(Comments added for week ending Sun 13 Jan 2002) | View Other Weeks
| last updated:16 Aug 2002 13: 32 Webword time, or 16 Aug 2002 18:32 UK time |
|
| Webword Statistics - Recent Comments (Comments added for week ending Sun 13 Jan 2002) | View Other Weeks |
| Working Wounded | Sun 13 Jan |
| In our five-part series Working Wounded, we report on the latest research on computer-related ills and what you can do to protect yourself. |
| Sun 13 Jan 14:09 | John S. Rhodes | The Facts About Repetitive Strain Injuries |
| The complete guide to weblogs | Sun 13 Jan |
| Welcome to the complete guide to weblogs. The intention of this site is to compile as much information as possible about web-logging. |
| Sun 13 Jan 12:33 | Samantha | I have used this site a lot to find tools and a new host. Thanks! |
| Turning rules into requirements | Sun 13 Jan |
| (ADTmag.com) One of the chief challenges in any business-rule approach is to elicit the business rules. While business experts are the source of the rules, they sometimes do not agree on or know what the business rules are or should be. One best practice that emerges is the use of facilitated workshops (JAD-like structured workshops). This is done in the context of building other models that supplement business rules. |
| Sun 13 Jan 12:06 | John S. Rhodes | This article is a couple of years old (1999), but the material is still very much relevant. |
| Rapid Navigation in Online Documents | Sun 13 Jan |
| Design of documents and viewers to support structured hypertext and easy skimming. |
| Sun 13 Jan 11:28 | John S. Rhodes | Anita Rowland pointed me to this information. She's got a nice blog. |
| Usability Testing - Netscape Navigator Vs. Microsoft Internet Explorer | Sat 12 Jan |
| All users were able to complete their tasks faster with Netscape, and all had a higher satisfaction rating for Netscape, though the overall satisfaction was quite high for both browsers. Users also concurred that the test did not seem biased towards either browser. All three users preferred Netscape Navigator over Internet Explorer to access the Internet, though two agreed that both browsers were very good, and that in the absence of Netscape, they wouldnt mind using IE. One user was not very happy with IE, yet this users satisfaction rating for the browser was similar to the other participants. |
| Sat 12 Jan 11:46 | Tyler Durden | That study is pretty old; while there isn't a date, just reading it should tell you that they are using software several versions behind the current releases. Dubious value at this point. |
| Sat 12 Jan 15:52 | J.K.V. | Mr Durden is missing the point: 'All _three_ users ...' Like the eTradeshowGirls.com entry yesterday, this is a perfect example how _not_ to do things. |
| Sun 13 Jan 09:06 | Etienne PIRON | Do you think that a study of 3 (three) users is a serious way to get statistically correct information? A perfect example of 'Don't do this!'... |
| .Net vote rigging illustrates importance of Web services | Fri 11 Jan |
| (ZDNet) In December, Java was more popular than .Net for building Web services, according to a ZDNet UK poll, but weeks later the position had dramatically reversed; investigation revealed just what lengths Microsoft will go to to promote its products. |
| Fri 11 Jan 00:30 | John S. Rhodes | For me, the most interesting thing is that Microsoft sees the value of manipulating perceptions of people. This is isn't about cheating as much as it is about money. This is about marketing warfare. Pop Quiz: How often does Microsoft do this kind of thing and not get caught? |
| Fri 11 Jan 04:45 | MadMan | Online polls are a waste. They're at best a gimmick. A long while back, Indians all over the world were getting forwarded messages asking them to vote for Gandhi for Time's man of the century. Apparently, Hitler was ahead of Gandhi. This 'movement' certainly worked well in pushing Gandhi's position much higher. But why bitch about Microsoft alone? If a company is featured in some online poll, you can bet your arse that the company CEO or other honcho will send out a mail to all employees asking them to vote for that company. It's part of corporate pride. It happens everywhere, John. When I managed www.ciol.com the boss came up with the brilliant (not!) idea of putting up a poll asking 'what operating system do you use?'. Guess what? More than 2/3 of the votes were for Linux, and I know for a fact that that is totally untrue. Seriously, the ease with with which online polls can be manipulated makes me dismiss their credibility. (and if all that's not enough, who's to say that the votes you're seeing are authentic? What if I, as a webmaster, deliberately manipulate the results to get more traffic?) I rest my case. |
| Fri 11 Jan 13:36 | Jack Schonchin | Sure web polls are unscientific and can be manipulated. That's why they're fun. I love polls that have only two responses, but the response totals don't equal 100%. Culture jamming at its most obscure! |
| Sat 12 Jan 15:09 | Don M | Agreed. This is about Marketing. The perception in the mind of the consumer is the most important thing. No amount of product development, TV Commercials, etc can overcome that. |
| PortfolioWisdom | Fri 11 Jan |
| (IAwiki) Its necessary to have an online portfolio in order to get an interview. You may not really think so, but it really seems to make a difference when recruiters are selecting who they will interview. If you dont have problems getting interviews then dont bother. |
