Archive for the ‘Usability’ Category

The Upside of Ajax

Monday, February 20th, 2006

Near as I can tell, none of the major Ajax sites have referenced Tim Bray’s piece entitled The Real AJAX Upside. Tim hits on some of my company’s reasons for adding Ajax to our applications - it makes them perform better (or, more precisely, it looks to the customer like it does - waiting for a full page refresh just takes time). While I fundamentally like the idea of pushing more work down to the client (kind of like SETI) we can’t forget that the browser is not always the ideal environment for, you know, heavy duty XML processing. I’ve been stressing the usability aspects of Ajax but maybe I need to push this comment:

Yeah, that cool, responsive AJAXy stuff is nice but maybe it’s the icing on the cake; the real win is making the Web run faster.

What do you think? Should we pitch Ajax as a usability story or is it about performance? Or is this just a classic win-win situation? Oh, and if you are trying to justify bringing Ajax into your application, check out Measuring the usability and business benefits of AJAX and AJAX performance stats, ROI, and business value.

The Future of User Interfaces

Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

If you haven’t taken a look at the Multi-Touch Interaction Research done at New York University, you really should… I haven’t seen anything this cool in quite some time.

Be Careful What you Click on

Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

I don’t think Jared Spool had Netflix in mind when he wrote about end user licenses but his point fits none the less. Apparently, Netflix throttles down their service if you’re a frequent user. People who rent more than a set number (known only to Netflix) of films a month find that their next DVD is delayed and that popular releases are dolled out to new subscribers. Of course Netflix advertises an all you can eat buffet but apparently that’s only true if you don’t come back for seconds. In other words, if you threaten their profits, you’ll find you get a different tier of service…for the same price as someone that isn’t taking full advantage of what they are paying for. But it’s all OK - they revised their terms of use about a year ago so buyer beware right? Take this quote out for a spin:

In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service.

Personally, I think this is just a horrible way to treat customers and I’m frankly amazed that they continue to have such high customer satisfaction ratings. Imagine if your health club did this - come in once a month and we’ll make sure your favorite elliptical machine is waiting. However, if you dare come in more than 3 times a week…well, we have a rusty stationary bike out back you can use. Don’t get my wrong, I understand the motivation for the executives at Netflix (heck, they’ll probably roll out a “premium” service for $29.99 a month that actually gets you unlimited rentals and drops you at the head of the line for the latest Hollywood blockbuster) but is this really a good way to treat users? Should I poke you in the eye with a sharp stick so long as my end user license says I can?

Snap Judgments - Follow Up

Wednesday, January 18th, 2006

Blog time must be like, well, cat years (we don’t currently have a dog around the house…) and you’ve got to love the echo chamber that is the blogosphere (have I been Dugg yet? Or is it Digged?). Nearly 48 hours have passed since I talked about Snap Judgments and two of the blogs I track have commented on the topic (if you visit Seth’s post you’ll see I wasn’t the only one to reflect on it!). First, Christine Perfetti of UIE chimed in with this piece that quotes the same article Seth did. However, she provides a bit more depth - and I have to agree with her assessment concerning the implications of the findings. That said, since reading Don Norman’s Emotional Design, I do think aesthetics matter quite a bit.

The other interesting connection here was from Signal vs. Noise: about how little time you have to make a first impression which commented on a different article that discusses the study. So, just in case you didn’t notice, people will judge your site (or application) pretty quickly. As I mentioned in my post on Sun’s Tools - first impressions matter and are hard to overcome. Don’t blow it.

Why Accessibility Matters

Tuesday, January 17th, 2006

I’ve always been an advocate for making applications accessible - it just seems like the right thing to do. And frankly, it isn’t that hard especially when you’re just getting started (baking it in after the fact….well, that’s tougher). Of course if you want to sell to the government, you better know about 508 and it sure doesn’t hurt to follow the WAI as closely as you can.

As much as accessibility might be the right thing to do, many business customers refuse to pay for it much as curb cuts were few and far between until the ADA, which, for now, doesn’t cover the Internet. So, how do convince your sponsor that accessibility is more just a nice to have? Show them this piece from Seth Godin’s blog: Knitting for the blind. Simply making their site work for blind users resulted in customers that vowed to buy exclusively from them (and not just those that were blind mind you). How much would your marketing department pay for that kind of zeal? Could your company use that kind of customer?

