LarryRoth.net

The kind folks at 80 works for designers take us behind the scenes to a class that is creating a prototype interface for deaf people to feel music.  It’s a wonderful read just to review the processes that the class uses to work through the problem domain. But more so, it is a great reminder that usability should include accessibility. Thoughts?

Closed Loop Marketing posts a very well thought out article regarding the page a Web site presents when a user logs out.

Sandra Niehaus writes:

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a site visitor for a moment. … Now she’s done using the site, and logs out.

And sees, however briefly, the logout thank you page. Here is a transition state, a zone where the visitor’s attention is not yet focused on a new task. Here’s your opportunity. What will you say?

In addition to a critic of some excellent examples, Ms. Niehaus also creates a nice table of optimization guidelines. Definitely a good read.
I am also interested in reading the book she references:

In his post entitled: Yes, Twitter is still dangerous (http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=1703&tag=nl.e539 , viewed 2/17/2009), Michael Krigsman contends that Twitter poses a security risk to businesses and governments. The example Mr. Krigsman uses is of Congressman Hoekstra real-time twittering his travels within Iraq. This, of course, does much to undermine the secrecy of the convoy. 

Is this an issue with Twitter? Could the same not be said about any other real-time/near real-time communications platform (e.g. e-mail, IM, cell phones, blogs, etc…)? Couldn’t the Congressman just as inadvertently mentioned his travel plans to a television or print reporter? Or just plain sent a postcard?

We can’t ignore the speed and reach with which the Internet can spread a message, and also we can’t ignore the intractability of that message. Mr. Krigsman writes:

I’m personally aware of confidential meetings where participants innocently twittered sensitive information that thousands of recipients may have read. 

Have you ever Reply-all’ed to an e-mail instead of just Reply? It’s just so easy to do irreparable damage.

Still, our communications paradigms continue to shift, and we with them. It is not over generalizing to say all forms of communication can create a security risk. So, yes Mr. Krigsman is correct in saying that Twitter is a security risk. But it has always been about whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Which brings me back to Twitter, government and business. 

Yes, secrets can leave their protected environment and travel around the world, and yes, sometimes that is very, very bad. But, conversely, you can also engage in a meaningful dialog with your constituents/customers. If we focus just on government for a moment, the potential is very exciting.

Government 2.0 promises to bring the two essential things that any democracy needs: transparency and two-way dialogue. For the record, transparency does not mean that we post our missile codes or troop movements on MySpace (that is soooo 2 years ago). It means we have more insight into the legislation that affect our future, and more importantly that we have a efficient way to discuss them with our elected officials.

It is important that elected officials such as Representative Hoekstra continue to use communication platforms like Twitter, to keep in touch—and of course equally important, that they are properly trained on how to safely and efficiently use them. They should also take the time to see the other side of the conversation, and perhaps they find it equally valuable. 

Businesses are slowly beginning to see the value in listenting to all the (free) feedback their customers are providing. Likewise, they are also starting to join in on the conversation. While everything may not always be as controllable as corporations would prefer, being a part of the conversation ensures your point of view is heard.

I think platforms like Twitter are a great benefit for government and business, and I for one would like to say to both: “Welcome!  We created you and we know you will make mistakes, but that’s OK, we are here to help”.

We all know that the Apple brand is ease-of-use. But, usability expert Jakob Nielsen contends that this may very well be why Apple has survived all these years:

During its first decade, the Mac offered clearly superior usability compared to competing personal computer platforms…

The Mac’s miserable marketplace performance seems to pose a strong argument against usability. Why bother, if it doesn’t sell?

The counter-argument is that usability is the only reason Mac survived. Compared to the PC, it was much more expensive, had only a fraction of the specialized applications, and was cursed by Apple’s business-hostile attitude.

So why would anyone pay more for less? Because Macs were easier to use.

It’s an inspirational article for usability, with links to many other interesting articles.

The Digital Experience Group of the New York Public Libraries (NYPL) decided to try a bold experiment. Knowing that they wanted as much user feedback as possible and that they had willing participants—namely their web users, the Group created a trouble free survey tool to gather data. You may be saying, “Ohhhh, online surveys! What’s so bold about that?”. As usual, it’s the chosen implementation that helps to make the difference.

The Digital Experience Group created Infomaki, a system that provides a simple, one question survey asking a subject something as easy as “What would you click on to find events?”. After the subject answers that question, they are thanked, and simply asked if they would like to answer another question. Here’s what is so great about this approach: it’s very mindful of the subject’s time and very non-intrusive. The concept is that this will lead to more people willingly being repeat subjects. Also, more random questions will be answered. With a traditional survey, you may tend to get the same questions answered at the start of a survey, but have people drop out, thus not getting sufficient answers to the end questions.

There are a few bugs in the system, but it appears the team is actively working on fixing them. I gave it a try, and quickly got hooked. While obviously, my subjective opinion and observations do not constitute a usability test, I have observed most test subjects glad to answer a single question. But conversely, I have seen that grimace or shoulder slump when a subject can sense you are settling in for a multi-part questionnaire. My experience would point to Infomaki being a well received data collection methodology.

