| last updated:22 Aug 2003 13: 30 Webword time, or 22 Aug 2003 18:30 UK time |
 |
| Webword Statistics - Recent Comments (Comments added for week ending Sun 17 Aug 2003) | View Other Weeks |
| Don't Look It Up! | Fri 15 Aug |
| Theres nothing wrong with trying to distinguish their product, of course, but when it means tampering with the English languageby including idiotic slang and omitting infinitely more useful wordsits reprehensible. Merriam-Webster proclaims it has added some ten thousand words to its Collegiate Dictionary. To do so, as a company spokesman admitted, some words had to be kicked out of the earlier edition. (Comments: Thnaks Dennis G. Jerz!) |
| Fri 15 Aug 08:05 | Brian Curtis | Well, this is disappointing. I had no idea that one of the driving minds behind the Vocabula Review was such an elitist jerk. Does he really think it's the job of lexicographers to 'prescribe' what is and is not 'proper' English (whatever that means)? I'm used to seeing such arrogance in other fields, but I'm also an editor, and this level of smug ingorance appalls me. How exactly does he think that a new word enters the language? What determines 'standard usage' if not the way people actually speak and write? Once again we see a hardcore conservative insisting that black and white are the only options in an arena full of grays. Smarter, more savvy lexicographers understand that their job is a balancing act between lawgiver and journalist. They need to provide reliable reference information, but also be flexible enough to accurately reflect the current state and movement of the language. And they scrupulously avoid such sneering terms as 'inane, illiterate, and flat-out wrong' in favor of the much more sensible--and objective--'standard' and 'nonstandard.' |
| Sat 16 Aug 21:09 | Mr. Off-Topic | Sorry to chase tangets, but does the world hate me? At this moment when I visit Google's front page IE prompts me for a download (containing nothing but gibberish) and I never actually reach the web page. If I visit with Netscape 4, I reach the site fine. IE isn't acting squirrly anywhere else as far as I can tell. |
| Sat 16 Aug 21:14 | Mr. Nevermind | Nevermind. I had Proxomotron's web filters turned off. I assume there's something I don't like that Prox has normally been stopping. I notice at other web sites I still get prompted for a download at a Google domain that is somehow tied to advertising. |
| Researchers delve into the human factor | Fri 15 Aug |
| A team of computer scientists, academics and others gathered this week at IBMs Almaden Research Center to swap ideas on how to better understand the ways in which humans interact with machines. Specifically, they met to compare notes on different ways to make sense of how technology is being consumed. (Comments: Thanks Gabriel!) |
| Fri 15 Aug 09:23 | fajalar | 'Intel, for example, has hired anthropologists to travel the globe, exploring how computing differs in various cultures.' And here I am working at a desk in cubeland like a sucker. |
| Sat 16 Aug 18:20 | Ron Zeno | Intel's just looking for ways to create greater demand for their chips (greater demand for chips, and greater demand for higher performance chips). |
| Predicting the next big IT failure | Fri 15 Aug |
| When the level of technological progress is far above what customers actually need and can use, the phenomena of overshooting creates the opportunity for an upstart to come in with something thats cheaper, simpler and good enough for a set of customers who dont need the advanced functionalities, said Christensen. He terms this trend disruptive innovation. |
| Fri 15 Aug 11:21 | Jeff Albro | A perfect example of this would be a mobile phone for the ederly. Something with big buttons, a loud hearing-aid-compatable speaker, and (maybe) dirt simple memory dialing. Make it the size of a regular cordless phone. Also, with room to WRITE numbers on it. -Jeff |
| Fri 15 Aug 14:36 | Morris Cox | Pick up the August 4th issue of eWeek. On page 49, Jim Rapoza talks about how PCs aren't for everyone and that for some, computing at any speed is dangerous. 'Modern computers are much too powerful and dangerous for people who can't learn how to secure and manage them properly.' He goes on to suggest that 'a very capable and safe personal appliance could be made and sold for the magical price of $100'. It 'irks/bothers' me when I see someone with a 2 or 3 Ghz computer who only does email and some web browsing, and my fastest computer is a 1.3 Duron and I'm trying to do things like raytracing and computer clusters. |
