 | |
 | United Stop The War |
above is a banner that is placed by the site's host and may not represent the opinions of people mentioned or referenced below
| |
| United Stop The War |
| last updated:22 Apr 2003 08: 09 Webword time, or 22 Apr 2003 13:09 UK time |
 |
| Webword Statistics - Recent Comments (Comments added for week ending Sun 20 Apr 2003) | View Other Weeks |
| DUX 2003 | Sun 20 Apr |
| AIGA, CHI and GRAPH all give conferences as part of their membership services. All of these conferences concentrate on one aspect or discipline of designing user experiences. In each of these conferences there were voices that only one side of the story was being told. This is the first conference where all the many disciplines that go into User Experience Design will be treated equally and discussed within the context of each other. This conference should therefore give a broader and more complete picture of what it takes to create successful user experiences than any of the conferences currently being given. (Comments: What was the best conference you ever attended? Thanks Daniel Szuc.) |
| Sun 20 Apr 21:01 | Adam Greenfield | SXSW! (Duh.) |
| Google's Page Rank - Great for Searching the Internet but not Single Sites | Sun 20 Apr |
| (kuro5hin) Brilliant as Google is, the funny thing about PageRank is that unless you are writing an Internet search engine (come on, are you really going to be doing that?), it is probably the worst possible way to sort search results. In fact you should never use the PageRank algorithm when returning results from a single site. |
| Sun 20 Apr 16:47 | Dennis | I find that Google's Page Rank system works quite well for fast and useful searches. |
| Sun 20 Apr 18:41 | Anonymous | A link critical of Google? While John is away? Talk about disrespect! Excuse me while I go pray to Google for forgiveness, lest it smite WebWord with its vengeance. |
| Do U SMS? Text messaging is not the hassle it once was | Sun 20 Apr |
| Nevertheless, the clear benefits of short text message services (SMS) have lured untold millions into uncomfortable, not to say unsatisfying, partnerships with their mobile phones. (Comments: Transl8it is useful.) |
| Sun 20 Apr 09:22 | daniel szuc | The handspring Treo is not perfect but the mini keyboard is really nice and I cannot see myself every going back to just a dial pad for an all in one PDA/phone. |
| Sun 20 Apr 13:14 | Morris Cox | And if you're not careful, getting charged five cents for each message can add up. |
| Office workers give away passwords for a cheap pen | Sun 20 Apr |
| Men were slightly more likely to reveal their password with 95 per cent of blokes, compared to 85 per cent of women quizzed, prepared to hand over their password on request. (Comments: Why are men more likely to reveal their passwords? Also, who only has one password?) |
| Sun 20 Apr 08:48 | John S. Rhodes | Thanks for the link Dennis G. Jerz! |
| Sun 20 Apr 09:36 | daniel szuc | Welcome back John. How was Italy? |
| Imagine if Simcity wasn't just a game | Fri 18 Apr |
| Somewhere in this mix of tools and interactivity, a true mirror world is brewing. Combine the visual interfaces of SimCity, the up-to-the-minute data of My Neighborhood Statistics, the multiple inroads of Game Neverending, and youd be able to create a true alternate universe, one that was mapped to real events. (MadMan comments: Have you ever played these online games? Thanks Joshua.) |
| Sat 19 Apr 13:22 | Anonymous | Thank you, but I'll spend my time imagining if Leisure Suit Larry wasn't just a game. |
| Sun 20 Apr 08:57 | Anthony | Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. |
| Leonardo da Vinci, Disciple of Experience | Sat 19 Apr |
| (Mark Hurst) 500 years ago, da Vinci understood the power of experience. Academic pedigree is fine, but a direct grasp of experience is essential. Analyzing and learning from direct experience is innately more powerful than hiding behind obscure academic methods. da Vinci got it. Maybe he was the first. (Comments: From my trip to Italy I learned that the Vitruvian man is on the back of the Italian one euro coin.) |
| Sun 20 Apr 06:49 | Mac | If you wish to gain knowledge of the form of things, begin with the detail and only move from one detail to another when you have fixed the first firmly in your memory and become well acquainted with it. - Leonardo, Codex Trivulzianus This quote could apply to the use of guidelines. |
| Testing the Three-Click Rule | Thu 17 Apr |
| (UIE) The number of clicks isnt what is important to users, but whether or not theyre successful at finding what theyre seeking. |
| Thu 17 Apr 12:21 | Ron Zeno | If there is a scientific basis to the Three-Click Rule, we couldn't find it in our data. Nor can it be found by flipping a coin... Analyzing the wrong data proves nothing, other than the person analyzing it doesn't know any better. |
