last updated:18 Mar 2003 03: 22 Webword time, or 18 Mar 2003 08:22 UK time
|
 |
|
(Comments added for week ending Sun 16 Mar 2003) | View Other Weeks
|
|
| Is conformance to Requirements mediocre perfomance | Sat 15 Mar |
| We would be mediocre if all we do is unthinkingly conform in the same old ways to requirements that we do not challenge. We may even bring our company down if we collectively work with that attitude. We will also be mediocre if our requirements or the processes we use to meet them are mediocre. |
| Sun 16 Mar 06:03 | Philip Chalmers | I agree with the article.
It's a pity Webword selected an unrepresentative extract. Either of the following would have been better:
(a) 'Quality is conformance to requirements – no more, no less. The intention here is to eliminate confusion and subjectivity.'
(b) 'We can shine gloriously in the eyes of the marketplace if we conform in the most economical and the cleverest of ways to the most correct and most attractive of requirements.' |
| Sun 16 Mar 14:15 | keith knutsson | requirements are meant to establish what the end product is. obviously you cannot define everything and people will interpret things differently. |
| Sun 16 Mar 19:32 | Anonymous | 'With ISO 9000 you can still have terrible processes and products. You can certify a manufacturer that makes life jackets from concrete, as long as those jackets are made according to the documented procedures and the company provides next of kin with instructions on how to complain about defects. That's absurd.'
-- Richard Buetow, corporate quality director at Motorola |
|
| eBayersThatSuck.com | Fri 14 Mar |
| A public posting forum for ebay members to inform ethical ebay users about problematic members, suspicious occurrences, and criminal activity taking place within the eBay community, thus allowing you to trade more safely. |
| Fri 14 Mar 09:13 | Wolf | Selling on ebay has done one thing: taken the car trunk out of the equation.
Still a back-alley deal. 'Hey buddy, need a VCR, DVD, blah, blah, blah...' No recourse there, either.
These people need to stop whining. EbayersThatSuck.com just puts a face to the great whine-fest the Internet has become. |
| Fri 14 Mar 16:23 | Lydia | It seems to be a good site for people to get information about eBay, but I was amazed to read stories from people who ordered from merchants who had already racked up hundreds of negative feedbacks. I have ordered from sellers with a few negative feedbacks, but it depends on what the feedback says.
My mantra when shopping on eBay (which, admittedly, I don't do often) is 'Buyer Beware' - I have only had one sale where I didn't get the merchandise, but the seller promptly refunded the money so I left positive feedback. I've never bid on anything I wasn't willing to lose money on.
If the site can alert potential buyers to strategys for scams such as hacking IDs with a lot of positive feedback, taking over dormant accounts, and so on, then it is worth it. |
| Fri 14 Mar 17:09 | Philip Chalmers | Lydia gets it, Wolf doesn't (sorry, Wolf, nothing personal).
e-Bay lowers transaction costs, getting us nearer to the kind of optimum envisaged by classical economics. eBayersThatSuck helps by reducing the risk, which is a kind of transaction cost. |
| Sat 15 Mar 05:34 | MadMan | I don't live in USA, so I don't buy anything from EBay.
What I'd like to understand is how people buy stuff they've never seen, stuff they haven't examined for quality, from people they don't know, where the only thing to go on is the seller's description of the product.
Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature, but I would never buy anything (unless it's a brand new stock item like a book) unless I could check it.
All your experiences and opinions are welcome. |
| Sat 15 Mar 08:20 | Boyink | It's a risk, but one worth taking if you're highly interested in the item and unable to find it by other means, or if you can get it more cheaply than by other means. |
| Sun 16 Mar 18:27 | Che Tamahori | Re: MadMan's incredulity at people buying stuff essentially 'sight unseen'. I am not from the States, and had a similar prejudice against sending money into the ether and waiting by the mailbox.
However, when I lived in the US and Canada, many of my friends bought a lot of clothing through catalogs (J Crew, et al) and never gave it a second thought. 0800 + credit card = goods on doorstep. You no like + postage-paid return = refund.
Cultural/Historical difference? What role did Catalog-based buying have in the development of the American interior?
Of course, this is probably all bullshit. eBay-alikes such as http://www.trademe.co.nz are now doing a roaring trade here in New Zealand. |
|
| Something from Nothing: the Alchemy of Experience | Sat 15 Mar |
| What most amazes me is that such small amounts of raw material can be transformed into rich results. Call it the alchemy of experience - the creation of a unique, engaging experience out of almost nothing. |
| Sun 16 Mar 14:13 | keith knutsson | This is an amazing article. I wish I could have attended the gel conference. Thanks for posting. |
|
| The XML.com Interview: Eric Meyer | Sat 15 Mar |
| Meyers most recent book, Eric Meyer on CSS has a totally different approach in teaching CSS. It contains thirteen projects in which he methodically goes through designing slick web pages using just CSS and HTML. |
| Sun 16 Mar 14:12 | keith knutsson | I just bought the book and plan on using css and html on the majority of my freelance projects. |
|
| 100 words everyone's gotta know to be smart | Thu 13 Mar |
| You may be well-read.You may even be well-spoken. But unless you can properly use bowdlerize, moiety and ziggurat in a sentence, youre just another literati wannabe in need of a good dictionary, according to the editors of the American Heritage College Dictionary. (MadMan comments: What utter crap. As if good writing is about using big words...) |
| Thu 13 Mar 15:51 | Anonymous | Me agree. Ivy talk never got me no where. |
| Thu 13 Mar 16:02 | Joshua Kaufman | I'd prefer to simply sound smart instead. |
| Thu 13 Mar 16:25 | JB | How many epiphanies do you need to have to be determined smart? |
| Thu 13 Mar 20:05 | daniel szuc | 'It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.'
-- Albert Einstein |
| Thu 13 Mar 20:59 | Lydia | Good quote, Daniel!
What I don't understand is, what was their criteria? How does nanotechnology fit into that list? Whatever. |
| Fri 14 Mar 00:59 | Dennis G. Jerz | Dictonary editors are in the business of deciding which words are in and which words are out of dictionaries. This list is just a more intense version of what the editors do all the time.
It's their job. Give 'em a break, Madman. And it was probably a slow news day at the Des Moines Register, so the reporter wrote up a little story based on the press release.
And Lydia, I'd say the chief critera was probably putting together a list that would convince people to buy new dictionaries. |
| Fri 14 Mar 01:20 | Dennis G. Jerz | Whoops... the chief criterion. |
| Fri 14 Mar 03:56 | Alan Fisher | What words to use, and how to use them, always depend on your audience. Most of the words on the list would be a definite no-no if you were writing copy for a website such as Amazon, which needs to hit the widest possible audience. In fact, writing to that level is possibly more difficult than writing to the level that the editors of this dictionary are obviously concentrating on.
And they can't even spell bowdlerize - it's -ise, not -ize. How many times do you have to be told? Before the insults start flying, I'm only joking.... |
| Fri 14 Mar 07:02 | Anonymous | With big words, you can get away with small ideas. Almost preferable to the norm in technology, which is made-up buzzwords with no meaning.
(customer relationship management, knowledge work, social this, smart that, e-whatever.) |
| Fri 14 Mar 16:42 | Lydia | Good point about selling dictionaries, Dennis, and thanks for the link - it clearly states what the purpose of the list is. I found the Des Moines Register article to be confusing on that point.
-----quote-----
The quality of a person's vocabulary has a direct effect on his or her success in college and in the workplace. In response to parents' misgivings over the quality of their children's education, the editors of The American Heritage® College Dictionary have compiled a list of 100 words they recommend each high school graduate should know.
'The words we suggest,' says The American Heritage® College Dictionary senior editor Steven Kleinedler, 'are not meant to be exhaustive but are a benchmark against which graduates and their parents can measure themselves. If you are able to use these words correctly, you are likely to have a superior command of the language.'