| Fri 11 Jan 14:13 | Jack Schonchin | When advertising a position, I ask for a web-based list of links to previous work, accompanied by a description of the applicant's involvement with each site. e.g., Did you do the whole site? Shoot the photos? Write the copy? Design the logo? Do the programming? Do the coding? What role did you play on the web team? I also want descriptions of previous web work even when the final product is no longer online. I'm sure to have the applicant deconstruct some of his sites (and other unfamiliar sites too) during the interview and talk about them in-depth. Anyone can take a skills test. I want to see their mind run through an obstacle course. |
| Sat 12 Jan 07:13 | Matt Round | We follow similar procedures in my day job and get a bit irritated when applicants are strangely vague about their exact involvement. We've also sometimes used simple coding tests when hiring and been stunned by the results - only something like 1 in 20 produced stuff that even worked. At the same time, we've hired people with little or no portfolio and hopeless test results, simply because at interview it's been clear they're keen and quick to learn. Don't be too rigid or you'll miss some very talented people, and don't think a good portfolio will automatically get you the job. Then there was the time we couldn't decide between two candidates for a temporary position and ended up flipping a coin... |
| WebWord Comment | Tue 08 Jan |
| It seems that everyone loves Google. I love Google and I bet that you love Google. Here is the problem. Im afraid that Google is going to screw up. Im afraid that they will go away or that they will do something terrible. Are they secretly grabbing information from my hard drive in an attempt to gather information on everything? The issue is that we all have very high expectations of Google. We use it because it is fast, simple, and fun to use. But will they become evil over time? I realize that they are user focused and user driven today, but what about the future? And yes, everyone loves the Google toolbar right now, but are they collecting too much information about us all? What do you think about Google? Will they continue to be the best search engine? Do you think they are going to screw up? How much do you trust Google as a company? |
| Tue 08 Jan 20:54 | John S. Rhodes | '...but I've gotten addicted to looking for combinations of common words which have the lowest incidence of appearance on web pages, as indexed by google. So far, I have yet to find a set of two common english words which do not appear together on any web pages.' (more...) See Fark.com for comments! |
| Tue 08 Jan 22:16 | Don M | 'gay smarmy' did not return any results on Google. Ha! |
| Wed 09 Jan 00:07 | Jack Schonchin | Google can screw up. I suspect what has kept them going this long is a single powerful person in the company that has insisted on keeping the interface simple. When Google's visionary leaves, or gets hit crossing the road, or slips in the shower, Google is doomed to a life of mediocrity. IMHO, Google is already slipping. The usenet 'groups' button is fine for nerds, but most people don't understand or care about newsgroups. Likewise, show me evidence that the Open Directory Project (the 'Directory' button) is as effective at helping people as Google's basic search box. Google became popular because of its engine. Only its engine. These two services are unfocused feature creep and I expect we'll see more of it. |
| Wed 09 Jan 01:43 | MadMan | >Are they secretly grabbing >information from my hard drive How on earth do you think they can do this, John? :) |
| Wed 09 Jan 08:28 | John S. Rhodes | MadMan, I was being somewhat facetious about Google grabbing information from my hard drive. However, I am running the Google toolbar and they are collecting some information from me. Of course, to be fair, when you download and install it, they do tell you that the toolbar connects with them. Also, their toolbar privacy page is pretty clear. I think it is possible to stop this flow of information if you want. On a related topic, has anyone seen anything recent about the toobar voting functionality? |
| Wed 09 Jan 09:17 | amm | Hi, John. I need to ask: why did you link the word 'facetious' to its dictionary definition? I believe you've done this (link to a definition) before, as well. I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but I think it comes across as rather insulting to the reader -- especially when the word is not that 'difficult.' |
| Wed 09 Jan 09:33 | Mick | FYI, you can turn the toolbar reporting off under it's options settings. |
| Wed 09 Jan 11:00 | bbrown | http://www.google.com/corporate/today.html That seems like a pretty good indicator that they've got their direction firmly set. It's not in corporate mission statement-ese. It's straightforward and I bet everyone at Google is committed to it. |
| Wed 09 Jan 11:44 | Jack Schonchin | Sounds like Larry Page might be their visionary. Thanks for the link, I'll go to work on their vision statement... 1) Focus on the user and all else will follow. If that were true, Google would add a tagline on their front page (which has been suggested by me and probably many others) that indicates Google is a search engine. I am tired of referring friends to Google and having to explain that Google is a search engine, not some children's web site (because of the goofy logo colors). I am also tired of explaining what the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button does and I never have an answer their next question, 'Why would I want that?' 2) It's best to do one thing really, really well. BZZZT! They have broken this rule. How do Usenet newsgroups and the Open Directory Project fall into the category of 'search engine?' That's right, you have to broaden your definition of Google to cover 'all information-finding-like services.' At that point the company is prone to all matter of feature creep. There is a night-and-day difference between Google's engine and the ODP directory listings. Two different user experiences and widely different levels of effectiveness. And what's special about ODP? I can get ODP anywhere. I come to Google for Google. 3) Ehhh, I've had enough for today. I'm beginning to depress myself. |