| Sat 16 Aug 17:36 | Philip Chalmers | The article doesn't distinguish clearly enough between technological and company political factors - I don't know whether this is the journalist's fault or his source's. A couple of examples: The primary cause of failure in established companies' online businesses is turf wars - if the online sales channel succeeds, it's going to cut into the existing sales empire(s). Someone at IBM once said (in the 1970s) that if IBM had a product with zero production cost it would have sell it for $500 each because of overhead costs - and these overheads are all internal empires. That's why new entrants can undercut the big companies despite the big companies' apparent advantages in experience, purchasing power, sales contacts and economies of scale. When HP separated its inkjet printer business from its laser printer business, it bit the political bullet. IBM did something similar by making Lexmark independent. But I bet there were some stormy scenes and strained relationships in both companies. Some technological developments do seem to have the disruptive effect the author describes - e.g. how IBM's dominance was destroyed in the late 1980s by independent PCs and by mini-mainframes (DEC VAX etc.). Bit I still think the primary factor is political. For example IBM could have used its technological and financial strength to out-compete the independent PCs and mini-mainframes, but this would have meant cutting overheads (= empires) to the bone in order to compete on price. |
| (Not) Defining the damn thing | Wed 13 Aug |
| (Boxes And Arrows) Discussions of how we should label ourselves and define our work are like flu epidemics. They break out from time to time, follow a fairly predictable course, and often make us want to barf. |
| Wed 13 Aug 15:22 | Anonymous | How about 'Chief Navel Gazer in charge of Ineffectual Complaining' |
| Thu 14 Aug 04:51 | daniel szuc | Very good article and I think how we market/sell ourselves is very important. |
| Fri 15 Aug 14:34 | Anonymous | Wow, it looks like the season for articles on job titles. There have been 3-4 posted just on Webword. Is it an epidemic yet? |
| Information Pollution | Mon 11 Aug |
| (Alertbox) Saying less often communicates more. Studies of content usability typically find that removing half of a websites words will double the amount of information that users actually get. |
| Mon 11 Aug 04:00 | Mac | Or how about this summary 'Information is Theft'. “Somewhere the saving and putting away had to begin again and someone had to do the saving and the keeping, one way or another, in books, in records, in people’s heads, any way at all so long as it was safe, free from moths, silverfish, rust and dry-rot, and men with matches.” - From Farenheit 451 |
| Mon 11 Aug 08:20 | Gerald | With other words - the difference between information and marketing might become very significant. Does it mean Jakob is a spammer himself ;-) |
| Mon 11 Aug 12:22 | Ralph | This is all very true. I absolutely hate content-free 'corporate-speak', or as Steve Krug calls it, 'Happy Talk'. It also illustrates why the principle of Progressive Disclosure works so well. When I first heard of it, I wondered how hiding information would be a good thing. But anyone who has ever cleaned their desk realizes why it works. Here's a great example from Scott Berkun: http://uiweb.com/issues/issue04.htm |
| Mon 11 Aug 12:26 | Anonymous | If there were any good ideas about information, it might be offering a way to change things, not just rail against them. This is an explosion of data, and data processing technology marketed as information technology. |
| Mon 11 Aug 16:27 | ken mohnkern | Reminds me of an anecdote I heard in a writing class. A student approached [famous author -- we'll use Kurt Vonnegut] with a fat manuscript and asked for advice. [Author] asked how long it was, and student answered, '300 pages.' [Author]'s response was, 'Throw away the first 100 pages and you're done.' And Strunk (globally-revered author of the definitive book on writing) wrote, 'omit needless words.' |
| Fri 15 Aug 08:07 | Brian Curtis | As I recall, Steve Krug did Strunk one better in his book 'Don't Make Me Think' by crossing out the 'needless.' His third law of usability is 'Get rid of half the words on each page... then get rid of half of what's left.' |
| The myth of discoverability | Thu 14 Aug |
| (UIWEB) In other words, eliminating stupid, unnecessary or infrequent choices from the list of decisions people need to make, is almost always a good thing. They don’t care about what they don’t need to care about. |
| Thu 14 Aug 12:24 | Dave J. | Great article. |
| Fri 15 Aug 08:00 | Brian Curtis | Couldn't agree more! It's a frequent flaw in the developer mindset to assume that, just because THEY like the idea of more features and more 'control,' that users want the same thing. They don't. Every feature is another level of complication, another choice you're forcing the user to make instead of letting them focus on their task. In the ideal development process, every proposed feature would be excluded by default until and unless someone could raise a powerful, data-driven argument for including it. And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony. |
| Breadcrumb Navigation: Further Investigation of Usage | Wed 13 Aug |