-----endquote----- |
| Sat 15 Mar 12:55 | Mark | I'd settle for people using 'it's', 'its', 'lose', and 'loose' correctly. Forget 'circumlocution'. Using common words correctly is of more benefit than using rare words at all. |
| Sat 15 Mar 21:00 | Laurel | tautology - n., science of tightness
taxonomy - n., marriage for reasons of accountancy
tectonic - n., Whoopass(TM)
tempestuous - adj., unpredictable (of supply staff)
thermodynamics - n., long johns for athletes |
|
| WebWord Comment | Sat 15 Mar |
| This has nothing to do with usability, but I just cant imagine that the housing boom in certain parts of the U.S. will last. It just has to pop because its a bubble. |
| Sat 15 Mar 08:55 | John S. Rhodes | housing-bubble.com |
| Sat 15 Mar 10:12 | Tom | I've thought the same thing for about 12 years now (since I bought my first house). Hasn't happened yet. People need a place to live and until the tax breaks of owning a home change, not sure the bubble (if there is one) is really that big. |
| Sat 15 Mar 11:31 | Anonymous | Housing costs in rural areas are through the roof with yankees fleeing the city for safe nowhereland after 911. |
| Sat 15 Mar 20:10 | Laurel | The base of the housing price pyramid is first-time buyers (ie, young professional couples, mostly). When entry-level house prices in Britain rose above 5 times this group's average yearly salary (the yardstick for mortgages) the market collapsed like a (ahem) house of cards and left new owners with negative equity in run-down 'up-and-coming' areas. That was in 1989 and there's every sign another one is on the way... in Britain. NB- it was a bubble alright, but it was a loooong time in bursting. |
|
| Good News Web Designers Association | Fri 14 Mar |
| Do not do any webwork that contradicts the Bible, the Church, or the unconditional love of the true Christian lifestyle, nor attacks Catholicism or any other expression of Christianity. (Comments: Religion + Web Design = oil and water, or a perfect match?) |
| Fri 14 Mar 08:06 | Boyink | 'Religion + Web Design = oil and water, or a perfect match?'
Can you talk more about why this would even be a question?
Admittedly I'm close to the issue, being neck-deep in a church site redesign. But other than a few issues related to the more-volunteer nature of the church, I find the work no different than the business sites I'm involved in. There's a message to be communicated, a target audience, and a medium with which to communicate.
But thanks for the link, I hadn't run across this group. |
| Fri 14 Mar 08:13 | Boyink | Should have mentioned Dean Peter's 'church site usability' blog at http://www.healyourchurchwebsite.com/
Dean co-authored 'Son of Web Pages That Suck' with Vincent Flanders:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/sonof/ |
| Fri 14 Mar 10:12 | Ximinez | I don't need Dean Peter. I don't need Vincent Flanders. I don't need Jakob Nielsen. The Holy Spirit is my co-designer.
Water is super for baptisms. Oil is smack dab wonderful for frying eggs. Users who can't figure out a church web site are sinners and deserve the frustration the lord of darkness brings upon them. Woe to the wicked. |
| Fri 14 Mar 11:20 | Blogmin | Check this news item found on the site:
Christian Website Owners: Do not let your domain name(s) expire or it is likely to be taken over by a porn dealer!
Does this really happen? |
| Fri 14 Mar 11:50 | Chris | The porn sites will suck up any URL that gets traffic. I don't think they are targeting Christian sites though. I know of a couple homeschool and christian related sites that got taken this way - and they weren't high traffic sites either. I can't imagine either was getting more than a 100 or maybe 200 unique visitors a day. |
| Fri 14 Mar 12:17 | Anonymous | Oil + water. Multiple religions - as tech often becomes - generally don't mix well. |
| Fri 14 Mar 13:37 | Anonymous | Laying the smackdown on the Bible. |
| Fri 14 Mar 15:49 | Boyink | Can we keep this from becoming a religious debate, and stick the question posed? Why did John(?) question whether religion and web design could mix? What did you mean by 'mix'? |
| Fri 14 Mar 16:35 | John S. Rhodes | Let me ask the question a different way: If you wanted a web site created, would you care about the religion of the designer? Why or why not? |
| Fri 14 Mar 17:20 | Philip Chalmers | What's the problem? Who would object if someone tried to set up a community of developers devoted to liberal democracy a la JS Mill? But that's as much a religion - libertarianism asserts that personal liberty is the ultimate good and therefore cannot tolerate fatwas, edicts, excommunications etc. Don't take my word for it, The Economist ran an article with this theme in early 2002 (I think).
Osama Bin Shaken, thanks for the link - my wife was raised as a Catholic and loved the page! |
| Fri 14 Mar 17:43 | tom smith | I think John merely responded to what is an interesting and challenging issue. I'm not sure how I feel about it myself.
But religion and web design aren't really 'oil and water'. 'Swings and roundabouts' would be a better analogy.
When choosing to work with a designer one of the choices you have to make, apart from their cost and ability, is about 'core beliefs', for want of a better word(s).
If I was to choose a christian web designer, then I would expect an ethical relationship (they wouldn't rip me off), I'd expect they fully and deeply understood the christian aims of my website and I'd also expect the visual design and usability to be pretty appalling. Well most of them are aren't they?
For me, what this is about is respecting client needs. Sure we might have all the answers to their questions, but the client may require that all aspects of the design resonate with a particular ethos. I'd find it difficult to meet that brief.... so I'd hope that they'd fine themselves a christian web designer rather than me, and each page would 'turn the other cheek', 'love it's neighbour' and 'not covet oxes'.... I wouldn't know where to start with that spec.
Sorry to sound a bit crass, I hope you get my drift.
tom |
| Fri 14 Mar 18:16 | Philip Chalmers | Perfectly stated, Tom.
But even atheists like me have to admit that Christianity gave Western culture some of its greatest art, literature and music. |
| Fri 14 Mar 18:41 | Boyink | 'Let me ask the question a different way: If you wanted a web site created, would you care about the religion of the designer? Why or why not?'
I'm failing to see the relationship, and I fail to see why it's 'challenging'. I work with a fair number of folks doing web design and development. Some are 'religious', some aren't, it has no bearing on their abilities any more than their gender, height, or heritage does.
If you did care, just how would you go about even finding out, in this 'PC' world we live in?
Tom - if by 'the visual design and usability to be pretty appalling. Well most of them are aren't they?' you mean church web sites, I agree. But just because there are Christian designers and just because there are appalling church web sites doesn't mean Christian designers are responsible for those web sites.
From my perspective church sites suffer for a number of reasons - from Churches being slow to take up technology, having lower budgets than most businesses, the necessary volunteer nature of the site, lack of good internal processes for updating, and a lack of any good research that would tell us what a church site should *be* (more on these thoughts http://www.boyink.com/stories/2003/02/27/churchWebSitesWhatWeDontKnow.html).
You'll find the same general appalling web site state amoung any group of not-for-profit organizations. Go look.
But we're improving. Slowly. And groups like the one John linked to and Dean's site are helping. I'm about 2 months away from relaunching my church site. I'm building it on a blog tool, and I'll guarantee that it's design won't appall....;) |
| Fri 14 Mar 20:18 | Anonymous | Heavily religious protestants will care about the religion of the web designer. In my experience there are strong biases against non-Christians (Catholics and Mormons are often considered non-Christian). They only deal with people in their Jesus Club. They look down on you. |
| Fri 14 Mar 20:30 | Ants | Hey Tom, what you say about Christian designers and what you would expect from them, you might be interested to find that a lot of the 'big' web design dudes are Christians and are shaping the way that design is done online (one example being Mike Cina (www.mikecina.com) and his work with the grid based design). I think though you have hit a point at where the lower to mid end 'design' that happens. I think this is why there are sites like Dean's and mine. Sites that are trying to lift the quality. Boyink's got a point also with why church sites suck so often, and there are discussions on how to improve that.
You would most likely find that the majority of the Net is ugly anyway. |
| Fri 14 Mar 21:27 | Lydia | In theory, I don't care what the personal beliefs of the person designing my website are. I draw the line if they suffocate teammates with their beliefs, though, but that applies to pretty much any subject.
In practice, I have flat-out been asked whether I was Christian or not, because the (potential) client was a company that liked to hire Christians. OK. Fortunately, this question was posed by e-mail because I had to really think about my reply. Would I work for a company, even temporarily, that would not give me a job simply because I was a buddhist, for example, or a Jew? Or, who would hire me over someone more qualified simply because my religious beliefs matched their world view better than the other person's did? I should stress that being Christian had no relevance to the job whatsoever (it was a financial site). I finally had to (reluctantly, because I needed the money) reply with something like 'I prefer not to bring my personal life into the workplace. My beliefs are my own. If this answer is unsatisfactory, thank you for considering me for the work.'
I didn't get the job. |
| Sat 15 Mar 00:49 | MadMan | I'm an atheist, but I don't care a rat's arse about the designer's religion (or lack of it), provided:
1) The work they're doing has no religious connection to it and their religious affiliation doesn't affect the output.
2) They don't advocate their religion to others in the team and try to 'convert' them to anything. |
| Sat 15 Mar 03:52 | Matt Round | If a potential client asked about my religious beliefs then, unless the project was a religious site, I'd find that very creepy and alarms bells would go off. I'd steer well clear of the project.
Perhaps things are different in the US (they certainly look that way when it seems virtually every sportsperson thanks god for victory)(tend not to see the loser blaming god for their defeat though, unfortunately; that would be far more interesting to watch), but over here in the UK most people manage to keep religion out of everyday life and regard it as a personal matter.