| Wed 09 Jan 12:15 | Dave Murphy | I find it interesting that marketers, software companies and the internet in general has made us all so cynical that this issue about what google is scheming would even come up. The search engine is great and i personally don't download any extra features to any software/web app, assuming that it will either do something bad to my already unstable system, or will know more about me than i want it to. |
| Wed 09 Jan 12:21 | george | google directory is special bc it uses data from the search engine side to rate the dmoz entries based on popularity, imo. I do think the catalog search is a prime example of mission creep. |
| Wed 09 Jan 12:28 | Jack Schonchin | OK, this is weird. 1. Search for the word 'dolphins' returns 542,000 hits. 2. Search for the word 'dolphins' minus the word 'miami' returns 557,000 hits. How come I get 15,000 *more* hits after I narrow my search. I encounter funky weirdness all the time on Google. I especially hate their 404 message that creeps up sometimes. Oh wait a minute... Google's precise wording is 'about 542,000' and 'about 557,000.' Curious that their estimates would vary so widely and inaccurately. |
| Wed 09 Jan 13:42 | John S. Rhodes | Jack, when I clicked on your link for dolphins without Miami, Google returned 496,000 hits. Hmm... Dave, I agree that Google is great. They are great right now, and that is what I am concerned about. Will they stay great? How do we know? (The mission statement certainly helps us understand their intentions, I'm happy to say.) More importantly, have our expectations risen too high for Google? Do we expect too much or not? What I am saying is that I don't want them to fail. Indeed, I love Google and I want them to succeed. Jack, regarding Google's scope I would not say their scope has expanded too much or that the experiences are that different from their search engine to their directory. I'm saying this in a relative sense versus and absolute sense. To be specific, if you look at Yahoo vs. Altavista vs. Google, it quickly becomes apparent (to me) that Google's scope is perfectly reasonable and sane. Indeed, I actually think they might be able to expand just a bit more. Finally, there is no reason to assume a slippery slope. just because Google spreads their wings in a few areas, it doesn't mean they will continue to branch out. Perhaps we need to cut them some slack in this respect? What do you think? AMM, your comment about 'facetious' is insightful. I'm not trying to be condescending. Instead, 'facetious' is one of those words that some people don't truly understand (and don't know how to spell). If I use words that I think are big, I simply don't feel bad about linking to a definition. If nothing else, it allows WebWord readers to understand that I know that I am using the word in a very particular way. Lastly, despite most WebWord readers being very intelligent, there are some readers who don't know what the word means. Wouldn't you agree? |
| Wed 09 Jan 13:47 | MadMan | Jack, if you've got to go to result #542000, either you're searching for something rare or Google just isn't doing a very good job. LOL. |
| Wed 09 Jan 14:20 | Jack Schonchin | John, When I click now I get 489,000 in both searches. That's different from my first search and yours as well. Either we're seeing realtime database changes, or Google is funky on the junk. Madman, why are the hit counts important? Hey, because when I'm looking for the spelling of an obscure word, I do a Google search. The variant that gets the most hits is the one I use. I can't have Google playing fast and loose with its statistics! ;-) John, you said, 'Google's scope is perfectly reasonable and sane [...]' I say, rethink your comparison of Google to Yahoo and Altavista. That's not apples to oranges. That's apples to two-week-old roadkill. Looking at extreme good and extreme bad makes the extreme good look damn near perfect. It is not. Google has a lot of room for improvement. Use this measure... Is Google better than it was a year ago? I do not think so. The pure search aspect of Google is better, but most of the projects I see Google spending money on are out in left field. How much better would Google be today if they stayed focused on what made it great? That is what you should worry about. Has Google learned the lessons of the dot-com-crash? I'm most worried Google will blow it and go bankrupt. Conserve the VC money and stick with what they're good at. Everyone else... consider the beneficial aspect of extreme criticism. It's the 70-year-old cranky retired man who attends every city council meeting and writes critical letters to the editor and gets people riled up and thinking that keeps the council in check. (God knows the news media have abandoned this responsibility.) The last thing Google needs is a bunch of Yes Men. |