| Thu 17 Apr 14:13 | Frank Lynch | There must be some word for a rhetorical technique wherein a proponent of an argument looks at successive issues in isolation, and sees that none of them accounts sufficiently for a result, and concludes that none of them, therefore, are an issue; as opposed to looking at the totality of an issue, and seeing how they contribute to an end result by their being together (in modeling terms, an interaction effect). This same outfit has told us that page download time doesn't matter. But something tells me that three clicks would be a much more significant guideline for a website where the pages take forever to load. As cilcks become more of a 'hassle', due to slower downloads, difficult language, obscure paths, etc., I bet Jared Spool would see more of a difference. And I'm not saying that the other factors would outweigh the number of clicks, but that too-many clicks in the rpesence of other factors would combine for a problem. (Those other problems might not seem to be an issue is the path is short.) Perhaps that analysis exists, but it hasn't been done in this superficial treatment, where everythng focuses on one variable. |
| Thu 17 Apr 15:51 | Lydia | I think three-clicks is a useful suggestion for beginners because it encourages site structure and organization. If you've ever watched a CEO type design a website, everything is buried under one or two main links. First I go to Mens, then I go to dress shirts, then I go to accessories, then I go to jewelry, then I choose cufflinks, and Oh! we can throw a search box in so they can find it right away if they want. Brr. I agree, though, that guidelines can be dangerous because it is too easy to see them as rules that only the uninitiated ignore. Basically, I think it is up to the designer to have the confidence to ignore guidelines if he thinks it will work for his particular audience. I hardly ever see new designers apprenticed by more experienced designers, but they usually seek guidance from some source. Guidelines can help if they are treated as a suggestion rather than dogma. |
| Thu 17 Apr 16:13 | Josh Porter | Frank, I see your point. We definitely thought about this when we were conducting our analysis. In systems with many variables such as the web we would expect to see some correlation (however little) between whatever it is we're looking at (in this case both success and satisfaction) and some factor that may or may not influence it (length of clickstream). The idea that you're alluding to (as I understand your comment) is that many little correlations would ultimately combine to form an overarching account of what is really going on. However, what our data shows is that there is effectively no correlation at all between clickstream length and either success or satisfaction. But let's assume for a minute that there is a very small correlation between clickstream length and success or satisfaction. Does that justify the creation of a rule that designers should blindly follow? Our intent with this article, and with much of our research, is to direct designers to those things that have significant effects on the user's experience. We try to dissuade them from relying on red herrings like the Three-Click Rule. That said, the Three-Click Rule may be beneficial in the sense that it may make designers focus more on users. What the creator of this rule did is work backward and take user complaints about clicking(q) and create a design rule that MIGHT explain user frustration(p). This is illogical: p => q != q => p |
| Thu 17 Apr 18:14 | MadMan | Frank, could you be looking for the logical fallacy of composition? |
| Thu 17 Apr 21:02 | Frank Lynch | Josh, I think that for clarity I need to revert to modeling rules here. And I apologize to everyone here if this is not what you're used to (I empathize with arcane expressions with formulas). I also hate to shock regular readers of this board who will be surprised to see this side of me! Imagine for a moment that the negative impact of number of clicks (in terms of task completion and/or satisfaction) only manifests when there is some other break-down in the web site (such as slow pages or other hassles). A VERY SIMPLE expression of this might be: Neg effect = B1*A1 + B2*A2 + B3*(A1A2) + y intercept A1 = a threshold for number of clicks is crossed or not, and equals 1 or 0 (or make it linear if you want, where it's the number of clicks) A2 = other usability issues with each successive click exist, and the value is 1 (they're present) or 0 (they're not) A1A2 = the presence of the combination of the two Bi = impact of each of the variables above, as measured through ANOVA or least squares regression, etc According to modeling rules, if the coefficient B3 (for the interactive term A1A2 -- that is, there may be too many clicks at the same time as there are other usability issues with each successive click) is statistically significant (that is, the presence of the combination has a negative effect above and beyond what you see from the effects of either 'main effect' variable on its own), you can't remove either A1 or A2 from your model, no matter how small the estimate of their impact is. That is, if B3 has a significant impact, you have