I'd hate to see a situation where the misguided idea that dealing with Christians leads to more ethical, honest dealings promoted to the extent that people feel compelled to lie about their religious beliefs for the sake of their career. |
| Sat 15 Mar 05:39 | MadMan | I want to move to UK. :)
Oh, the damn taxes are too high. Bugger.
I'd hate to see a situation where the misguided idea that dealing with Christians leads to more ethical, honest dealings promoted to the extent that people feel compelled to lie about their religious beliefs for the sake of their career.
To illustrate this, George W Bush is a devout Christian (a Creationist even) and there he is, wanting to bomb the living fsck out of another country. ;) |
| Sat 15 Mar 09:34 | Morris Cox | I find it interesting that certain churches are consider non-Christian. I always had the belief (no pun intended) that anyone who followed Christ was a Christian. Those who didn't were not, even if they were in a Christian church. People claiming otherwise were trying to put people in a different group, probably so that they could prosecute them and say mean things about them.
Lydia, I was under the impression that it was against the law (at least in the US) to discriminate on the basis of religion. That question was not only impolite, it was illegal.
On a side note, I've heard that religion has killed more people than anything else. The Catholic church killed millions in South America alone. ('Join us or die!') Then there's the Inquistion and the Crusades. And here I thought one of the Ten Commmandments says: 'Thou shalt not kill.'
I am a Mormon (I won't bother with the long version), but some of my best friends are not. One's a Buddist, another is an ex-Mormon, another is inactive, yet another I don't have any idea what his religion is. You know what? I don't care! I have never based my friendships on religion, but on the person themself. And I think business relationships should also be that way.
Anyone know anything about Clarence Darrow? I'm reading his biography by Irving Stone. |
| Sat 15 Mar 10:02 | Anonymous | The confusion arises because different religions vastly and fundamentally define Christ differently. Take a peek under the covers, and you'll quickly see that it would be impossible to define 'anyone who follows Christ as a Christian' when, at times, the only thing in common is His name. |
| Sat 15 Mar 11:42 | Anonymous | Most Christian religions have very few theological differences. Today they are separated by ignorance, long-standing hate, and sometimes political issues, such as acceptable use of prophylactics, married priests and ordained women -- all things that existed in the early Church.
I laugh at Christians who don't consider Catholics Christian. A little poking under the surface reveals they know nothing about Catholics or Christian history. 98% of their modern beliefs and rituals are based on Catholic history.
Drop in on a funeral sometime. When the Lord's Prayer is recited, watch the confusion near the end of the recitation as some people stop, while others recite additional verses. These people have never experienced any other type of religious service than the one their parents raised them in. |
| Sat 15 Mar 14:53 | Anonymous | Morris, keeping religion out of things is a good idea.
Till a Mormon missionary knocks on your door and tries to spread the word anyway.
Then I get fucking enraged. |
| Sat 15 Mar 16:10 | Morris Cox | Following the spirit of Christ's teachings should be sufficient to be called a Christian. One of my comments on the subject was that *everyone* would be real surprised at the Second Coming, given that such an occurence did happen. I have always had more respect for people who, like Clarence Darrow, did their best to help people even though they claimed to have no religion, rather than those who commit all kinds of crimes under the banner of religion.
Don't ring my bell, I didn't go on a mission for my church. I don't try to impose my beliefs on others (as far as I know). I notice that you specified a Mormon missionary and didn't mention any others, like Jehovah Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists.. Is it okay for them to knock on your door? And I don't think it's a good idea to combine sex and anger. *grin*
Wednesday night, I chatted with a missionary from a local church for half an hour. We had a lot of beliefs in common. He didn't know much about my church; I had never heard of his. We parted on good terms. One needs to have an intelligent conversation without putting the other person down. |
|
| F@ck That Job | Sat 15 Mar |
| my answer to employers taking advantage of folks having a hard time finding a job in this economy (Comments: I saw this site yesterday, and a couple of people submitted to me.) |
| Sat 15 Mar 11:32 | Anonymous | After translation, what does 'Fack' mean? Is that a play on Fark? Afraid to say Fuck? |
|
| US public turns to Europe for news | Wed 12 Mar |
| We have noticed an upsurge in traffic from America, primarily because we are receiving more emails from US visitors thanking us for reporting on worldwide news in a way that is unavailable in the US media. (Comments: World events can change your base of users.) |
| Thu 13 Mar 03:58 | Alan Fisher | Meanwhile, in the UK, the BBC and The Guardian are routinely criticised by right-wing politicians for being too left wing. In the case of the Guardian, they make no bones about their left-wing sympathies. But the BBC maintains that it is impartial. Who should Americans trust for fair news coverage?
It's also interesting to note that the BBC is a non-commercial body, funded straight out of the pocket of UK citizens. Does this say anything about the nature of commercial news organisations? For example, Rupert Murdoch's News International is often criticised for reporting the news in a way which suits it's own commercial agenda (e.g. don't criticise the Chinese). |
| Thu 13 Mar 09:09 | Anonymous | Alan Fisher just summed up the pros and cons of the Web as a whole (and as often seen in Webword's blog):
* a lot of stuff is biassed or dogmatic.
* but if you cross-check a variety of sources you can get the facts, identify biases and get other points of view (for example there are some fairly balanced comments from Pakistani sources on Pakistan's likely abstention in any Security Council vote on Iran). |
| Thu 13 Mar 10:29 | Richard Lehoux | I think what you don't find in a the major US news network his a proper coverage of both side. In Canada, we often see side by side interview with people for and against a position. It seams, in the case of the war on Irak, we see CNN almost completly ignoring the side against. It's more propagenda then bias. |
| Thu 13 Mar 10:45 | Anonymous | Alan,
please don't parrot the notion that the guardian et al are 'left'... obviously you haven't done much homework on the matter. I'd suggest browsing the media lens site at http://www.medialens.org/
They point out the blantant propaganda and self-censorship at work in the British media system, much the same way that FAIR and TakeBackTheMedia watchdog the corporate American media.
A good primer on the role of the media is Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. If you haven't read it, or aren't familiar w/ the subject, please do so.
Once you spend some time informing yourself w/ this type of knowledge, I guarantee you won't be making such naive posts... And I don't mean that disparagingly, so don't think this a flame |
| Thu 13 Mar 10:49 | Anonymous | Ahh, it's the 'you're too stupid to talk with us' WebWorder. I love you guys. |
| Thu 13 Mar 13:40 | Anonymous | What is the difference between 'left wing' and 'right wing'? |
| Thu 13 Mar 14:14 | Mac | Left Wing
'The traditionalist, pro-monarchy deputies sat to the right of the throne, the opposition to the left. That said, the terms have accrued a secondary layer of meanings. 'Right' is seen (at least by its supporters) as indicative of normality and `right-ness' while 'left' (in the eyes of its opponents) conjures up the Latin term for left, 'sinister' and all that this implies in modern usage.'
From WordWizard |
| Thu 13 Mar 16:29 | JB | 'Once you spend some time informing yourself w/ this type of knowledge, I guarantee you won't be making such naive posts... And I don't mean that disparagingly, so don't think this a flame'
I don't know any other way you could take this.
Can I speak down at someone as well please? |
| Fri 14 Mar 04:05 | Alan Fisher | I don't need to do homework on The Guardian, I've been reading it for 30 years. It IS a left-wing newspaper, when compared to the other newspapers we have on offer here in the UK. But what do I know, even though I've read Chomsky et al as well?
You missed the point anyway - what I was saying was that The Guardian is quoted in the article as one of the sources which Americans are turning to for balanced news coverage, but many British citizens would say that it is biased to the left. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. One man's balanced coverage is another man's propaganda. Who's to say who is right? |
| Fri 14 Mar 08:54 | mcw | Fact cited: traffic from US to European web news sites is up.
Inference: movement away from US news sources, which are biased and bad sources of news.
Quote from same article: 'The American public is apparently turning away from the mostly US-centric American media in search of unbiased reporting and other points of views. Much of the US media's reaction to France and Germany's intransigence on the Iraqi war issue has verged on the xenophobic, even in the so-called 'respectable' press.'
How about some supporting evidence? Are hits to MSNBC, CNN, etc, going down?
Another hypothesis: in times of crisis, people increase their consumption of news. Traffic to all news sites may be going up. It would be easy enough to check, instead of stopping short on research and reaching a conclusion.