| Wed 09 Jan 14:37 | MadMan | John, please don't take this the wrong way. If you're writing for yourself, anything goes. But if you're writing for an audience, you have to make sure that you write in a language they can understand. So many writers use 'big' words merely to say, 'hey, look at my vocabulary. I know what [big word] means - and you don't. Ha ha!' To quote Strunk and White, never use a big word where a small one will do. Simplicity in writing is not to be scorned, but embraced. Call it 'user-centred writing' if you will. Simplicity, clarity, humanity - essential traits of good writing. |
| Wed 09 Jan 15:23 | Rahul Dave | Hey, if they would keep it private, I would pay google to search my own drive. Perhaps that would be feasible when desktops are based more on linking primitives for explicit linking. Search already provides implicit linking of documents (related page stuff) Another question: how much would you be willing to pay google a month to keep it going clean? I'd pay $10 a month, its that useful. |
| Wed 09 Jan 15:43 | John S. Rhodes | MadMan, sometimes simplicity conflicts with clarity when it comes to languages use. If it takes me 73 words to describe a condition or situation or conceptual nuance that can be done with one complex word, I'll do it. In my mind, 'facetious' is not a trvial or simple word. And, as I said above, it is difficult to spell for some people -- yet another nuance to consider. So, I will keep things simple when I can. But the final thing to consider is that complex language use is entirely appropriate if your user base is intelligent. I'm often torn on WebWord: Should I use powerful yet potentially complex words, or should I instead stick with simple words? My readers are intelligent (i.e., I can use complex words) yet this site is about usability (i.e., pressure to use simple words). My resolution is to sometimes point off to definitions. If you know the word, skip the link. If you don't know the word, click on the link. Splish splash, that takes care of things... |
| Wed 09 Jan 15:47 | Roland | I analysed the google toolbar .DLL and found nothing to worry about. When you navigate the web, the toolbar connect to google to get PageRank info if you want it to be displayed. Their privacy policy is clear and as far as I know is respected (when I turn pagerank off no more data is sent to Google via the proxy). The automated query for pagerank is like this one: www.google.com/search?client=navclient-auto&ch=1582453878&dq=hello&q=info:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom ch is the checksum of the url, I think it's used as a key in google's indexes. dq is the keyword actually displayed in the toolbar and q is the url of the webpage shown in the browser. Use a proxy like InternetJunkbuster in debug mode and you will find the same sort of queries. The voting features of the last beta version of the toolbar don't use the proxy settings and goes strait to google. Google also make use of a cookie that stay alive until 2038 and that have a unique ID but cookies are a known problem and are easy to avoid using internet junkbuster proxy or tools to remove cookies. So as for many website and tools there is a great potential for abuse, you have to trust them or leave them ... I digged as far as I can in the toolbar and I didn't found anything frightening. |
| Wed 09 Jan 17:18 | Jack Schonchin | John says: 'If you don't know the word, click on the link.' Jack chortles back: I have a different interpretation. On Webword, when I encounter highlighted body text, I assume it links to significant content. You know, like John has previously posted a link or report about whatever he is being facetious about. I'd suggest linking to a dictionary when you're a using really obscure word. |
| Wed 09 Jan 17:37 | Jack Schonchin | Hey, so any chance we can pull someone from Google over here to address our various concerns? We are the most important people in the whole world, right? Oh yeah, that's just me. |
| Wed 09 Jan 17:44 | Boysimple | or for a difficult word doing something like this: MadMan, I was being somewhat facetious (def.) about Google grabbing information from my hard drive. or whatnot. |
| Wed 09 Jan 18:21 | Brad Lauster | If any of you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, I suggest you come down to Stanford on Friday, where Larry Page will be giving a talk entitled, 'Google is not an anomaly: A blueprint for inventing and building innovative and successful user-centric products.' Details are on my website, bradlauster.com. If you can't make it, you can watch the video, afterwards. |
| Wed 09 Jan 18:42 | amm | The linked definitions are especially bothersome to me because, as people above have already noted, I assume the link goes to an old article in which you were being facetious or something along those lines. To wind up at a dictionary definition is just irritating. I'd rather not have to hover over one-word links from now on just to make sure I'm not being led to dictionary.com. Re: your point about some readers not knowing what 'facetious' means... well, that's kind of my point. You're making the judgement that enough readers won't know what it means that it warrants a definition, but that judgement just sets a tone -- a kind of 'bar of literacy' (ick) so to speak. You can argue that some people won't know what the word means or how to spell it, but you could also make that argument/judgement for many other words. It might be best to let the reader weed out the difficult words for him/herself. I think many people are accustomed to using a dictionary when they come across a word they don't know, but are NOT accustomed to 'definition links.' I'd say it's not expected behavior for a link to go to a definition, so it's not very good from a usability standpoint. Sorry to be so wordy and over-analytical here! I only brought it up because I'd seen you do it a couple of times before. All-in-all, it's not THAT big a deal -- I just wanted to hear your reasons. Thanks, John, and keep up the good work! |