to include the other components in your expression of the relationship. Now for the English, in terms of the discussion at hand: If an interaction effect exists, you don't say that number of clicks has no effect, you have to say, 'well, it depends.' Number of clicks might not be an issue if the user feels momentum. But if each page is a puzzle, number of clicks is a problem. (There may also be points where the user feels momentum, but 45+ clicks is a hassle!) The other important analytic point is this: if the research didn't encompass sites/stimuli where each successive page presents a problem (as well as sites/stimuli where it's smooth sailing), then there is no way to know about the interaction effect. And in that case, the conclusion that number of clicks is irrelevant, is tenuous. Now. I can understand that three clicks is not a rule, and in my meetings at my old Fortune 50 company I hated to hear people talk about it and leave off the 'other things being equal' caveat. We are trying to get people through their tasks with minimal hassle. But I have to admit that I liked the winnowing design of the old bananarepublic.com where you went through gender, garment, etc. More clicks, but it built confidence along the way, rather than confronting you with a long list of buttons/links to take short cuts. So, I guess that I endorse recommending against the rigid adaptation of a three-click rule, but I think more work needs to be done. And I also think that designers are capable of seeing the complexity of 'well, it depends.' RE Argument of composition: I don't think this is quite what I meant, though I do see the interactive component. I was actually thinking more along the lines of the argument of the beard, and critical mass. No single hair makes a beard, but put 'em together and they do. Apologies again to all those shocked readers who were surprised to see this side of me. I was a bit of a quant jock here and there in my professional career. |
| Thu 17 Apr 22:11 | Frank Lynch | BTW, I apologize for using the word 'outfit,' it sounds needlessly pejorative. No offense meant. |
| Fri 18 Apr 00:22 | Lyle Kantrovich | Frank, Let's see if I understand what you're saying. I think you're saying something like: 'More clicks is bad if each click gives you something that sucks.' or 'More clicks might be positive or neutral if each click gives you something that is great or doesn't suck.' Sounds logical. So 'all other things being equal,' no one wants to click at all - a 'NO clicks' situation is best - 'three clicks' must've came out of a committee and involved some compromise with pointy-haired types. This leads me to my life's work (and a free non-returnable gift to Webword readers): 'Lyle's No Thought Rule' - users want you to give them what they want/need before they even think of it. (All other things being equal. While supplies last. Not available in all areas, some exclusions may apply. Contains explicit lyrics, may be objectionable to some people and cats.) But seriously, this topic relates to the 'scent of information' thing. Which, if web sites were movies, says that sitting through long movies sucks, unless it's an entertaining or informative movie, in which case, long movies may be just as enjoyable as short movies, and in some cases even more enjoyable. If you can cram the same enjoyment into a short movie as a long movie, that's great go for the short film. UNLESS you can charge more for the longer movie... BUT if you only have enough info/tainment for a 30 second commercial, then go into advertising instead of making an epic. But remember that advertising doesn't work on the web. Jakob said so years ago - it's even written on some stone tablet somewhere. Josh makes a good point in his article when he says that the 3-click rule might be good in that it makes people think about users. While thinking about users is good - if that 'thinking' results in a worse design than not doing that 'thinking', then it's NOT good. Personally, most experience with the 3-click rule is that it's usually quoted or mis-quoted by someone on a team who's really just using it to win some design debate. It's quoted as irrefutable gospel to be complied with -- there's not been a lot of thinking or user involvement going on at the time either. Let's face it, debunking '3-clicks' doesn't take much effort. Just ask for 3 or 4 good sites that actually follow that rule. Lots of the best sites don't. |
| Fri 18 Apr 01:06 | Ron Zeno | To debunk a rule, first research the rule well enough that you understand it... (Hint: the three-click rule predates the internet AND it deals with time to complete a task). |