The cited article is more op/ed than it is objective research, and should be treated as such. |
| Fri 14 Mar 10:08 | Alan Fisher | Actually, mcw has made a very good point. Given the deep differences between most of Europe and the USA on Iraq, perhaps Americans are simply increasing their consumption of European news sources in an attempt to understand these differences, but not decreasing their consumption of US news sources? |
| Sat 15 Mar 05:41 | MadMan | I don't have a position on this, but how would you know if they are actually leaving US news sites? CNN, MSNBC, etc. don't publish any traffic figures, and I'd imagine they'd be especially reluctant to publish anything indicating that their traffic was going down. :D |
| Sat 15 Mar 10:16 | Tom | Maybe you could track the cost to advertisers somehow on those networks/websites? Advertisers usually follow eyeballs and if people aren't going to those networks/sites then the costs to advertisers would be decreasing. Wouldn't they? Anyway, a thought... |
|
| Revamped Macromedia site irks customers | Wed 12 Mar |
| (CNET) A redesign of software maker Macromedias main Web site is attracting criticism from customers because it doesnt work with some browsers, including Apple Computers much-hyped Safari. (Comments: Thanks Flash.) |
| Thu 13 Mar 02:18 | Anonymous |
The pages load slow on my broadband connection.
It uses unique widgets.
Everything reloads slowly when I use my 'back' button.
The Flash does not enhance ease of use.
The animations are annoying.
Does Macromedia not understand its own good product, or is Flash a true kludge that pundits are stumping to turn into a useful product? |
| Thu 13 Mar 04:21 | Matt Round | Slow, badly coded, printer-hostile, generally very poor. Why didn't they just produce a solid HTML site with great big Flash movies for animation and some nifty interactive features? Painstakingly using Flash to create things HTML handles fine just makes them look stupid.
Overall, it's a really great example of how not to use Macromedia's products. |
| Thu 13 Mar 16:38 | Blogmin | Two more great examples of what not to do:
www.marshillchurch.org
crashshop.com |
| Thu 13 Mar 17:14 | George Olsen | In fairness to Macromedia on the Safari Flash issue -- Safari is still _beta_ and if you follow the blog of the Safari developers, they were already working on issues of Flash being very slow. (This apparently is a Safari problem, not a Flash problem.)
That said, it wouldn't have been hard for Macromedia add a small 'here's why you're having a problem' disclaimer for Safari users -- and/or publically mentioning the issue when they launched.
One of those issues where user experience intersects with wider issues of customer satisfaction, brand experience, etc. |
| Thu 13 Mar 19:26 | John Dowdell | Hi, we've got the first round of changes incorporated, as well as analysis of the initial feedback:
http://macromedia.com/special/progress_report/
If you've got a take on these new changes then submitting them directly to the web team there would be great, thanks. |
| Fri 14 Mar 01:56 | Timo | So the relaunch is a 'beta 1' now?
I am sure a few user tests before launch would have ironed out a lot of problems, rather than launching a beta on the general public. |
| Fri 14 Mar 02:28 | Matt Round | Aha, good to see a HTML/Flash hybrid approach for Beta 2, that works far better, and I'm sure any remaining compatibility issues will get ironed out.
It's also good to see a company learn something, particularly about using its own products (even if it's something the rest of us discovered years ago) (I know, I'm being harsh!).
How about structural markup and better use of CSS (print style sheet, no inline style) for Beta 3? |
| Fri 14 Mar 10:15 | Vincent Benard | On their previous site, macromedia posted several articles to tell how much they care about usability, how they contracted with Jakob Nielsen to enhance usability of flash creations... All these beautiful intentions seems to be left away.
By doing a so poorly usable site, macromedia is destroying flash credibility (the small remaining credibility) as a possible UI design enhancer tool. |
| Fri 14 Mar 17:56 | John Dowdell | Hi Timo, Vincent, did you actually read the material I linked to? Besides the ongoing usability testing there were five formal rounds before public viewing, led by people like Jakob Nielsen. The actual feedback statistics were very strong in some areas, and not so strong in some areas where we took a bigger gamble.
I realize that this is an attractive thread to hang a public stance upon, and so there's no actual obligation to consider the source evidence before posting, but please do read that material, it's interesting! 8) |
| Sat 15 Mar 04:05 | Matt Round | The material is interesting, I just find it hard to believe that MM had to test on millions of users before recognising the glaring speed and usability problems in the design (which clearly weren't recognised from all the time and money spent with/on Jakob N). The whole point of experience is that you don't test everything from scratch for each site, you use your expertise to try to get most of the way there in the first place and refine via testing.
Beta 1 showed either extreme naivety or inexperience, which is a bit alarming from a company that produces professional web development tools and had the resources available for extensive testing. |
| Sat 15 Mar 05:31 | MadMan | [Joke]
Nielsen (to himself): Ah... $20K per day for so many months. I've made enough. Time to take a nap, I think. Guess I'll postpone the 'Flash rocks baby!' article for a while.
(to waiting butler): Where's that damn masseuse?
[/Joke]
What kind of profile did you have for users being tested? Perhaps you should get 'we'll rip 'em a new one' Webworders like me, Mac, Matt, Lydia, Timo, etc. in on the thing. ;) |
|
| WebWord Comment | Wed 12 Mar |
| Hey kids, 91% is greater than 91%! |
| Thu 13 Mar 00:08 | Morris Cox | And 69% is more than 73%. |
| Thu 13 Mar 02:21 | Steve Applegate | There you go assuming Newtonian physics again. Idiot. |
| Thu 13 Mar 04:04 | Alan Fisher | Actually, the graphic is perfectly correct. USAirways Shuttle has more on-time arrivals than their competitors - around 2,300 as opposed to Delta's 2,000. That's what the chart is showing us.
They then confuse the issue by showing the % of their total flights which this on-time figure accounts for. They're trying to show two different indices on the same chart (and failing miserably). |
| Thu 13 Mar 10:51 | Anonymous | Actually, the graphic is not perfectly correct. The bar graphs are both labeled 91%. If you're going to use that figure, the graphs need to be identical. If you want it Alan's way, the graphs need to be labeled precisely 2,000 and 2,300. The infographic is utterly misleading. |
| Thu 13 Mar 12:20 | Morris Cox | Steve Applegate. You sound like a someone who uses insults instead of reasoning and logic. My comment was related to and based on the comment that '91% is greater than 91%'. I made no comment about Newtonian physics at any time on this site. You might have been referring to the one that posted the '91% is greater than 91%' comment, but in either case, you disgraced yourself.
For those of you capable of holding a decent conversation, my roommate pointed out that the graph does not list the total number of arrivals, just the on-time ones.
I'll refrain from making comments about Microsoft, though I joked with my roommates about the .htm in the picture. |
| Thu 13 Mar 12:39 | Anonymous | Morris Cox. You sound like someone who doesn't recognize a joke when he sees it. Are you related to that grumpy old orange cat? |
| Thu 13 Mar 15:33 | Lydia | Probably someone put the '91% ontime' verbiage on the bar because it would be easier to read there, rather than sticking it in small print under the name of the airline or something like that.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find this graph difficult to understand at all. First I saw what the bar corresponded to (number of on-time arrivals),then I read the percentage for each. I treated both as separate bits of information that were related. |
| Thu 13 Mar 21:24 | Morris Cox | Mac Gates, if that is humor, I want no part of it. Seems more like a bully. Saying something insulting, then claiming it was a joke. 'We were just playing with him!' 'We're just having fun!' 'I was just teasing him.' I am aware that there are good reasons why a person would not wish to use their real name. In this case, are you trying to potshot from the dark? If that is so, I have no more to say on this matter. And I am more like the Cheshire Cat. However, it irks me when someone likes to put down others.
Lydia, it was the same for me. It was just the first glance that was surprising. |
| Fri 14 Mar 04:15 | Alan Fisher | OK, anonymous, I'll be a little more precise. The length of the bars on the chart is absolutely correct, since they indicate the absolute number of on-time flights which each service has. But they confused the issue by adding the percentage of their total flights which this absolute number accounts for. Instead of making them look good, it makes it look like they can't add up (at first glance). An excellent example of how not to present information. |
| Fri 14 Mar 13:13 | Tom | I think Alan is right. It's actually pretty funny. Should be a useful example for stats professors to use for some time to come in their undergrad courses.
My guess is this came straight out of the US Airways Marketing department who either 1) knew nothing about how to present statistical data graphically, or 2) figured people would only glance at the graphic, see the red 91% next to US Airways and the smaller bars for the competitors and be impressed. |
| Fri 14 Mar 20:09 | Gerald | And the winner is ... US Airways. It's so simple! The stats have been arranged this way in order to give US Airways the longest graphical bar. That's marketing. Without that I think the normal way would have been to draw the graph with the percentage as the bar variable and the number of on-time arrivals as the additional information.