| (SURL) There has been speculation that a breadcrumb trail also aids the user’s “mental model” of the site’s layout to reduce disorientation within the site (Bernard, 2003); however, we have not found research to validate this assumption. |
| Wed 13 Aug 09:50 | Lyle Kantrovich | I've a couple of additional breadcrumb links here: Breadcrumbs Affect User's Mental Model of Web Sites |
| Wed 13 Aug 15:06 | Dennis G. Jerz | Thanks for the useful links, Lyle. I recommend breadcrumbs because I think they help beginning web authors conceptualize the layout of their personal web pages, as they grow organically. Professional developers with access to templates and menu-creation tools don't face the same issues as newbie authors. At least this research seems to suggest that sites with breadcrumbs aren't worse than those with. |
| Luxury Loo: The Seat Also Rises | Wed 13 Aug |
| Steve Marshall vividly remembers the night he was terrorized by a toilet. ... When I approached the toilet, the lid lifted automatically, said Marshall. Then, as I stood in front of it, the seat also lifted. All I could think was, whoa … haunted bathroom! I just could not urinate for fear of what might happen next. |
| Wed 13 Aug 01:38 | daniel szuc | The lid lifting automatically would reside under the principle of 'feedback'? :) |
| Common Mistakes | Sun 10 Aug |
| There are several common mistakes made by those conducting usability tests. Most of these, once identified, are easy to avoid. |
| Mon 11 Aug 02:31 | Derek R | I like the 'Accidental Revelation' part. In my opinion, most, if not all, user-testing being done out in the real-world is being done by people without the necessary skills (this means IAs, 'usability experts,' a whole slew of people who never had anything but a glossing on field research techniques, concentrating instead on deliverables, or statistics, etc.). The whole point of testing is to gather reliable data, yet, unfortunately, to most real-world practitioners, the idea of testing is just to 'run a test.' It's all song-n-dance; a check-list routine. Let's face it, field research is a social science skill. It is not taught or prevalent in the number-crunching 'usability' or IA disciplines, or in any of their off-shoots. Unfortunately it's a deliverable kind-of-world out there -- a mentality which will let you get away with sloppy research as long as there is a pretty picture to pass around in the end. The best user-testers in today's online businesses are the graphic artists. They have the right skills for what's being asked for. I can't blame anyone though, as this is what is being taught and what we can observe successful industry leaders doing and receiving accolades for. |
| Mon 11 Aug 09:10 | Lyle Kantrovich | Graphic artists?! Sure, and the best doctors are veterinarians, and the best software developers are marketing people... Not sure what alternate plane of existence you live in, but it's nothing like my world. Clearly you're extrapolating from an exceptional anecdote. |
| Mon 11 Aug 11:33 | fajalar | One thing I would add to their list is the creation of accurate and meaningful usability objectives (metrics). This is, of course, depending on what type of usability test you are doing. I am not a big fan of objectives if I am just doing exploratory testing. |
| Mon 11 Aug 13:01 | Derek R | >| Not sure what alternate plane of existence you live in The title of the article is 'Common Mistakes' Lyle. These mistakes are common because attention is being placed elsewhere. In my analysis, the attention is being misplaced into creating pretty end-product deliverables where the 'the look-n-feel' of a research document is more valuable than the actual research. Thus, my graphic artist quip. Nevertheless, I understand the aggression which denies anything is being done back-ass-wards or wrong. This is the entire point I wish to draw attention to. My contention still stands that user-testing is a social science skill that cannot be adequately adopted by Joe or Jill self-proclaimed usability-expert, or simple because the testing duty falls on your lap from your employer. Real user observation and testing must be done by social scientists if you wish to ensure impartial and reliable data. Only the social scientists are properly trained in this discipline. I think it behooves anyone, or any business, which claims to employ 'user-centered methodologies' to actually be trained in the social sciences. Who are we trying to kid? |
| Mon 11 Aug 14:09 | Anonymous | uhhh....but graphic artists aren't social scientists |
| Mon 11 Aug 19:16 | Gerry Gaffney | Fajalar's comment on my failure to list 'creation of accurate and meaningful usability objectives' is absolutley correct! |
| Mon 11 Aug 19:26 | fajalar | Gerry, Just to let you know I have known of your site for a while and have passed it on informally to many people. Good stuff. I have even tired using Classified for validation of card sort results. Thanks! |