| Fri 18 Apr 18:36 | Frank Lynch | Lyle, your re-characterization of what I wrote is fairly spot on. And I'm in favor of debunking the three-click rule if it makes sense. But if we conclude too quickly that number of clicks doesn't matter — something different from the three-click rule — we risk giving license to burying content and thus increasing task difficulty. One of the problems I have with focusing on number of clicks, or page download time, or any other single factor, is that we lose site of overall task difficulty in doing so. My copy of The Humane Interface is on low-likelihood-of-return-loan, but I remember that there are many components to task ease, and that anlyses (is HOMES the the acronym? no, that's the Great Lakes...) can be done which include these. I won't list the other issues; but if they're not measured, we can't see how they interact to contribute to task difficulty. I'm glad UIE did their analysis where the entire task was the issue, and not a single page, but I do believe these things add up. And I also remember the caveat in another thread (was it on page download time?) where we were reminded that in a lab setting, where respondents know they're there for an hour, they don't have the at-home distractions and priorities which call to task abortion. |
| Sat 19 Apr 03:59 | daniel szuc | Does some this depend on the task? If its something I really want to find or do I may be willing to click more times to succeed? |
| Sat 19 Apr 22:29 | Frank Lynch | Not sure how soon I'll be back in a profession where this matters, but is the acronym which I was looking for GOMES? |
| choose life? | Sat 19 Apr |
| You may have noticed by my blog entires that Im more interested in the act of being alive than ripping apart other folks interfaces or pontificating on usability issues... (Comments: Is the battle wearing you out?) |
| Sat 19 Apr 21:06 | Andrerib | There is a time for everything, a time to have fun, a time to work, a time to go out with the lads, a time to have kids. However in modern societies time to work as monopolized the other time-shares. To battle for that time is like swimming against the river flow. Like Christina Wodtke from eleganthack.com I also like 'making crepes, planting tomatoes,... ,cool wood floor on warm bare feet' and a lot of other things! But I also like having time for those things, so I strugle everyday to make that happen. First thing, I love what I do (So I can mix work and home easily). I have that feeling when I wake-up and all day long. Second I tend to put away thoughts on prices, bargains and every money related things. I also have to work to live but I try not to get obssessed by todays money tensions. Third, quality of life does not mean expensive life. No money can buy time. These three are enought to make me live better with myself and with the others. Even if you think you don t feel any of this things try them for a few days (and also do some gardening)... feeling better now? Use your time to yourself too and make all the things you ever wanted to do. This resumes what I think: 'Our passions are what make us human - we must nuture them, share them. We never know where they'll lead, but we can be certain that the journey will be worthwhile.' |
| Microsoft Introduces Antispam, Antivirus, And Storage Security Initiatives | Fri 18 Apr |
| The Exchange client, Microsoft Outlook 2003, includes its own antispam technology, allowing users to create filters that block HTML content by default, create block blacklists and safe white lists of e-mail addresses, and profile spam by looking for keywords and patterns (MadMan comments: Dont wait till then. Get SAProxy for free right now) |
| Sat 19 Apr 02:18 | daniel szuc | Madman, does installing an SPAM add-on keep Outlook stable? I am currenlty using Outlook XP and I am interested in your experience to date. |
| Sat 19 Apr 02:54 | MadMan | I don't use Outlook :p I use Eudora. Don't think it will be a problem though. This doesn't interfere with your program at all. It just sets up a mail proxy server to route your mail through. |
| Sat 19 Apr 03:08 | daniel szuc | Thank you. |
| Sat 19 Apr 10:21 | Ron Zeno | Meanwhile, Microsoft is busy lobbying to weaken anti-spam laws. Looks like Microsoft wants to increase spam when they can find profit in it, then sell anti-spam software... Article summary & link |
| Filling the gaps in Windows | Mon 14 Apr |
| ...most of the things Id like to see in Windows are plain and simple, wouldnt require phalanxes of PhDs to implement, and would make my daily life so much nicer. (MadMan comments: The last feature is something wed all like. What is on your wishlist?) |
| Mon 14 Apr 12:45 | Ralph | I agree that file versions (He incorrectly called it a Journaling File System in the artcile) were a great feature in VMS, and I too would trade it for all the dancing paper clips in the world. It makes me wonder if any usability work at all ever went into Windows development that instead of things like that we get the dancing paper clips instead. |
| Mon 14 Apr 13:03 | Francis Wu | Yeah, that Journaling File System? Good idea, but they sell that 'feature' as MS Visual SourceSafe. |
| Mon 14 Apr 15:02 | (the other) JS | Milestone file structure, groupable and linkable icon structure like Apple 'piles' http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/222192/0 on steroids. |