So naturally the measure of quality in such a case is the percentage of on-time arrivals, and not their quantity. Theoretically an airline with 3000 on-time arrivals, but only 50% timeliness would have been the number one in that chart. Would they be your first choice ;-)
(http://hoa.aavso.org/mathtalk.htm could be a nice lecture.) |
|
| Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments | Wed 12 Mar |
| (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999) People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. (Comments: Thanks MadMan.) |
| Thu 13 Mar 11:20 | Ron Zeno | I've some comments on the paper in my weblog. |
| Fri 14 Mar 18:57 | Philip Chalmers | Ron, I'm not sure about your comments on 'Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence' - in particular it does not consider whether these unfortunates have learned to ignore negative feedback because of e.g. bad parents.
But I love your blog and have bookmarked it - along with 6 items I've just found from it! |
|
| Notes: The Future: User-Centered Design Goes Mainstream | Wed 12 Mar |
| These are the notes I took, it’s a cross between transcription, commentary, summary, and BS. Hope they’re helpful if you were in another panel or would just like to review what you heard. Leave comments if you got a different impression of the talk or disagree with something I wrote. (Comments: Thanks Joshua Kaufman.) |
| Thu 13 Mar 10:27 | Joshua Kaufman | Corrected link:
http://photomatt.net/p524 |
| Fri 14 Mar 11:55 | Adam Greenfield | Hey! Matt spelled my name wrong: it's 'a-d-a-m g-r-e-e-n-f-i-e-l-d,' not 'Q'!
Ah hahahahahahahaha |
|
| Boycott Google | Mon 10 Mar |
| If you are worried about government spying like Total Information Awareness, Carnivore or Echelon, you need not worry. Google™ is already doing quite a good job of spying on us all already. |
| Mon 10 Mar 11:51 | Anonymous | paranoya will destroy ya |
| Mon 10 Mar 12:53 | Anonymous | naivete won't keep evil at bay |
| Mon 10 Mar 14:57 | MadMan | I'm not sure if Gavin's just naive or spreading FUD.
Dave Winer calling for it wouldn't be my best argument for boycotting a service. He's just sore that Google didn't buy his weblogging software (don't blame them actually.)
And oh, those evil cookies! They will wipe your hard drive, steal your credit card secrets, send porn to your wife, etc. Didn't you know that? (Yes Gavin, you can actually delete them. What's more, you can set your browser to block them even. Shall I tell you how?)
I wonder if Gavin knows that ALL web servers record your IP address, your browser agent, the date, the time, etc. They're called server logs. I hope he stops surfing the Web right NOW!
I could dissect this piece line by line, but I'd probably be wasting my time. The readers of this site are intelligent enough to figure it out for themselves. |
| Mon 10 Mar 15:23 | Anonymous | I'm concerned about Google's(TM) apparent lack of responsiveness to questions about privacy and pagerank. If Google(TM) is going to be th predominant powerhouse of search engines, it has greater responsibility to uphold to be honest with its users. A human response to an e-mailed question would be nice. It's been eons since I've seen that happen. |
| Mon 10 Mar 18:00 | Ed | HappyCat
Google is not under any obligation to give away the details of its secret sauce (PageRank, etc.). Any information it publishes will simply be used as ammo by those who wish to undermine or manipulate its results.
I've seen no evidence that Google has failed to be honest with users. You and others seem to feel that Google owes something because we've allowed Google to become important to us. If you want unconditional love in return for your devotion, get another cat. |
| Mon 10 Mar 21:48 | Anonymous | Ed, you don't understand why people are concerned about Google. With great power comes great responsibility. Google has not demonstrated itself to be responsive to privacy concerns. I do not consider 'no comment' to be responsive. |
| Mon 10 Mar 23:26 | Ed | Spidey--
You are right. I do _not_ understand why people are concerned with Google. I tend to agree with MadMan's position.
I don't think one can read into a 'no comment' and conjure up Simon Legree. I think the anti-Google FUD is concentrated mainly among webloggers who haven't realized that Google is run by a bunch of engineers that are not generally accustomed to public ass-kissing. In other words...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=never+ascribe+to+malice&btnG=Google+Search |
| Tue 11 Mar 00:22 | Anonymous | They better learn fast or the growing unrest among librarians and nerds will spur a revolt among the very people responsible for publicizing Google in the first place. They made Google. They can unmake Google. Google is not Microsoft. Competitors can rise to power with a groundswell from the users.
I set AllTheWeb as my homepage this evening. So far so good. Search results are as good. The front page interface is oodles better. I do miss running Google spell checks via the dictionary links. I guess I can bookmark dictionary.com or m-w.com and cut out the middle man. |
| Tue 11 Mar 00:48 | Lyle Kantrovich | Ed,
You just don't get it. Google should spill the beans about PageRank. I also think Coca-Cola should give up their 'secret formula' - I mean people need to know what they're drinking. The FBI and CIA also shouldn't be able to keep secrets anymore - all documents should be de-classified. My tax dollars helped pay for those documents, and it's supposed to be 'our government' after all!!!
A bigger concern is 'what is Webword doing with cookies, traffic logs, and privacy data?' Who is this 'John Rhodes' and can he be trusted? Has anyone actually met the guy? Maybe he's a purely fictional front for a militant guerrilla usability group in Blogistan.
Whether you liked the Boycott Google piece or not, I'm sure you won't like this piece concerning usability and it's role in the war with Iraq. I should add that this was rejected or ignored by the editors at Webword(tm) - Yet more proof of a conspiracy at work!!! |
| Tue 11 Mar 07:48 | Ed | Croc o --
I can't tell if you're serious, or if I'm reading the rantings of a open-source (open-everything) lunatic ;^) Say... are these posts stored indefinitely, and can they be used against me in a court of law?!?
Hey, I've gone so far as to admit I don't understand the hoopla about the supposed evil side of Google. I can't imagine any search engine _not_ mining their user data or at least using it as a datapoint-- they'd have to be crazy not to. I just don't yet see how malice can be ascribed to it.
Chinny chin--
Google is diversifying its offering almost certainly so that it will not be beholden to blogrolling and Dave Winer types. What we have before us is an interesting social experiment. We will see if the general public turns on Google, or if all they care about is the results (stoopid). |
| Tue 11 Mar 08:30 | Brian | Amid all the paranoia and conclusion-jumping (Who exactly is forcing you to use Google, anyway?) is the germ of an interesting idea.
Apparently, some people don't LIKE the idea of their content being automatically located and stored--and therefore searchable by Google. Should there be some sort of flag or 'search blocker' code that causes search engines to bypass your page?
I know privacy and the Web are diametrically opposed and there's no such thing as 'security' for any online content. But would it be worthwhile to introduce a midrange level of privacy by adding a 'No Search' tag? Just a notion.... |
| Tue 11 Mar 08:50 | Ed | Calybos--
There are search blocker tags, and Google will respect them (afaik).
Specifics can be found at: http://www.robotstxt.org
However, it sounds to me like the anti-Googlites want a Google-specifc tag to exclude Google's spiders. If you've got the means or the technical inclination, you can deny entry to Google's spider based on IP address. See http://www.iplists.com/ for their IP addresses. |
| Tue 11 Mar 10:05 | Rotwang | If liking Google means I have to be rude and belittle other peoples' viewpoints, I'll change alltheweb.com to my starting page and remove WebWord from my bookmark list. Let people discuss issues and ideas instead of labeling their words 'paranoia' and mocking their ideas. You guys need to grow up.
As much as google-watch.org is overstated, it and bloggers raise some real, credible issues. Too bad WebWord is not a place these issues will ever be discussed because of the clique mentality here. |
| Tue 11 Mar 12:02 | Anonymous | Keep in mind that half of WebWord posts are probably from the same handful of people. On unauthenticated sites, people go anonymous when it suits them to give their argument more backing or say things they don't want to own up to with their primary online persona. Of the twelve posts before Rotwang, I see only two that can positively be tied to known individuals. |
| Tue 11 Mar 13:03 | Ed | I think there has been some heated exchanges on this page, but it's hardly rude or belittling (Help, help! I'm being oppressed! ;^).
There's a group of people that are calling for a mass boycott of Google, something that has very real consequences for Google and those who use it. Should we blacklist a decent search engine based on speculation, or because they are unresponsive like %99.99 of all site owners?
With regard to an anonymous posting, that is at the root of this discussion. Should we conceal our identities so John Rhodes and others can't track and abuse our privacy? But doesn't that also remove potential value/integrity from the exchange?
Right, but sites like Webword and Scripting.com shouldn't be held to the same standard because they aren't as powerful or hegemonic as Google. Right around the time users start turning your name into a verb is when the nobless oblige should kick in.