I think my wine monger is the best around and that’s why I recommend Brightwines to everyone that asks (and many that don’t). It’s also why 95% of my wine comes from Dave. Never underestimate the power of passionate users! Apparently, showing a little compassion can be good for business…

Snap Judgments

Monday, January 16th, 2006

Well, I’m making up for a few quiet weeks with a smattering of quick hit posts (and, maybe one longer one…we’ll see). I ran into a post on Seth Godin’s blog about how quickly people judge your website and I just had to post this. Seth points to a recent article: Web users judge sites in the blink of an eye on news @ nature.com. Apparently, we have about 50 milliseconds to impress users. Yes, that’s 50 milliseconds…ouch.

I knew people could make some quick assessments - I mean at our core, we are just fantastic pattern matchers as Ray Kurzweil explains in this recent interview found on ACM Ubiquity (I’m going to have to, ahh, borrow The Singularity is Near from my dad…and if you really want to bend your mind a bit, check out his website). Anyway, if you’ve read the book Blink (and I plan to - thanks in no small part to Ted Neward’s recommendation. You may want to read Eric Freeman’s review on Creating Passionate Users as well) Malcolm Gladwell explores snap judgments. But 50 milliseconds - that’ll keep people like me up at night!

Users Lie

Saturday, December 31st, 2005

I consider myself a client side guy. I arrived there rather by accident - I was one of the least experienced (in terms of years worked) members of a team that was slated to build the company’s first Java based web application. When it came time to break the overall group into small teams, the three greenest (myself included) staffers were assigned to the client tier. I guess that sent a subtle message - the stuff the user would actually see wasn’t all that important so put the junior team members there. Ironically enough, the three of us also had the majority of the OO experience on the team (can you say procedural Java?)…but that’s a matter for another blog.

Oddly, we did spend a fair amount of effort on the user interface and we spent a remarkable amount of time doing usability testing. We had a fantastic UI architect that worked really hard to come up with a look and feel that was consistent between IE and Netscape (ah, the glory days of the late 90’s and serious browser incompatibilities - I love the smell of browser checks in the morning!) For reasons that still escape me, we actual brought in a rather pricey IBM usability expert to help us test the app and it was at this stage of my career where I discovered the joy of paper based prototypes (otherwise known as low-fidelity or low-fis).

The nice man from IBM taught a few of us how to moderate testing sessions. He told us to remind users that *they* weren’t being tested, that failures were actually our mistakes in the design. He taught us how to let users struggle, that telling them what to do meant, again, that we’d failed. We were coached on encouraging users into thinking aloud about their experience and tell us how they expected the app to work. But the most important thing he taught was that users lie. OK, he didn’t say it quite that way but it’s like Mom always said: “actions speak louder than words.” What a user says rarely matches what a user actually does. It’s why asking a user what they do day to day just doesn’t work - you need to actually observe them in their natural habitat (it’s kind of like being an anthropologist though truthfully it’s more like ethnography).

I’m not advocating that we completely ignore customer and I don’t mean to imply that they deliberately mislead us (well some do) but yes, listening to users is harmful. According to Nielsen, the First Rule of Usability? Don’t Listen to Users. Those of us that spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with ephemeral stuff like code are pretty good at working with abstractions (though we don’t hold a candle to those theoretical physicist types…) however, the average user has a hard time imagining what might be. Not to quote Kathy twice in one paragraph, but there is some quantum mechanics at work here. Again, actions and words don’t always match up - many of us respond to a kind of social calculus and consciously or not, we seek approval by giving people the answers that we think they want.

Of course what users want will be impacted by what we give them. It’s one of the main reasons heavyweight methodologies just don’t work - the feedback loop is too long and it gets short circuited by a desire to resist change. I used to think that my customers were just neurotic - we’d go build what they asked for, show it to them, then they’d say “it’s all wrong - change it.” It was considered rude to point out that we’d built exactly what they asked for…

I realize now that this is completely natural, my users were just reacting to what we were building. This is the fundamental strength of having frequent releases, customers get something to work with earlier and they can make adjustments to what they are asking for. Fundamentally, this is more efficient: if you’ve only spent a week or two developing a feature and discovered that it’s not useful, so what, you’ve only lost a couple of weeks. If you wait 18 months to discover that, well, you’ve just wasted a ton of money.