| Mon 11 Aug 22:52 | Anonymous | 'uhhh....but graphic artists aren't social scientists' Once again Derek is too eager to ram ahead with his rhetoric and fails to properly deliver a clear and meaningful communication. The irony ;-) When Derek says 'The best user-testers in today's online businesses are the graphic artists.' he's not saying they actually are, only that in a business environment which prioritises clear communication then it's the graphic designers that have the edge. Unfortunately for Derek it's not an either/or situation though. The quality of research is *orthogonal* to the quality of the presentation. It is entirely possible to do both, and a failure to accomodate that is a failure to understand people and their needs. Oh, the irony, again. |
| Tue 12 Aug 03:51 | Derek R | I obviously don't have a problem with presentation. Please present your user-testing results in the most accurate and communicative way possible -- likely with visual aids (ie. graphs and other visualizations of information). The point I have made, which I think you are skipping over, is that the mistakes mentioned in the article are 'common' because more attention is paid to the presentation of the testing results rather than to the actual reliable acquisition of data. In short, today's business would rather have a fancy colorful report than accurate results! A good example is the above anonymous coward's comment regarding 'clear communication.' You can see how the 'communication' of the usability-testing results receives the privileged position -- 'a business environment which prioritizes clear communication...' There's no hiding here this blatant statement which places more importance on the 'communication' rather than the acquisition of accurate results. Surely there will be back-peddling about what this anonymous coward really meant after this message -- but it's too late to be convincing and these 'mistakes' which skew testing data continue to be 'common' (read the article) while we polish and hand out accolades for our communication skills. What is needed are user-testing skills! User-testing is not about clear communication -- it is about accurate and reliable observation of user responses. This is a social science skill and best performed by social science professionals who can handle the job. Typically these are not the people who are performing these tests -- thus the 'common mistakes.' In the real professional world of user-testing and field research any mistake ruins the entire project. You don't make 'mistakes' in social science research and still have research. This is a big difference to what is going on in Web testing labs today. PS. If you are going to make negative personal third-person comments about someone on a web log you should at least have the respect and dignity to give yourself an identity. I don't go to your web logs and make nasty anonymous comments, do I? Let's show some respect for each other and enough confidence in yourself to stand on your own two human-like appendages. |
| Tue 12 Aug 04:18 | Derek R | >| The best user-testers in today's online businesses >| are the graphic artists. Re-reading this page I see several of us are talking past one another. To clarify: I was being sarcastic in suggesting 'the best user-testers are graphic artists' -- it only seems so with today's Web businesses adopting backwards priorities regarding user-research (ie. placing premium value on the presentation of results over the results themselves). >| The quality of research is *orthogonal* to the >| quality of the presentation Again, research has nothing to do with presentation. Research has to do with research. If you are charged with both duties then you should know enough that presenting lies is not at all helpful -- the research must be there 100%. How well you 'present' is only relevant once actual, reliable and accurate research has been collected. I'm tired now and must sleep. |
| Tue 12 Aug 09:22 | fajalar | Derek wrote: 'In the real professional world of user-testing and field research any mistake ruins the entire project. You don't make 'mistakes' in social science research and still have research. This is a big difference to what is going on in Web testing labs today.' I wouldn't say any mistake ruins the entire project. A mistake may discount the results you get from a single participant, and yes and entire lab may get 'ruined.' But as with all mistakes that occur while observing human behavior, you mark it down and move on. Later you can decide if the 'mistake' has ruined everything. I've been in labs where we have mistakes happen. Almost always it is isolated to a single participant. That session stays part of the report and we may (or may not) get another participant. One the 'make it pretty note' see if this NIST report format would work. Standardized reporting takes the guess work out of what to put in the report, and how to format/display it. |
