Entries Tagged 'Usability' ↓

Often, businesses and entities put policies in place as preventive measures… usually because they’ve been burned before, either by personal negligence or customer/client abuse. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? After all, without a defined course of action the possibilities of error and loss only increase. However, there are times when being so rigid on policies only hurt those who honestly need a different course of fulfillment.

As a case in point, I went to the mall last night with my wife, daughter and two 4-month old twins to do some light shopping. We parked our car and carried the two babies a long distance inside, knowing that this mall rents strollers. After an unfruitful attempt at locating one, and well over a mile already on our feet, I had my wife sit down and keep an eye on the twins while I go further ahead to search. After another half-mile of walking, I found an information desk that had exactly two employees, thirteen strollers, and one stiff “policy”.

We left.

Whether you’re a business, a website, a church, or any other entity that services people, you’ll find that your “visitors” will come to you through many different avenues, with many different needs. If you’re serious about making the sale or providing the service, you’ll learn when your policies matter and when they can be relaxed in order to keep the customer alive.

As I wrote some time back on the subject of web accessibility, it appears the subject is enjoying a high-profile look as the 34 European Commission member countries just signed an agreement committing themselves to, “Internet for All”.

I’m quite interested in seeing how this plays out over the next few years, and whether the US makes a similar agreement to ensure accessibility to all Americans through the promotion of web-standards. The United States already requires government websites to be accessible to the disabled, and I think it is just a matter of time before regulations are imposed on all public entities to comply as well.

And when the time comes, it will mean a lucrative opportunity for many a standards-aficionado… and will cause a boon in things like standards instruction, books and site content.

Let’s cross our fingers.

A quote often attributed to Mark Twain states, “sorry about the long letter, I didn’t have time to write a short one”.

Two things are implied here in Mark’s quote: 1) an apology for taking up more of someone’s time than he would have preferred, and 2) brief and succinct communication, while more difficult to compile, is preferable to a deluge of unnecessary words.

For some reason, a one-sentence thought always turns into a novel when I sit down to write. I need to work on that.

I recently followed an link is my RSS reader so I could comment on a thread over at 37 signals regarding Ridiculous uses for Photoshop.

In the post Ashley talks about using Photoshop, a rather large program, to do a tiny, menial task like picking a hex color from a photo. She seems to lament the fact that Photoshop is overkill for this task, and asks if there are any simple applications out there that do the job better.

At 37 Signals, it seems the mentality is that everything should be stripped down to a basic task and made into an application. The thought being that a single application that does one thing extremely well is better than a massive program that does tons of things you’ll never need.

I understand this on the surface, especially when most people may never use the advanced features of a larger program. But here is my issue: I would rather have one good, larger application (ie. Photoshop) that does everything I need within a specific taxonomy (ie. Raster manipulation) than a ton of tiny programs that each do one thing very well.

37 Signals’ viewpoint seems to assert that a large program cannot do all things well, and that somehow “small” translates into “more focused and refined”. But could it be that a program can actually have a large set of tasks and functions, and do them all well? I think so.

The advent of Web 2.0, as cool as it is, has really begun to irritate me with all these “tiny little apps” that all “do one thing very well”. Each of these apps comes with its own URL, it’s own login, it’s own password, own interface, own learning curve, etc. In this case, is it easier or harder to get things done?

I’m not at all against small apps. I’m not against entrepreneurialship, or options and choices either. In fact, I believe there are times when less really is more. But in many cases, could it be that the less we’re looking for is not less features and less size, but rather less apps and clutter to deal with?

Last night, I upgraded Firefox on my laptop to the new “1.5″, and was quickly disappointed that nearly all of my extensions that I had come to rely on so much were disabled. What really annoys me is that I now have a sub-par browser experience, even though this release is supposed to be “bigger and better”.

There are several updates to the browser that I’m glad they made, but I don’t think they went far enough to provide backward compatibility for extensions.

Over at LifeHacker, you can find instructions on how to enable Firefox 1.0 extensions for 1.5, which I did, but a few of my extensions still caused 1.5 some grief and I had to disable them again.

So, for now, I’m not upgrading my work computer’s browser… I guess I’ll have to wait for either Firefox to work better with it’s community’s extensions, or for the extension developers to update their extensions.

OK, I didn’t just crawl out of a cave somewhere, but I was recently struck by an awakening to an emerging trend in food packaging that… well… would be pretty cool if it were used in the right places.

Squeeze bottles for food products have been around for quite a long time, so this is nothing new in and of itself. I remember as a very young child in my grandmother’s corner store/restaurant playing with the red and yellow plastic bottles that she refilled each night with ketchup (spell it how you want… that’s how I spell it) and mustard. Those bottles were so much easier and faster than the glass Heinz bottles… just squeeze the middle and “Voila!” you had a decorated hot dog (or shirt, depending on how hard you squeeze).