So, (mostly) don’t listen to what your users say. Watch what they do - get in front of real live users and watch them work. Asking what they do isn’t sufficient, a lot of times you’ll either get an incomplete answer (do you remember what you did yesterday morning?) or you’ll get the party line answer (well, this is what we are supposed to do). Don’t settle for the manager or the VP, even if they were the best at doing “foo” five years ago, things have probably changed (plus they probably wrote the proverbial book on doing the job and they misguidedly belief this is how things are actually done). So get out there and do some good old fashioned observation. If you’re lucky you might just build something people will actually use.

Geek Music

Thursday, December 8th, 2005

Now maybe I’m not hip anymore and maybe we geeks just aren’t very “cool” but darn it, we can sing! I’ve been meaning to mention Roumen’s NetBeans song for some time now. First of all, the lyrics are fantastic but you really need to listen to him sing it! If you don’t think NetBeans is worth checking out yet, the song should convince you ;)

When I first stumbled on the NetBeans Song, I certainly didn’t realize that this was a trend! Today I was catching up on some of my podcasts when I gave Michael Mahemoff’s Basics of Ajax podcast a listen. Ajax Patterns is a great resource (I’m very interested in the book!) and I also enjoy Software As She’s Developed. What really stood out in this particular podcast though was the very end where he included OK-Cancel’s first-rate HCI Rap “We Got It.” Now, you really have to be a geek to fully appreciate it but trust me, you have to give this a listen! I’m a closet HCI guy and I was really jamming along, but, apparently I still can’t dance… Are there other examples of geek music out there?

The Ajax Spoof

Wednesday, December 7th, 2005

By now, I suspect you may have noticed this piece: Why Ajax Sucks (Most of the Time) which, at first glance, looks an awful lot like an Alertbox from noted usability expert Jakob Nielsen’s useit.com site. I for one am a fan of Alertbox and have read a couple of his books (and of course I think the other N in NN/g is one of the best minds around - check out his site: jnd.org and go read Design of Everyday Things. Seriously, go ahead, I’ll wait.) so I was really interested to see what Nielsen would have to say about Ajax. Of course, it didn’t take long to realize this was just a some folks having a little fun! BTW - Nielsen has posted a note on his site disavowing any connection…

The first notice I got of this was from my old college advisor - he wanted my input! I’m not sure if he knew it was a hoax (and was just testing me) or if he wanted my honest feedback. Ajaxian got into the mix too: Alertbox Spoof: “Why Ajax Sucks (Most of the Time)“. This clever piece arose from Confusability - and they’re having quite a bit of fun with it! Check out their link to the spoof, and their follow up Hurricane Ajax - The Aftermath.

While we can all have a good laugh about this little spoof, it does raise an important issue: what are the usability impacts of Ajax? Frankly, I think Ajax is one of the first technologies I’ve encountered where I can truly say - it significantly improves the user experience (if used properly). On my application we think Ajax can make a real difference - enhancements our customers will notice. But it has to be done with care. Like any good tool, Ajax can both help and hurt depending on how it’s applied. Done right, you’ll exceed users’ expectations. Do it poorly and all you’ll do is increase their frustration. How do you know what you’re doing? It’s really simple - just test it with real users. If you screwed up you’ll find out pretty fast.

Where is the Print Button?

Wednesday, December 7th, 2005

Virtually everything I read these days comes from the web - beyond just a few parts of the Sunday paper, I get all my news from online sources. I also read a ton of blogs and whatnot and while I don’t mind reading short pieces on a screen at a certain point I just want a physical copy.

Most news sites get this and accordingly have a print button somewhere on the screen. Lately I’ve been using aggregators like Google News so the articles I’m reading are coming from a variety of sources and inevitably I end up searching for a print button! With all the design guidelines out there and the general commonalities on the web, why is there so much variety when it comes to print options? Sometimes it’s a link, other times a button. I’ve seen the link/button at the bottom of a story, the top, the left, the right…I mean come on, can’t we all just agree on an approach here? I know that the actual formating of the page for printing can be tricky but can’t we at least come to a consensus for *where* to find the darn thing?

I can understand (somewhat) that different sites act differently, but what about good old CNN? If you go to a normal news story - say this one about Katrina relief, you’ll find PRINT THIS at the bottom of the story. However, if you venture over to CNNMoney - say this article about AMT relief, you see PRINT at the top of the story. Sigh. They don’t look the same, heck they aren’t even named the same… Honestly, do news sites actually think people only use one source?

Here are just a few different print options:

Maybe I missed it, but have any of the usability guys provided some thoughts on this? Is it just me, am I just getting cranky? And don’t get me started on pages that don’t even have a Print button…oh wait, my site doesn’t!