| Wed 09 Jan 20:48 | Gay Smarmy | Madhu and John come to blows! Excellent! Can I get it on Pay-Per-View!? |
| Thu 10 Jan 02:16 | MadMan | Pay-Per-View? We're setting up the e-commerce functionality as we speak. This is going to be a big even all right ;) John, can we agree on rules about what kind of holds are allowed? Or is this going to be a 'the only rule is: there are no rules' type of brawl? I'm thinking we should charge about $10 for the event. You got any ideas? :D Hey Mr. Smarmy, do I know you from somewhere? |
| Thu 10 Jan 02:25 | MadMan | OK, folks. I feel I should contribute something more productive to this discussion, so I've got two tips for John (and anyone else who might be interested): 1) The TITLE attribute of the anchor tag in HTML is wonderful for explaining where a link is going. For example, here's a link to Webword.com. Hover your mouse over that hyperlink please. Ta da! Problem solved. Improved usability. 2) Some site searches suck so much that I often use Google to search the site. To search a site using Google, use this in the search box: [search term] site:[site_url] For example: MadMan site:www.webword.com I often use it on support.microsoft.com. It's much faster. |
| Thu 10 Jan 04:53 | Peter | FWIW: I like the linking to dictionary.com John. I'm not a native speaker, but I enjoy discovering new words. Hell, I even enjoy *inventing* new words. I think john is doing it in that spirit. |
| Thu 10 Jan 07:41 | Resting Leaf | It's nice that so many of you still retain the illusion of personal privacy. Let's see, maybe we can start a new urban legend concerning Google search results before/after the WTC 9-11 event. The solution to this life troubling dilemma is simple: to the best of your ability, do not participate in those activities that worry you. postscriptus: just joking folks, no offense intended to those of you who believe this to be a concern of serious personal importance. |
| Thu 10 Jan 07:46 | locust | >IMHO, Google is already slipping. The usenet 'groups' >button is fine for nerds, but most people don't understand or >care about newsgroups. Very untrue. Usenet is a terrific resource for all sorts of stuff. Okay, and a flame war of two ;) |
| Thu 10 Jan 08:16 | John S. Rhodes | ...of course, one purpose of the original posting was to get people talking at WebWord. It was kind of an experiment. The results are obvious I think. People are willing to talk if the topic is interesting enough. On a side note, it seems to me that as the number of postings increases, the more that postings are likely. Reminds me of donation gravity. What do you think? |
| Thu 10 Jan 08:52 | Jack Schonchin | Locust, do you have evidence to suggest Usenet is anything other than a niche service used mainly by nerds and long-term Internet users? How often is Usenet taught in Intro-to-the-Internet courses? Usually never. It is a left-field service. Don't confuse your personal tastes ('it's a terrific resource for all sorts of stuff') with everyone else ('Usenet? Newsgroups? What's that?') |
| Thu 10 Jan 10:38 | MadMan | Jack, Usenet is only for us 'old timers'. Apart from not being taught in Internet classes, they don't get much mention in the IT media either. I used to frequent Usenet way back in 94-95 when the WWW was still taking off. Of late, email discussion lists and other community Web sites have replaced them. Besides, Usenet is crawling with spambots and posting your real email address there is asking for trouble. Lastly, I have so much email to handle that I just don't have time for Usenet. Your mileage may vary. |
| Thu 10 Jan 17:15 | Jack Schonchin | I declare this debate officially dead. Someone please sweep up the mess. |
| Fri 11 Jan 19:04 | Neil Negandhi | Jack, please don't confuse *your* personal tastes with everyone elses. Just because the masses don't know about Usenet doesn't mean it isn't a terrific resource. Acquiring the DejaNews archive was one of the best things Google has ever done. Most of us use Google to search for answers. Extending this search to Usenet groups makes it much more likely we'll find these answers. |
| pMachine | Fri 11 Jan |
| Well, at minimum you can use it to maintain a blog, or manage some content on your site. Or you could get a little more ambitious and create a complete community - maybe a webzine with a slew of authors, lots of articles, dynamic content that changes with each visit, a random photo pictorial and a collective weblog. pMachine is VERY easy to use so youre limited only by your imagination. |
| Fri 11 Jan 14:17 | Jack Schonchin | Hello, my name is jAck sChonchin. First every company has to add '.com' to the end of their name. Now they have to screw with capitalization to seem trendy. Sigh. |
| Who Built eTradeshowGirls? | Fri 11 Jan |
| My name is Brent Jagodnik, I am the web designer for eTradeshowgirls.com. I developed this site for the eTradeshowgirls.com group with much thought. |
| Fri 11 Jan 13:33 | Jack Schonchin | No color model photos? What gives? Maybe I don't attend enough trade shows. Can I have an informed conversation about a product with one of these models? |
| My PowerPoint Summer | Fri 11 Jan |