But fast forward to 2005 and it seems that everything edible is being packaged in squeezable plastic bottles. What’s the deal with this?

I mean, some things make sense, but it’s getting a little out of hand. At a recent family get-together, I reached for the relish to finish making my hot-dog, and noticed it was in a squeeze-bottle. “Huh…” I thought to myself (profound, no?). And then I turned it over and gave it a squeeze. Out came… pickle juice. No relish. The relish was stuck inside the bottle, and the juice was turning my bun into a squishy mess.

Another day, I am in the grocery store looking for peanut butter, and wouldn’t you know it? Some idiot or prankster packed a squeeze bottle with peanut butter and is marketing it. That stuff is hard enough to try and carve out of a jar with a butter knife, and they expect folks to pop an artery in their forehead to get their product out? I don’t think so.

There is such thing as too much of a good thing. Now, I like the idea of squeezable ketchup, mustard, jelly, Miracle Whip, and other things that are typically smooth enough to squeeze out of a bottle, but enough is enough.

Now, where is my hot-dog?

When building a website, many decisions come into play that affect the overall project, including information architecture, design, coding and testing, and more. Because there are so many facets of development to consider, the basics can often be overlooked. One of these basics is clear content navigation.

The goal of any website should ultimately be to assist its visitor in accomplishing their purpose in the most logical, intuitive way. Because the purpose of most websites is to present content to their visitor, it is imperative to streamline the path to it.

Jeffrey Zeldman wrote in his book, Taking Your Talent to the Web that all content should be accessible to the user within Three Clicks, or the visitor will get frustrated and leave. While this is a reasonable assumption, it isn’t necessarily accurate. I’m in favor of anything that helps web developers focus on streamlining their navigation, but a recent study shows that users don’t mind clicking to get their content, as long as it’s logical and quick.

Humans have an incredible ability of grouping and categorizing data. We need to recognize that people use these skills to both construct and deconstruct information, and then determine what task they will be performing at our sites.

For example, when building something, we take inventory of the resources that are available, group them into their functional classifications, then assemble them as needed. This is a constructive task. Even though many people use websites to gather information that will be later grouped and assembled, the actual process of information gathering is not constructive, but deconstructive. For this reason, we should present our content in a logical way that aids the deconstruction process.

To do this, we present content from a macro- level to a micro- level. Present information in their major, logical categories first, and let the visitor to our site perform their natural process of deconstruction. They will continue to click and break down the hierarchy until they reach their desired level of content… as long as it’s presented in a logical manner that lets them drill down quickly.

Some sites try to float everything they think is important to the top page of their site, with the intention of assisting the user in finding what they need. This method of content presentation only adds unneeded confusion and complexity to the site’s navigation and layout.

While it is sometimes helpful to bring important, or frequently used information up to the main page of our site, this should be the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise we will quickly clutter our page with content that is relevant to some, but useless to others.

Let visitors use their innate ability to search and deconstruct, and aid them by using clarity in navigation, and logical breakdown of topics and categories.

Have you noticed a trend in product packaging lately? I looked into my refrigerator the other day and noticed not less than six items that were packaged in squeezable plastic bottles! Some things have been packaged this way for years, and it is amazing that it’s taken so long for other products to “catch up” (pardon the pun). I vaguely remember the first time my mother brought home a plastic, squeezable bottle of ketchup. We were used to the glass bottles, and this plastic container seemed like the smartest thing ever made! No more having to wait for the thick red stuff to pour, we could just apply a little pressure and, “squirt!” Genius! But it wasn’t until recently that other logical food items started appearing in squeezable plastic containers. An idea long overdue, I think.

How a user relates to the product they’re using ultimately dictates the future success of that product. It is for this reason that companies who care about their future will look at ways to improve their product that enhances the user’s experience. Most companies have a research and development department, but their focus is usually more on making their item cheaper to produce by cutting thicknesses, reducing employees, using cheaper supplies, etc. Where these companies would benefit even more… both in the long- and short-term, is by securing their user base through good experience design.

Have you ever found yourself struggling with something that you know should be easy to use, and you ask yourself, “Why in the world do I even bother with this junk in the first place?” As a website developer, I have taken an interest in User Experience Design, and the habits of people that use them. One thing that has always intrigued me is why people subject themselves to poorly designed and built websites when other more well-developed options are available. In other words, why do Bad Designs work?

History is replete with example after example of people overcoming bad experiences. Whether we are talking about inventors like Alexander Graham Bell, or civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks, bad experiences are the mother of innovation.