( Oh, sure yeah-- that last statement was a dead giveaway! See the violence inherent in the system! See the violence inherent in the system! ) |
| Tue 11 Mar 13:21 | Anonymous | > it's hardly rude or belittling
The thread starts off with a paranoia claim, tainting any opposition commentary. Then there's mockery, 'And oh, those evil cookies!' Then there's belittling of viewpoints, 'If you want unconditional love...' And your assholish Monty Python quotes.
> There's a group of people that are calling for a mass boycott of Google
There's one guy at google-watch.org, and one guy talking about Google-Free Friday. Where is this group calling for a 'mass botcott' you speak of? I guess it's more fun to create straw man arguments by generating rebuttals to non-existent arguments. Good job, bucko. |
| Tue 11 Mar 13:38 | John S. Rhodes | Sigh. |
| Tue 11 Mar 13:52 | MICK | Ok, I made the first comment (paranoya will destry ya) becuase it rings true, someone forgot to take their meds.
I reserve my right to call a kook in a tinfoil hat a kook in a tinfoil hat. |
| Tue 11 Mar 14:07 | Anonymous | Better check your own head there Mick. |
| Tue 11 Mar 14:55 | MadMan | I don't understand the 'respect all opinions' rule. Why should I? If someone thinks that the government is actually full of aliens from Mars who are trying to take over the earth, should I have to respect his opinion?
I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to state their opinions freely.
Respect, however, has to be earned. It is not given by default. He made some points; I'm simply disagreeing with them.
Yes, I was being sardonic, but the author of the linked piece seems not to understand something as basic as cookies. The 'cookies are evil' argument (which is what Gavin said) might have been understandable in 1995-96, but not now.
C'mon, almost every damn site sets cookies. To term Google as untrustworthy just because it too does so is well... paranoid, don't you think? Hey, Amazon.com sets cookies too, and look, they track your preferences, and look again, they keep track of your credit card number if you order. All much more potentially malicious than Google. Is Gavin boycotting Amazon too? He'd be hard-pressed to find an e-commerce site that didn't collect any personal information. Google doesn't even know your name.
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Which is what his arguments look like to me. Gavin has not pointed to a single instance where Google has used any collected data in illegal, unethical, or otherwise devious means. 'They might do [xyz]' is an argument without teeth.
(And I'm not anonymous, thank you. I'm a guest contributor to this site.) |
| Tue 11 Mar 15:02 | Anonymous | Cool, MadMan says we don't have to respect people.
MadMan, you're a moron.
Ed, you're a fucking moron.
John, you're a gutless turd.
Hey, I like the new spicy edition of WebWord. It's very conducive to informative, educational, useful conversations. What a community! |
| Tue 11 Mar 17:14 | John S. Rhodes | Google - gutless turd
AllTheWeb - gutless turd |
| Tue 11 Mar 17:49 | Ed | Ok, mea culpa. I lashed out at HappyCat, triggering this tragicomic thread.
Sorry, Webword community, for my hand in poisoning this otherwise enlightening discussion forum.
Come back HappyCat, come back!! |
| Tue 11 Mar 18:11 | Anonymous | Gutless Turd Smackdown
Alltheweb: 795 hits.
GoogleTM: 503 hits.
Had John composed a proper search in the form of a phrase, the tables would have turned:
Alltheweb: 55 hits.
GoogleTM: 67 hits.
John is stacking the deck in Alltheweb's favor. That is entirely unnecessary as you'll note that Alltheweb appropriately ranks a wilwheaton.net page #2 among its 55 hits. Google crashes and burns - no Wil Wheaton to be found.
Alltheweb wins! |
| Tue 11 Mar 20:09 | Gavin | Hi all,
I have noticed a number of referrals from webword.com - and I have been following the comments posted for the last few days. It is just as passionate as the debates over here
http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/03/10.html#a138
I will try to deal with all, or most, of your comments as soon as I can - and i will post them on my site - and I do appreciate all comments - even if some call me naive.
I did deal with some of the issues you are bringing up here
http://www.gavinsblog.com/2003/03/08.html#a127
I think that Google must fully disclose its practice's or else there is a likelihood that it may abuse its position in the future, if it is not already doing so. That is not illogical. I am erring on the side of caution here. Why use a search engine when questions are not fully answered, and where a shroud of mystery hangs over company practice? Why not err on the side of caution and use other engines?
I think it is a legit question. |
| Tue 11 Mar 20:21 | Anonymous | Heretic! You dare defame the Church of Google?
STONE HIM! STONE HIM! |
| Tue 11 Mar 22:13 | Lydia | John, that was an interesting comparison between the two search engines. Google definitely returned superior results, it's like the thing is psychic!
When I went to AlltheWeb, I had to decline four cookie attempts. I thought the whole point was that it was supposed to be 'safer' than Google?
I'm interested in the 'offensive content' meter, but they don't post exactly what they filter out. Obviously not curse words, since several appeared in the search results for 'gutless turd.' |
| Tue 11 Mar 22:26 | Anonymous | The extreme longevity of the Google cookie is one of the issues. One of the less important concerns in my anonymous opinion. |
| Tue 11 Mar 22:34 | Anonymous | Ya, cookies are not an issue. Some people don't like that Google's cookie expires in 2038, just slightly an itty bitty tad longer than other search engine cookies.
I don't know how AllTheWeb can improve the offensive content filter. There's no explanation that will suffice, short of presenting examples of offensive content they filter. I'm certainly not satisfied by Google's explanation of its 'SafeSearch' filter. |
| Wed 12 Mar 01:09 | Lyle Kantrovich | Madman was right on - John's great community of Webword allows us the freedom to voice our opinions. If you don't like that we might call something silly, then go play with other friends who'll never tell you some of your ideas are silly... Personally, I like an honest community who'll tell me I'm wrong, correct me, or debate something. Personally, I find Gavin's logic so ridiculous that I don't feel it warrants a point by point rebuttal. It's FUD as Madman said. It's fear of a 'big company.' It doesn't hold water, in my opinion.
In the end, the WWW is a powerful marketplace of ideas. If you want to boycott Google go ahead, please! Meanwhile, I'll keep using what I think is the best tool for me to do my work. And my company just might use that better tool to beat your company in whatever race we're in. Google provides value to me. If it doesn't provide enough value to you, based on your standards, then go find another search engine that does -- good luck. If enough people feel the same way you do, then maybe Google will do something differently.
As a loyal, long-time Google user, I personally think few companies have drastically improved the total web experience as much as Google has. For some users to now raise a big stink and target a company that is VERY user-centric with this kind of BS is crazy. Go build your own darn search engine and run it the way you think it should be run. I'd guess that 99.9999% of Google users just care that Google helps them consistently do their jobs better and enjoy the web more than they would without Google. I'd also bet that Gavin and a bunch of others who are calling for a boycott are stil closet Google users day in and day out...or they send a lot of emails to AllTheWeb.com asking for improvements. Currently AllTheWeb.com gives you lots of cookies and paid placements in your results. Notice that new, sleek interface? Know where they got it? Yeah, you guessed it, from a company in Mountain View. As a matter of fact, they like Google so much over at AllTheWeb.com, that they even provide a 'skin' to make the UI look the same. See the 'I'm feeling lucky' skin.
They say: 'I'm Feeling Lucky keeps the page clean and clear similar to a search engine based in Mountain View, CA. Each catalog highlights a different color theme, making for a friendly searching experience.' Sure, but it doesn't deliver the same results where it counts.
'Google is still to me - and millions of others - a daily miracle.'
How many people talk about AllTheWeb or Lycos or Hotwired or even Yahoo this way? Google is loved by many, and as a user-centered design advocate, I'd like to defend Google by saying they are one of the most user-centric companies online today. I challenge anyone to point to companies that more fully embody the principles we promote as usability folks. Google is my most used 'good design' example -- and I've never had a client disagree with me about Google being a good example. Google helps me sell usability because they've clearly demonstrated how UCD will help you build great products, be profitable, and beat well-established competition.
If you agree with me, don't boycott Google, go buy an ad from them. |
| Wed 12 Mar 01:40 | Anonymous | File that one under 'full of himself.' |
| Wed 12 Mar 01:41 | daniel szuc | Good call Lyle. |
| Wed 12 Mar 03:41 | MadMan | Why use a search engine when questions are not fully answered, and where a shroud of mystery hangs over company practice? Why not err on the side of caution and use other engines?
In what way has AllTheWeb been more open about their practices? Do tell.
Here's what ATW's privacy policy says:
What information do we collect?
AlltheWeb does not collect any unique information about you except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Whenever you visit AlltheWeb, our web server logs automatically receive and record anonymous information from your web browser including your IP Address, time of day, browser type, browser language, and any search terms you query. AlltheWeb uses this anonymous information to customize your experience and to improve our services in general. For example, AlltheWeb may use your IP address to determine what your default search languages are.