| When I sum up what I have accomplished, I can point to some significant advances. I updated my A/V materials, found new material, and successfully integrated graphics within my lectures. Although I could have done these things without the stimulus of PowerPoint, it is unlikely that I would have. New technology can sometimes compel desirable changes that could have been made under the old technology, but werent because of inertia. |
| Fri 11 Jan 00:20 | John S. Rhodes | Is PowerPoint Too Dumb for Words? PowerPoint Is Not Evil PowerPoint Sucks! |
| Saving Microsoft from mob rulers | Tue 08 Jan |
| Microsoft is the customer-centered company in the computer industry. Still, mob rulers continue their verbal and legal demands on Microsoft. That these demands would violate Microsofts property rights if realized doesnt seem to bother them. |
| Tue 08 Jan 20:12 | John S. Rhodes | This was so atypical, I had to post it. Microsoft does indeed make some good software, but to say that they are 'the customer-centered company in the computer industry' is a crime. |
| Wed 09 Jan 04:00 | Alan Fisher | But the article which this link takes us to doesn't argue that MS are the best at anything. What it says is that MS have a good set of procedures in place for improving their products and going after market share, but that their products aren't yet the best at anything. Can you honestly argue with that? I can't. |
| Wed 09 Jan 06:12 | Andrew | I'd bet that MS spends more money on Usability than we'd think. By that pure-dollar measure they might well be 'the' customer-centered company. Still, they don't seem to be able to allow anyone but lawyers and greed to dictate product strategy. I guess you could say a company is customer-centered if all it cares about is acquiring more customers. |
| Wed 09 Jan 11:51 | Jack Schonchin | I'm sure Microsoft spends plenty on usability. That's not the issue. The issue is Microsoft is out of ideas. For example, there needs to be a radical rethinking of its OS to provide customers something that is substantially better than what we've been using for the last 10 years. XP does not qualify. |
| Wed 09 Jan 20:45 | Don M | Bill Gates has said on numerous occasions he is perfectly aware the future of the desktop is not as it currently is. Yet, he also admits he's not going to throw away their (MS's)investment in Windows because - to be honest - it pays their bills and (for the most part) gets the job done adequately. So while squeezing every last drop of market value from Windows-based systems, M$ will continue to work on and perfect the .NET platform. By the time Windows has run its course it really won't matter WHAT interface people use to get their data - PDA, Desktop, Cel Phone, etc. because they all will be able to access data on their own personal .NET services. For this reason, really, Microsoft is way farther ahead of the curve than you might think. |
| Site Map Usability | Tue 08 Jan |
| (Jakob Nielsen) Most site maps fail to convey multiple levels of the sites information architecture. In usability tests, users often overlook site maps or cant find them. Complexity is also a problem: a map should be a map, not a navigational challenge of its own. |
| Tue 08 Jan 19:52 | John S. Rhodes | WebWord Report: A Sitemap on Every Page |
| Wed 09 Jan 04:03 | Alan Fisher | I think JN misses a reason why people don't use site maps even when they are available. Usually, they add no value, so most people's experience is that they're not worth trying except as an absolute last resort. Which is a shame for those sites which have done a good job, but not surprising. |
| Wed 09 Jan 04:03 | Alan Fisher | I think JS misses a reason why people don't use site maps even when they are available. Usually, they add no value, so most people's experience is that they're not worth trying except as an absolute last resort. Which is a shame for those sites which have done a good job, but not surprising. |
| Wed 09 Jan 12:08 | Jack Schonchin | A web site that needs a site map is usually so poorly structured that the user has given up long before looking for a map. In other words, 'If you need this, all hope is already lost.' In the WebWord report, for the site reporting 65% use of its site map, I'd like to know what the attrition rate was. How many users gave up before using the map? Site maps are a good idea, but need to be listed as a main navigational link on the front page and in your interior navigation bars. I prefer the term 'index' to 'map.' The common understanding of the word 'map' is of a visual graphical layout of a geographic space. The term 'index' is akin to the index in the back of a book. Because a site map/index is a listing of links, 'index' makes more sense. |
| Wed 09 Jan 13:44 | John S. Rhodes | Jack, I too like 'index' versus 'map' for exactly the same reason. That is an excellent point. It is also yet another indication that people use words and concepts without thinking about their true meaning. |
| Wed 09 Jan 18:26 | Matt Round | I've always struggled with the issue of site maps. For simpler sites they merely reiterate the primary site navigation - at best pointless, at worst disappointing. Larger sites often result in intimidatingly complicated site maps which do little to help novice users. Some clients want a site map and aren't sure why, yet are barely interested in improving Help and Search sections. Are site maps mostly attempts to prop up poor navigation? I'm never sure. The site with a map on every page is interesting, but I think it tells us more about the positioning of links. Users clearly want to click somewhere when they reach the bottom of the long scrolling pages rather than scroll up and find the little links on the left. It also adds something like 9Kb to every page, which is quite a lot (could insert it via a JavaScript file which would cache I suppose). |
