -- "faceted classification" is a more specific term -- it lends clarity to the discussion. I also like the fact that conceptually "facets" should be determined by user needs. This helps focus the information architect on the user, rather than just on the content.
Read more about faceted classification at PeterMe:
- Innovation in Classification
- Fa-Fa-Fa-Fa-Fa-cets!
I've been trying to get my head around the concept of "faceted classification." This topic has been discussed a bit lately on the SIGIA list, and I wanted to understand what's different about
"faceted classification" from my previous understanding of "classification". FacetMap is an online example and tutorial on faceted classifications. I guess I've never thought of web "taxonomies" or classification systems as using strictly mutually exclusive categories -- where items only fit in one location. Maybe this is why facets don't seem to be a big revelation.
I think providing the user "multiple paths to success" is important whenever possible. For example, "Salt Products" might fit under both "Food" and "Industrial" categories since there is table salt and road de-icing salt. On an intranet, one user might think to look for an organization chart under "about us", while another user might look under "contacts". Where they look might depend on the task they are trying to accomplish at the time. I seem to run into examples like this all the time. Sometimes you can get away with supplementary navigation to get the user to the one spot where something resides (e.g. "Related Links"), but other times you have to actually place the content/item in multiple places.
So there is value in being able to distinguish between "faceted classification" and "hierarchy" or "taxonomy" -- "faceted classification" is a more specific term -- it lends clarity to the discussion. I also like the fact that conceptually "facets" should be determined by user needs. This helps focus the information architect on the user, rather than just on the content.
Read more about faceted classification at PeterMe:
- Innovation in Classification
- Fa-Fa-Fa-Fa-Fa-cets!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)