| Tue 12 Aug 09:56 | Eric | 'the mistakes mentioned in the article are 'common' because more attention is paid to the presentation of the testing results rather than to the actual reliable acquisition of data.' ummm ... the article describes six 'common errors', all of occur either before or during testing, and none after testing. Unless you're arguing that those errors occur because the testing phase is rushed or under-resourced, as compared to the analysis/presentation phase. The article doesn't address the post-testing activities at all, including any related errors, so I don't buy your argument. If anything, I've seen extensive testing done and then the presentation be skimpy and unexciting, cutting to the chase and presenting only the major conclusions. |
| Tue 12 Aug 10:45 | daniel szuc | Being impartial and neutral in a test is particularly difficult. As I think its a very human instinct to want help. |
| Tue 12 Aug 17:11 | Derek R | >| Unless you're arguing that those errors occur because >| the testing phase is rushed or under-resourced Yes, that's what I'm indicating -- but more so that the importance and political emphasis is placed on results-presentation because that is where, as a usability-tester, more-or-less your job performance is evaluated. The 'boss' likes your presentation, or not, and that's your 'job review' so to speak. However, the boss doesn't know, and is not in the position to appreciate, the work done to obtain reliable and accurate results. So -- what ends up naturally happening is all the emphasis and worry and hand-wringing goes into the presentation phase because this is the 'make-or-break' portion of your usefulness to the company. This is backwards and wrong. Business needs to realize the importance of usability-testing without having it become a competition where one person can be seen as performing better than another (ie. the 'graphical design competition' that is today's usability-testing). Fajalar's NIST report format resource is a good step in this the right direction towards realizing this. Real professional user-testers (ie. social scientists trained in research techniques) have scientific standards which ensure impartial results -- that's why it's called a science! Today's design competition in the deliverable-happy Web business world misses the boat on what usability-testing aims to achieve. It's just a lot of bubble-worship (ie. wishful thinking that will get you in trouble). Listen, I think it's great to have sexy, colorful usability-results to grab attention for the field of usability-testing, to give it exposure as a legitimate and necessary business process, and, to demonstrate the value of the people performing this work -- but -- it is contradictory to the research that 'entertainment value' is the driving motivation behind the scenes in usability professions. We need to be doing things for the right reasons and not engage ourselves in blowing bubbles. Keep your feet on the ground, etc. You may just find that building from a solid foundation (a rock) proves more benefit than making ourselves into superheroes who fantastically arrive to 'save-the-day' in product development. >| I wouldn't say any mistake ruins the entire project. >| A mistake may discount the results you get from >| a single participant Yes, well I'm specifically referring to project mistakes, like the ones referenced in the article. As you indicate, individual participant mistakes are not really mistakes, just spoiled participants. |
| Tue 12 Aug 23:27 | Ron Zeno | While I've not seen the problems Derek is discussing, it's certainly possible given how many companies have presentation-oriented management. The problems I've seen are more commonly like Derek's other point, that the testers don't have adequate experience and education in social sciences. Relate to Derek's presentation-orientation problem, is the problem of testers having to make politically-correct test reports (having to understate problem severity and/or likelihood, or being unable to test the most important aspects of a product). I once had a very big client that asked me to rewrite my test report to understate the problems we found. (I refused.) The worst part of it was how resistant they were to directly stating what they wanted and why. (They asked for a great deal of other changes which I was happy to oblige). |
| Field Studies: The Best Tool to Discover User Needs | Fri 08 Aug |
| (Spool) While techniques, such as focus groups, usability tests, and surveys, can lead to valuable insights, the most powerful tool in the toolbox is the field study. Field studies get the team immersed in the environment of their users and allow them to observe critical details for which there is no other way of discovering. |