And... here's what Google's policy says:
What Information Do We Collect?
Google does not collect any unique information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information. Google notes and saves information such as time of day, browser type, browser language, and IP address with each query. That information is used to verify our records and to provide more relevant services to users. For example, Google may use your IP address or browser language to determine which language to use when showing search results or advertisements.
Both say the same thing, do they not?
Why do you insist that a company divulge its entire strategy to people? Why would you give up your competitive advantage by telling others what you're doing? Does Coke reveal all their marketing plans to Pepsi?
I expect Google to mine the data regarding search terms to improve their search engine usefulness. Apart from that, they're not really collecting ANYTHING that any other site (including this one) doesn't collect. Like I said earlier, Google doesn't even know your name, only something vague like which part of the world you're in and what browser you use.
You view Google as a monopoly. It's not. You are completely free to use any other search engine you want. Google has become widely used solely because it's a great search engine. Remember that it's been around only since 1998 (in Beta), and there were enough search engines before that. Remember GoTo, HotBot, Lycos, Excite, Altavista, etc. from the mid-90s? They're still around. If any of the above wants to beat Google, all they have to do is be more useful than Google.
You are, of course, totally free to use any search engine you want, and I'm not trying to change your mind here. But to call on others to do the same thing for flimsy arguments is what I'm arguing against.
To Mr./Ms 'Cake and Eat it Too':
There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and not maintaining basic civility. Perhaps you'll one day understand the difference between the two. |
| Wed 12 Mar 11:11 | Anonymous | Why do you insist that a company divulge its entire strategy to people?
No one has insisted that. Try reading the complaints people have. It's like everyone is glancing at the issues then spouting off. |
| Thu 13 Mar 14:39 | boysen | The Internet promotes paranoia because it's faceless. More disturbing, to me at least, are Amazon's 'Click to Give' boxes that are easily added to a site. Is there a way for the site owner, take this one for instance:
http://www.xvsxp.com/final-score/
to know that I, me, my name not my IP, visited their site? I doubt it, but it's possible. Right? |
|
| WebWord Comment | Wed 12 Mar |
| Bush is an oil man. I cant imagine that he would ever really care about hydrogen fuel. |
| Wed 12 Mar 21:15 | GEB | Bush did publicly commit to support rebate programs for fuel cell-powered vehicles when they come out, but that's all I've heard from him on the issue. |
| Thu 13 Mar 13:23 | Philip Chalmers | The article makes a valid strategic point about the USA's dependence on foreign oil. But it avoids the trickest political issues.
In the short term (under 5 years) the quickest way to reduce oil dependence is to tax oil-based fuels. This will also provide some back-up cover against the risk that alternative-fuel development programs run into difficulties (as the nuclear power industry did long before Three Mile Island). It is not an easy solution politically:
* It will annoy US motorists.
* It will annoy US business, especially if aviation fuel is also taxed.
* There will be interesting legal problems if, e.g. some road-users convert their vehicles to run on aviation fuel or some other lower-taxed oil-based fuel.
But one of the striking things about Americans is that they will listen to reasoned arguments - until the 1970s the USA had higher mortality rate from heart ataacks than the UK, but now it las a lower rate because on average Americans now eat more healthily and exercise more than Brits like me.
The article also over-commits itself to one solution without considering the pros and cons of alternatives. For example alcohol is a workable and cheap road vehicle fuel but there is some concern about toxic emissions from alcohol-fuelled vehicles.
I think President Bush has also over-committed to one solution - a risky position. He might do better to use the 'bully pulpit' to convince Americans of the need to reduce oil dependence and then let the whole USA apply its famous ingenuity to the problem. |
|
| Equal access | Mon 10 Mar |
| (The Age) But people with disabilities - whether vision impaired, mobility impaired, speech or hearing impaired or with cognitive or dyslexic impairments - are still often left out of the browsing population equation by software and website developers who neglect to cater for the 3.6 million Australians who have a disability (about 18 per cent of the population). (Comments: Thanks Daniel Szuc.) |
| Wed 12 Mar 06:00 | Philip Chalmers | There's no doubt that the web can be an enormous benefit for people who have difficulty with books / newspapers, speech / hearing, mobility, etc.
But the accessibilty advocates spoil their case by quoting statistics without stating their meaning, e.g. '18% of Australians are disabled'. What level of severity counts as disabled? For example I need varifocal spectacles and have a very slight red-green colour vision deficiency (no problems with traffic lights but the Ishihara colour test shows it up). Am I disabled?
I also intensely dislike the accessibility lobby's attempts to achieve their objectives by regulation rather than by tax-funded social programmes - regulation avoids accountability for the costs and benefits, and therefore is bad management and undemocratic (see http://www.benefit-from-it.com/editorials/accessibility_wrong_way.htm).
The regulatory approach also avoids the difficult policy problems of prioritisation. There are probably a dozen types of visual disability (4 common types of colour vision deficiency alone). And in some cases people with different disabilites may have conflicting needs - for example people with dyslexia or 'cognitive difficulties' (low IQ) need all the visual cues they can get, but visual cues often get in the way of page readers used by the blind. |
| Wed 12 Mar 06:02 | Philip Chalmers | PS I forgot the other thing that advocates of the regulatory approach often gloss over - the disabled are often poor (see http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zdnn/tb.tpt/@thread@128291@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@128291?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&PAGETP=2100&NODEID=1104&SHOST=zdnet.com.com). |
| Wed 12 Mar 13:04 | Joe Clark | Philip Chalmers' points are accurate but misleading. The alleged conflicts between disability groups are rarely noticeable in practice. I just finished giving a presentation on this very point. He also doesn't bother to suggest a resolution, perhaps because if he actually did more research his complaints would vanish. |
| Thu 13 Mar 12:42 | Philip Chalmers | Joe Clark's article is interesting, and I particularly like the design examples quoted at the end and the link to a page about form design techniques.
But it does not not say anything about the presence / absence of conflicts between disability groups. And it exemplifies the misuse of statistics which undermines accessibility advocacy - it does not say what percentage of people have disabilities which are actually a severe obstacle to their use of IT / the Web and its categories are far too broad - for example 'learning disability' generally includes both dyslexia and low IQ, which are very different.
Likewise the statistics on percentages of the disabled who have Internet access do not distinguish between cases where the obstacle is non-accessible web sites and cases where it is lack of money.
The article's section on form design reveals conflicts between the requirements of 'normal' people and of people with certain types of disability. Normal people want to see as much of the form at a glance as possible so they can easily decide whether to complete the form, and this leads designers to aim for compact forms with each label-INPUT pair on the same line.
Admittedly the whole accessibility situation will become easier as standards-compliant browsers become the norm.
But up-to-date browsers are not enough on their own. For example Joe Clark's article mentions a problem in the interface between MS's Accessibility infrastructure and Window Eyes. It is unreasonable to expect web designers to include work-rounds for defects in client software. I notice that Joe Clark dropped support for Netscape 4 in early 2000, when NS 4 still had about 16% of the browser market - about the same as the percentage of the population who are 'disabled'.
Accessibility by regulation, besides being bad managment and an evasion of democratic accountability, does nothing to improve the quality of software for the disabled. The best and quickest way to promote improvements is to provide an effective demand for them, i.e. backed by money. A tax-funded accessibility programme could create an effective demand if it was based on research into the major obstacles to accessibility (Joe Clark's article gives a useful summary) and backed up by a specification of requirements to met by publicly-funded purchases of software for the disabled. Software suppliers will then compete to meet the spec at a reasonable cost.
The next question is who pays the additional cost of making web pages accessible to users of approved software aids for the disabled - particularly if the results are less suitable / attractive for normal people (see my comment on forms above). The short answer is, 'Governments should pay and should account for the cost'. If that means bureaucrats have to negotiate rather than dictate, I would regard that as an advantage.
Finally I would like to thank Joe for giving me an opportunity for further research. |
|
| Marketing Fix | Wed 12 Mar |
| For busy professionals concerned with Internet marketing and media, we aggregate news and analysis from dozens of sources, with insight, brevity and occasional sarcasm. (Comments: ...until we sell out. Cute.) |
| Thu 13 Mar 11:10 | boysen | Great site that is well-disciplined to focus on its discipline, rather than give in to the 'hot topics' of the day. I frequent MarketingFix regularly. |
|
| AllTheWeb/FAST and Google: In Practice AllTheWeb Best!! | Mon 10 Mar |
| The objectives of the test were to evaluate in practice how ready each of these two search engines are to host user searches of a target site and how efficiently each search engine would reveal a target page on that site using known search terms that people have used already to get to that particular page through a search engine. (Comments: Thanks Jerry Mathers.) |
| Mon 10 Mar 14:10 | Lyle Kantrovich | This intially smelled like a test rigged to have a particular outcome. After reading it, it smells worse.