| Wed 09 Jan 19:46 | Jack Schonchin | Matt asks: 'Are site maps mostly attempts to prop up poor navigation?' Jack yaks: Two uses for an index that come to mind are: 1. To, as you say, prop up confusing navigation. A safety net of sorts. 2. To provide an alternate means of navigation. For example, if you named the link 'A to Z Index' and the user wants to see your job listings, he may consider it easier to go directly to the index and look up 'Human Resources' or 'Personnel' (or 'Jobs' or 'Employment' if the list is subject-based). Wouldn't that be refreshing? No more studying how each site has organized its information. Just look in the damn index to find something! If you're concerned about users needing something to do at the bottom of your page, simply repeat your navigation links there. |
| Taliban Had Wrong Impression | Sun 06 Jan |
| Mohammad Yousof Asefi uses a sponge to remove watercolor masks he placed on oil paintings to cover up prohibited images of living things. Covering them with watercolors allowed the picture to pass Taliban censors and not be destroyed. |
| Wed 09 Jan 16:36 | Anonymous | Them Taliban stay away from water, so uncovering paintings were not possible by the Taliban, let alone taking a bath. Stinky-ass fucks. |
| Nine Rules for Good Technology | Sun 06 Jan |
| (Stephen Downes) If a technology is to become widespread, it is crucial that it be easy to use—so easy that it need not be packaged with an operating manual. Technology that teachers employ in the classroom must be of exactly that variety: widespread and easy-to-operate. A learning simulation, a conferencing tool, and a student record keeper should be as untroublesome to use as a television, a telephone, and a notebook. |
| Mon 07 Jan 14:02 | Jack Schonchin | 6. Good technology does not require parts. If the car is bad technology because it has many parts needing repair, then the computer is also bad technology. I take issue with this point. All technology can break, regardless of its number of parts or frequency of needed repair. The author's point really seems to be that good technology is inexpensive. If my phone breaks, I do not repair it. I buy a new one. That's fine, but when my computer or my car breaks I'm happy I can get it repaired instead of buying a new one. Parts in machinery are unavoidable. No machines run on magic. The important issue here is the user interface and what is required of the user. When I boot up I do not also have to turn on the interior fan. To play a CD in the CD-ROM drive I do not have to plug in any wires. I am not dealing with the parts. I deal only with the minimum interface requirements required to operate the machine. |
| Wed 09 Jan 06:24 | Andrew | Of course, a television, a telephone, and a notebook aren't really the examples the author thinks they are. Telephone and TV are exampes of quite complex technology that we've eventually learned to use. Was it Nielsen or Norman who points out that dialing a phone requires a good deal of effort, memory, and failure-tolerance? I've never seen a TV or remote that is really simple to operate beyond on/off--there's invariably a channel-programming period before the thing will work. Even a notebook benefits from years of the user developing note-taking schemes that work for her, handwriting skills painfully acquired as a child, and mental classification abilities to distill, say, a lecture into notes that are meaningful a week later. That this comes from an educational viewpoint is understandable. Technology in education has been the dumping ground for half-baked ideas since long before CDROMs. For every good use of instructional technology, it's easy to find dozens that are total wastes of time. I agree with Cliff Stoll that technology in education has been an almost total 'snake-oil' sales job: it has few, if any, demonstrable benefits to students, and it's rarely accompanied by even rudimentary tech support. |
| Wed 09 Jan 06:24 | Andrew | Of course, a television, a telephone, and a notebook aren't really the examples the author thinks they are. Telephone and TV are exampes of quite complex technology that we've eventually learned to use. Was it Nielsen or Norman who points out that dialing a phone requires a good deal of effort, memory, and failure-tolerance? I've never seen a TV or remote that is really simple to operate beyond on/off--there's invariably a channel-programming period before the thing will work. Even a notebook benefits from years of the user developing note-taking schemes that work for her, handwriting skills painfully acquired as a child, and mental classification abilities to distill, say, a lecture into notes that are meaningful a week later. That this comes from an educational viewpoint is understandable. Technology in education has been the dumping ground for half-baked ideas since long before CDROMs. For every good use of instructional technology, it's easy to find dozens that are total wastes of time. I agree with Cliff Stoll that technology in education has been an almost total 'snake-oil' sales job: it has few, if any, demonstrable benefits to students, and it's rarely accompanied by even rudimentary tech support. |
| High court limits disabilities act | Tue 08 Jan |
| (MSNBC) The Supreme Court narrowed the reach of a landmark disability rights law Tuesday, ruling that an assembly line worker with carpal tunnel syndrome was not entitled to special treatment on the job. |