| Mon 11 Aug 11:25 | fajalar | File this article under, 'Duh.' Contextual Inquiry (or field study if you want an ethnography term) is completely important to developing a user profile and current task analysis. Like being able to photocopy all the posit-it notes on the monitors of your users because that's what they use to get through the system. You won't know about little stuff like that unless you go. Getting the company you work for to send you is the hard part. Spool's article is beginner stuff. Not that there aren't a lot of beginners out there, but perhaps some content could come from UIE instead of pontifications written because 'we need an article for the site.' |
| Tue 12 Aug 10:12 | Anonymous | So Spool is pontificating - again. What else is new? His research is usually 'valuable' only to people just entering the field where they see everything with wide-eyed wonder. |
| Converging on the Couch | Sat 09 Aug |
| (Scientific American) Fun is a hard quality to design, especially for computer engineers. Fun things just work; they do not frustrate. |
| Mon 11 Aug 12:58 | Ralph | Mac, I enjoyed that page immensely. Especially the post-it note. |
| Long regarded as the 'king of usability' | Sat 09 Aug |
| Ultimately, we all need to take our own fate in our own hands and demand usability. Refuse to use Web sites that are complex or that pop up too many annoying ads. Only buy consumer electronics products that have been reviewed as being easy to use. Vote for politicians who promise to simplify the tax forms. |
| Mon 11 Aug 12:41 | Ralph | I would be all for a national blitz on simplifying the tax code, if it wasn't for the principle of unintended consequences. The tax code certainly is a disgrace, even worse than MS software for bloat and complexity. Jakob's economic ideas sound right to me. Use what little free-market there actually is to vote for usability in your purchases (That's why there'll be no high-end BMW i-drive for me!). And the form of micropayments known as monthly fees sure work for the cable company. |
| Designing with Web Standards | Fri 08 Aug |
| There was a time not that long ago when many drivers thought nothing of tossing empty bottles out the windows of their cars. Years later, these same citizens came to realize that littering was not an acceptable way to dispose of their trash. The web design community is now undergoing a similar shift in attitude. Web standards are key to this transformation. (Comments: Thanks Gabriel White!) |
| Mon 11 Aug 07:39 | Philip Chalmers | Works only if: the standards have no major defects. But e.g. the W3C DOM has some big holes - it messes up getting the position of a mouse event and most 'compliant' browsers have introduced non-standard ways to access the browser's parser (Mozilla / NS 6 actually has 2 - innerHTML and createContextualFragment). And I often think IE's box-model is more logical than that of the CSS standard. browsers all interpret standards the same way and implement them correctly (see the same examples). designers don't have to content with different browsers being at different levels for different technologies (for example we all know IE's box-model problems; and until recently Opera has had virtually no DHTML). The standards don't actually contradict the facilities offered by the dominant supplier (guess who?) No other commercially significant browser besides the dominant one is non-compliant - until the last year or 2 Netscape 4 was everyone's biggest problem. |
| Mon 11 Aug 08:05 | Philip Chalmers | Oops, I hit 'Post' instead of 'Preview'. In the real world designers or their clients want an acceptable balance between cost and market penetration, so they will rank target browsers: 2 or 3 versions of IE for Win are more important than all other browser / platform combinations. browsers which fully and correctly implement standards which have been around long enough to be implemented. quite possibly ignore the rest - who knows how many browsers there really are? If the Web standards bodies want to be taken more seriously than Microsoft is, they need to impress some mega-clients, especially the US Government, which has been a major influence in the standardisation of other technologies including most programming languages. To do this the Web standards bodies need at least to: Avoid major errors like those in item 1 of my previous posting. Avoid the 'standards patchwork' described in item 3 above. So they have to start saying things like 'a level X browser is one which offers complete and correct support for all of HTML version A, CSS version B, DOM version C, etc. and any browser which does not do so is at best a level X-1 browser.' Produce validation suites to enforce this kind of rule, make it plain that a standard is incomplete without a validation suite and sue anyone who claims to have produced a level X browser if it is not 100% compliant. |
| All over for blogs? | Fri 08 Aug |
| (Bill Thompson) In fact, I had stopped paying careful attention to the lists and the blogs even before I left the country. It seemed to me that the number of useless postings and blog entries was starting to increase and there was less and less there that was really of interest. |
| Mon 11 Aug 05:12 | Mac | This article has inspired me. |