Thanks Beave or is it 'The Beaver?' |
| Mon 10 Mar 15:59 | Anonymous | Our parents didn't raise us to be no foulmouthing google-loving dunderheads.
Google and AllTheWeb both rank number one a link labeled 'The Official Home of Jerry Mathers,' but a paid-for-placement link on AllTheWeb has an easier-to-recognize title, 'Leave it to Beaver, Jerry Mathers Site.' I didn't see a Jerry Mathers text ad on Google.
When I'm researching a purchase, I might look at a text ad. When I'm looking for everything else, I don't. Paid-for-placement has its place. Rock on!
I find Google's actions and level of public communication disconcerting. Keep an eye on 'em. As Beave once said, 'Look who's coming Wally. Creeps incorporated.' |
| Thu 13 Mar 04:15 | Alan Fisher | So Google is the VHS of search engines, while AllTheWeb is the Betamax? In other words, it may be technically better, but ultimately less successful. |
|
| The Answer | Wed 12 Mar |
| Why does searching my PC for a file take several minutes, yet searching for phrase in a search engine like Google, take a matter of seconds? |
| Wed 12 Mar 22:19 | Blogmin | It's all about indexing. Try searching for a file on a well indexed mac running os 9. |
|
| WebWord Comment | Mon 10 Mar |
| Resistence is fertile? (5 reasons why IT users say “no” to change) |
| Mon 10 Mar 13:58 | Anonymous | Every two years when we upgrade computers and operating systems, we fire our entire staff and bring in new people who won't complain about change. I also save by eliminating the training budget. We simply hire new people with the skills we want. Yeah! |
| Mon 10 Mar 20:32 | Lydia | What struck me about this article was the lack of 'eye flow' (for want of a better term). The paragraphs were so short, I kept having to 'restart' my reading. After a while, it got exhausting. This seems to run contrary to the advice the Jakobs of the world give. Has anyone else run into this? I also see this popping up in user tests. |
| Mon 10 Mar 22:03 | Lyle Kantrovich | Lydia,
I struggled with the same thing. Maybe it was that very few paragraphs had more than one sentence.
Maybe it was also a case of 'I've read this type of piece 100 times before and I'm looking for something new.' For me, I would have been happy with a few more bullets and a lot less text. Maybe 'inverted pyramid' writing would have worked better as well. Maybe the article's tone and voice just didn't engage me. It might have been find for offline reading, but online it better either get to the point quick or have an engaging voice that makes just the way something is said enjoyable. In other words: I want 'fast food' content or an experience (a la 'french cuisine' or 'Chuck E. Cheese') -- or ideally both fast and enjoyable.
Having said all that, the article's points are all valid. Of course, Webword readers would rightly and naturally add 'poor usability' to the list of reasons why users don't adopt new IT systems. |
| Mon 10 Mar 23:19 | Toby Thain | ResistAnce |
| Wed 12 Mar 05:44 | Philip Chalmers | Nothing new here but it needs repeating because each new generation of managers makes the same mistakes.
The heart of the problem is that these issues are about politics and power, and such issues will probably never go away. |
| Wed 12 Mar 17:45 | Lydia | Good points, Lyle, thanks! I like the fast food analogy and will probably steal it in the future. :) |
|
| Usability Law | Sat 08 Mar |
| There are a number of ways that the law impacts on the usability of software and its evaluation. (Comments: Thanks Richard Griffiths.) |
| Wed 12 Mar 06:16 | Philip Chalmers | I agree with Lyle's commnets (see also my comments at http://webword.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1598).
But thanks for posting this! It's the best accessibility 'laundry list' / one-stop-shop I've seen for the UK. |
|
| Interview with Web optimization expert Andy King | Mon 10 Mar |
| (Holovaty) I tested ten of the top news sites for you; they average over 145K for their home pages. Some are nearly 200K, and all could use some optimization. Perhaps they think were all on broadband. But for home users, 67.5% of us are still plugging away at 56Kbps or less, as my Bandwidth Report shows... (Comment: Web Site Optimization) |
| Tue 11 Mar 16:43 | Anonymous | Where did he get the figure that 32.5% of users have broadband? I thought it was more like 15% in the U.S.
I'm about to go back to dial-up. I can pass up time-wasting video clips and Flash games. My filter zonks most web advertising, sounds and Flash. Slow e-commerce sites I'll buy from via broadband at work. I'll have more money to spend online, what with my saving $40 a month ($480 a year for the math impaired) on Internet service. |
| Wed 12 Mar 01:30 | daniel szuc | 'Home Page' optimization as oppposed to 'Site' optimization as an important one ... as this can dictate the 'user experience' from the beginning. But of course, both are important. |
|
| Local Googles try to second-guess user preferences | Wed 05 Mar |
| He said he doesnt use it anymore. Somewhat shocked to hear this I asked why. He said Google now has a Hungarian version - my father is in Budapest - and even when he goes to www.google.com (as opposed to, say, www.google.hu) the search engine defaults to Hungarian sites which bothers him tremendously as most of his searches are aimed at English language content mostly based in the US or the UK. So he stopped using it. (WebWord Comment: Google and Branding.) |
| Mon 10 Mar 05:19 | Timo | Here in Norway it often diverts to the google.at Austrian site - getting the location completely wrong and searching German language websites. This is one side of google that is completely unintuitive.
I worked around it by bookmarking the advanced search page at google.com |
| Tue 11 Mar 18:17 | Anonymous | Why didn't you just learn German? |
|
| Why content management software hasn't worked | Wed 05 Mar |
| (Gerry McGovern) But do you need such software? Most companies dont. I know organizations that are successfully running massive websites with Microsoft FrontPage. They can do this because they have excellent editors and writers, and because they have well-defined, well-policed publishing processes and policies. (MadMan comments: How do excellent editors and writers help in workflow and logistical problems of having reporters around the country contributing content? How could a site like News.com run on Frontpage? Has Gerry lost it?) |
| Tue 11 Mar 14:41 | Andrew | Alan writes above: 'I've worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, and the only large-scale project I've worked on which could be counted a success was the very first one... [every other one] has either failed completely, or ended up compromising their original intentions....'
Alan, you're literally one of the first experienced people I've ever heard state this publicly. It's become clear to me in the relatively short time that I've been in the field that you're completely right: almost all big projects fail. I've never been lucky enough to work on a project that I thought really succeeded on its original terms.
My theory is simple and brutal: most companies actually hate their customers. Whether those customers are internal staff or external users, looking to them is usually seen as weakness, as an inability to 'get the job done.'
I think this is the attitude: customers cause trouble, they force us to reconsider assumptions that might turn out to have been embarassingly wrong, and who wants that? Customers might demand features or services we're incapable of providing, or they might expose my department as inept or useless, and that can't be allowed to happen.
Besides, no one wants to be the guy who goes into the meeting and says 'I've worked on these kinds of problems for 20 years, and I know this will fail just like all the rest.'
Big projects like CMS systems are ways that people try to push change, difficult decisions, and hard boring work off on technology. They're large-scale instances of the small-scale software-lust that we've all felt at some point: 'Man, I rilly rilly want the new version of Photoshop because of feature xzy.' |
|
| Interview with the KDE and Gnome UI/Usability Developers | Mon 10 Mar |
| We are happy to feature an exclusive interview with Waldo Bastian and Aaron J. Seigo from the KDE project and Havoc Pennington from the Gnome project. Waldo and Havoc are developers working on many under the hood places of their respective DEs, but they are also sensitive at UI and usability issues, so we could also call them usability engineers. Aaron is the head of usability in the KDE project. All three of them were... brave enough to answer twelve hard questions about interoperability, standards, UI etc. between the two leading Unix DEs. (Comments: Does being sensitive to usability issues make someone a usability engineer? What is a usability engineer? |
| Mon 10 Mar 17:35 | Tes | Usability engineer is a REAL engineering title. It is the one who works on usability of a product, any product. |
| Tue 11 Mar 11:57 | Anonymous | An engineer wears a striped hat.
Thanks for the Google brouhaha. I'm enjoying alltheweb so far. As a web site owner, I appreciate the copyright reminder. I sincerely wish Google cared as much. |
|
| WebWord Comment | Sat 08 Mar |
| Warren E. Buffett is a great communicator. The Berkshire Hathaway 2002 Annual Report (PDF) is available. |
| Mon 10 Mar 14:32 | Anonymous | This is a facinating read. Unlike any other annual report I've read. I guess the success of BH has a little to do with it, but this has to be one of the best written financial documnents I've ever seen. Clear, no jargon... |
|
|