| Tue 08 Jan 19:33 | John S. Rhodes | WebWord Interview: The Facts About Repetitive Strain Injuries |
| Tue 08 Jan 23:59 | Jack Schonchin | 'Disability cannot be assessed by looking only at someone's fitness to work, the court said.' Huh, everything I know about America indicates your value to society is dictated by your job. If you are jobless, you are a burden for everyone else. If you make minimum wage, well, at least you're not on welfare. If the presidential election didn't destroy my faith in the judicial system, then this ruling stamped out what was left of it. People with CTS are just as disabled as visually impaired or wheelchair-bound people. If you ask the later two groups, they will say they are able and lead productive lives, but their disabilities prevent them from doing certain types of activities. That is the case with CTS as well. Now, if this woman had CTS before she was hired, then she should not be given *special* accommodation. After all, you hire people capable of doing the defined job. (You wouldn't ask a blind person to photograph swimsuit models.) But *reasonable* accommodation should be made. For example, bi-level desks are common for people with repetitive stress injuries because they allow for precise control of keyboard and monitor height (which is good for everyone, including temporarily-abled people). Now, if this woman was injured on-the-job, then Toyota should give her another position where she can be functional. (Is it really that tough to find her a different job?) Please don't recite the lawyeresque excuse of 'If we make an exception for her, we have to do it for everyone.' Umm, that's BS. Nothing should stop you from doing the right thing. The article says they gave her a new job, but then added duties that hurt her condition. I buy that. Toyota sucks. |
| What the Hell is XML? | Sun 06 Jan |
| (A List Apart) XML (Extensible Markup Language) IS THE EURODOLLAR OF WEB DEVELOPMENT. Both XML and the Euro bring order to chaos; both offer undeniable, wide–ranging benefits; both are poised, in 2002, to change the way we do things. Frankly, both scare the crap out of people. |
| Mon 07 Jan 13:51 | Jack Schonchin | The comparison of XML to databases, instead of HTML, is a poor one. The author begins his article talking about the need to 'conquer fears.' If that is a goal, then he *should* be comparing XML to HTML because HTML is more familiar to web designers. It is less formidable. The first thing I thought when seeing XML was, 'huh, it's a lot like HTML.' |
| Mon 07 Jan 17:20 | (the other) JS | How about overcoming unrealistic, repetitive, hype. |
| Tue 08 Jan 02:58 | MadMan | Oh, I'm sick of the XML hype (and I've built a CMS using XML, mind you). John, have you read this article yet? It's an excellent in-depth explanation of why XML isn't the answer to the world's problems :) |
| WebWord Comment | Fri 04 Jan |
| I just read Designing from Both Sides of the Screen: How Designers and Engineers Can Collaborate to Build Cooperative Technology by Ellen Isaacs and Alan Walendowski. I did not think the book was very good. While there are a few things I liked, overall it was not a good book in my opinion. Here is my dilemma: Do I spend time writing a review that tells you not to buy the book? On the one hand, if I write the negative review at least I can explain why I didnt like it. I can also explain some of important and useful points so that you can get the good information without buying the book. On the other hand, by writing a review, I will be using up precious time and energy. I could be reading something else, doing something that I actually enjoy. What do you think? What is the best way to handle writing a negative review? If you were in my shoes, what would you do? |
| Mon 07 Jan 18:08 | Mark Levison | Write a short review outline some of the short-comings. Suggest a good alternative. |
| Mon 07 Jan 19:05 | John S. Rhodes | I wrote the review... Book Review: Designing from Both Sides of the Screen |
| Tue 08 Jan 02:29 | patrick breitenbach | I've rarely found negative reviews to be useful. The chances that they were going to dissuade me from purchasing in the first place are usually quite remote. I can make a good enough judgement about your sensibility from your positive reviews. There's too much good stuff out there to waste time on the not so good stuff. |
| WebWord Comment | Wed 02 Jan |
| The recent WebWord weblog entry about Amazons accessibility site generated many comments. Then I started thinking about WebWord. Is WebWord accessible? After all, this is a site about usability; accessibility is something that I care about and talk about. I remember doing some accessibility testing many months ago, but I cant remember all of the results. I remember a few problems. For example, I use tables in a way that is not quite right and I dont use ALT tags in most places. Shame on me! Then again, does it really matter? Does it impact my credibility? Im not sure. Surprisingly, I have never had anyone complain about the accessibility of WebWord. Perhaps I drove them away before they had a chance to complain (or make recommendations). By the way, if you want to take this opportunity to point out any problems, that would be fine. If I have the time, Ill make the changes. |
| Mon 07 Jan 21:41 | Greg | Have anyone even heard about web-related ADA issues/lawsuits (finished)? Please show me a link (at least one)… As for question itself, I agree with JS that it is civil rights issue and discrimination. |