But don’t take my word for it, look at the results of the 48 hour pilot:

[a prior] survey received 7,341 individual answers to questions from 520 respondents, 60% of whom completed the whole survey. This totaled 7,341 individual answers over 14 days. Infomaki, on the other hand, garnered over 6,900 answers from 840 respondents in its initial 48-hour maiden voyage.

Seems like the concept works, but the real measure of success will be the continued interest of the subjects and the quality of data. Let’s hope we here more about how Infomaki works out.

Perhaps one of the most crucial parts of UI design is the feedback you provide to users. Like all the information you display, you need to prioritize and provide the proper context for your users. Or said another way: it’s important that you make sure what you think is important is also important to your users. Why the emphasis on important? Well, I found a great example in Web Position Pro (version 3) that helps to prove my point.

First off, Web Position is a fantastic software application that helps you to track your search engine ranking. This post, by no means, is meant to slam this product. However, I did find one Important Notification in the product challenging to the user.

Upon startup—and after a fresh, fully-licensed install I might add—I was greeted with the following error message.

Error message from Web Position Gold 3

What’s the issue? Well, first of all, the user is presented with a modal window and is being told that a service they never signed up for has expired 4.24 YEARS ago. More pressing, is the use of the word Important. To whom is this message important. Certainly not someone that has let their service expire over 4 years ago! Perhaps it is important to the sales department at WebTrends, but not to the user of the software. It would have been better to present the message in the proper context. One suggestion might be an on-screen prompt, not a modal window, and language that is more honest: “We can help you: sign-up for page critic today!”

Lesson to learn: Save UI conventions such as modal windows and strong language such as important for messages that are important to the user, not just you.

There is a great post on Web Design Tuts discussing How to Design The Perfect Form. The author does a great job of showing many different examples, but in particular, he breaks down form design as:

• Less is more
• Context & Assistance
• Distractions
• Modals

It’s a great read and well worth exploring.

The folks at A List Apart have provided an excellent “howto” guide for JavaScript debugging. Not only is this article provide some very practical real world experiences, but it talks about debugging javascript across 4 different browsers (IE8, FireFox, Safari, and Opera) instead of just focusing on FireFox. It’s a good start to debugging in general, and the only point I would add to the article is that you can use the debugger to learn about JavaScript by examining existing sites.

Sitting with my Sunday tea, I came across this:

Of there is the usual Adams’ dry humor. But it points out the elephant in the room that isn’t often spoken about. What happens if companies choose to start gaming the system when it comes to social networks?

Quick definition: gaming the system refers to someone who exploits weaknesses in a set of rules to further their own needs. An example would be someone who creates lots of fake Web sites to point back to their real Web site, just to increase their Google rank.

Back to the question. Are companies, and for that matter individuals, gaming the system? For instance, do companies have hired reviewers that create favorable review on Amazon? 

Early on, given the size of social networks, there was a lot of self-policing. We would talk about meritocracy and how you had to earn your right to have a voice—well, at least a voice that would reach the masses. But now social network sites are much larger and more mainstream. FaceBook alone had 222 million visitors in December. How can that large of a group police itself effectively? Who sets the rules?

There have been several notable cases of companies and individuals getting caught faking reviews, creating biased articles on Wikipedia, or voting up their articles on sites like Digg. Despite these challenges, it would seem that there are many factors that help to keep companies in check.  Many people take it as a challenge to try to expose someone gaming the system. Consumers can be skeptical by nature; this plays into it as well.

Perhaps the largest factor is trust. The strongest social networks are built on trust and if you want people to take your post, review, comment—whatever—seriously, you have to have built up social capital. Social network pioneers like Robert Scoble earn our trust even when they tell us they have been hired by a company as an evangelizer. As such it behooves companies not to lose that trust for quick gains.

In addition, the ability for consumers to join in on the conversation and have their voice be heard, not only keeps a company honest, but can also increases trust in the company. As their social capital builds, so does a new level of trust in the company. How can companies make sure they don’t appear to game the system?

Here are some tips:

1. Prepare a strategy for how your company should use social networks. 
2. Appoint a team or lead person to be responsible for you presence on the Web, not just your Web sites.
3. Provide guidelines for employees and make sure your employees know the rules. It may be that an employee that means well will falsely promote a product or service because they feel it will help the company. Let them know how this can actually damage the company. Let them know what they can blog, tweet, talk about and how to do it.
4. Join the conversation openly and honestly. If someone leaves a negative review or comment, don’t respond as a “fake individual”, but rather as the company. Be transparent.
5. Include social networks as part of your touch points in your brand management strategy

A good place to start would be to read Robert Scoble’s book Naked Conversations: How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers.

What are your thoughts? Leave me a comment and let me know. I started a poll on LinkedIn that asks: Do you think corporations should join in social networks, if you have a second, I would appreciate your input.