In a world that is advancing rapidly in technology and innovation, it is still amazing that people willingly continue to use a bad product even though there are better solutions available. As a case in point, a friend of mine owns and uses a software that has been abandoned by its developers for over 5 years. Not only has this software been defunct, it has been replaced and improved upon to enhance usability, productivity and quality. The price is still very reasonable, but still he will not change. But this is just one example. You can easily apply the same attributes to places we visit, people we associate with, tools we use, and cars we drive. For some reason, we continually find ourselves using Bad things even though they cause us grief. So, Why does Bad Design work?

People are Stubborn

First of all, you have to recognize that people, in general, are stubborn. We use things that we hate to use, and buy things that we hate to have to buy, and visit websites that frustrate us to no end, because we are stubborn. We want to make things work, even though they aren’t designed to work. Hate them as we do, we continue to buck common sense and use, visit, and buy these things in spite of the better options. Bad Design works because we are stubborn.

People are Ignorant

Well, that is certainly a sweeping generalization, but in reality we cannot experience what we do not know. Often, Bad Design works because we aren’t aware there are other options available. Despite all of the shortcomings of the Internet service provider, AOL, people still use them because they are ignorant of their other options. For example, my aunt recently upgraded her Internet to 9.0. Did you catch that? She didn’t upgrade her AOL software, she upgraded her Internet… so she thinks. See, though she hates the advertisements that bombard her while online, and she hates the dropped connections, and she hates the busy signals, she persists to use AOL, because she thinks AOL IS the Internet. Bad Design works because we are ignorant.

People Love Rewards

I think I speak for the whole of mankind when I say that we love to be rewarded. Whether it is a pat on the back, or a hot slice of apple pie ala mode, or a great feeling inside, or whatever… I love rewards. Many people suffer through bad experiences because of the reward at the end. We work 40 plus hours because of the paycheck. People exercise because they feel good and their pants fit better. Though there are so many negative affects people suffer from things like recreational drugs, smoking, and alcohol, they subject themselves to the negative aspects because of the rewards. People use poorly designed and executed websites for similar reasons… because of the rewards they gain.

For example, let’s say a person visits a website to purchase movie tickets, but the interface is confusing and difficult to use. There is no search feature, and the movie times are not organized logically. The site requires registration as a member, when they don’t want to become a member… they just want to purchase a ticket. The form fields are confusing, and when they submit the form with errors, they are taken to a new page and forced to re-enter all of their information again. After trial and error, they finally figure out how to get what they need and complete the sale. The reward? Their tickets.

The rewards can be news content, video feeds, conversations, products, or various other tangibles. People get used to sacrificing a desireable experience for the greater good. People love rewards.

Conclusion

While it could never be argued that Bad Design is better than a well thought out and implemented User Experience, it is certainly true that Bad Design can work. As developers, we stand to gain measures in customers, user satisfaction, revenue and more by countering Bad Design. We can do this by educating people, streamlining the user experience, and clearing the way to the rewards they seek. Bad Design can work, but it doesn’t have to.

I have a feeling that I may begin posting more about offline-experiences as they relate to user-experience-design, accessibility and usability, but I was compelled today to comment on one pleasurable experience in particular… the Dorito.

Being very involved in the usability and architecture of websites, my mind is constantly soaking in ideas that are relevant to my work. Today, as I sat coding a new website for Frederick Meijer Gardens for work, I was crunching away on some tasty Dorito chips, (and thoroughly enjoying myself, I might add) when something ‘clicked’.

As if trying to stop a steaming locomotive, and much to the displeasure of my tastebuds, I put the brakes on my hand-to-mouth action and pondered for a second… my Dorito has rounded corners! I don’t know why I had never noticed it before, but here in my hand was a Dorito that was purposely designed with rounded corners.

It didn’t take long for me to figure it out… milliseconds, in fact… but this chip was designed to enhance my user experience! In times past, I recall shoving chip after chip into my mouth, and then, out of nowhere, comes that fateful sharp-edged-chip poking right through the roof of my mouth and causing an unbearable pain for a few seconds. It was enough to put the chips away and stop eating. After a while, I began to associate Doritos with a pain in my mouth.

I think someone over at Frito lay picked up on this, and made an earth-shattering discovery… “Hey! If we round off the corners of these things, people will stop poking their fool selves in the mouth! Less pokes equals more eating… More eating equals better experience… Better experience equals more sales!” (It doesn’t take long before money enters the equation, does it?)

This is just another great example of the sensibility in designing your product around creating a good experience for the user, whether it’s a website, a woodworking tool, a car instrument panel or… a Dorito.

Thank you, Frito Lay… for the great user experience.