| Mon 14 Apr 19:23 | Anonymous | I think sometimes we forget that many Windows users have extremely basic requirements, and while I don't like to defend Windows, I think they do some very basic usability very well. What I would like to see is different Windows versions/features suited to different audiences. My grandmother doesn't need file journalling or a better task manager (or a lot of the other current windows junk) - it would just be confusing - but I do want it, and more. |
| Tue 15 Apr 10:35 | (the other) JS | Interesting. Pity installs universally ignore user profiles, instead working from the perspective of limited hard drive resources. Or that the OS itself has general use profile templates. Most grandmothers aren't aware of what computers can allow them to do. They simply have no idea. Just try watching those in that age group target items designed for and by youngsters. Doubleclick is in some cases quite out of the question (one misses the old adjustment of setting larger 'drift' and time limits between clicks one and two). Or use a mouse -- a sight sure to get anyone with a passing acquaintance of industrial design to thinking. None of these systems deal adequately with age accessibility -- curious when so many do backflips over accesibility to smaller size groups. |
| Wed 16 Apr 01:10 | Anonymous | Most of all, be sure you have double panes for energy savings. Thermal curtains also help a lot, as normal curtains do little to retain heat. |
| Sat 19 Apr 10:18 | daniel szuc | 1. Better search and find 2. List of repeatable tasks - My Tasks - i.e. things that I do on a regular basis i.e. it learns my common behaviours and sets my PC up accordingly 3. Faster startup 4. Undelete or mulitple rollbacks 5. Voice commands for certain tasks |
| Lou Rosenfeld and Steve Krug on UX | Sun 13 Apr |
| I dont think Ive even ever actually used the phrase user experience with any of my clients; Im just a usability consultant. Im like the guy who just does tires. I may stray into rims and balancing and occasionally tackle a frozen lug nut if its not too complicated, but mostly I just stick to what I know: tires. (Uh, usability) |
| Mon 14 Apr 13:21 | Francis Wu | The problem I've head with using the term 'user experience' is that it's all-encompassing. It covers design, information architecture, marketing and sometimes even software development. This creates some political problems 'cause they don't want some dude with a seemingly dubious title comin' outta left field tellin'em what to do. These are the problems I've had when I tried to propose the establishment of a user-experience driven design department. The result? They moved me into software development, and the rest of the designers... well, they continue to 'draw purdy pitchers'. |
| Sat 19 Apr 10:07 | daniel szuc | I like the term 'user experience' but I prefer to stick to 'usability' as I can be more specific about what I do and hopefully how I can add value. I see usability as a subset of 'user experience' |
| A Dyslexic Perspective on e-Content Accessibility | Mon 14 Apr |
| (TechDis) Some people with dyslexia suffer from scotopic sensitivity (otherwise known as Meares-Irlen Syndrome) that means that they find high contrasts difficult to read, such as black on white. This can cause visual effects such as rivers of white space. |
| Mon 14 Apr 18:43 | Lydia | Heck, I find it hard to read black on white if there are no other color fields on the page (for example, WebWord makes my eyes water - I can only read for about 5 minutes at a time), and I don't have dyslexia. I'd hate to see what it is like for someone particularly sensitive. In my designs, I try to have more narrow text fields with a light, matte background or a color field nearby that helps to mute the shimmery effect of so much white on the screen. I am often laughed at, so it's nice to have some evidence besides the old 70% contrast guideline. |
| Tue 15 Apr 00:52 | Anonymous | The article is improperly titled. I expected to read a dyslexic perspective on electronic content accessibility. Instead, I get an article about dyslexic perspective on web content accessibility. What a let down! |
| Tue 15 Apr 03:38 | Morris Cox | I thought we were supposed to have black text on white for better contrast and readability. I try to get away from that for things like menus (see my site), but black on white is my standard. My questions are: how many people have problems with the above and is it something that I should take into consideration? If so, what should I do about it? Are there those who require high contrast and what number? |
| Tue 15 Apr 06:18 | JK | Why not just offer viewers a choice by supplying alternate style sheets and a style sheet switcher? I'm starting to see a few 'make the text larger' buttons, and one or two 'change the background' options on pages a la Eric Meyer's stuff. |
| Tue 15 Apr 13:16 | Lydia | Morris, I'm light sensitive (which I think nowadays is called 'photo sensitive') so certain types of light bother me where most people feel quite comfortable. Reading on the computer is a challenge when the background is white to start with. Even gray text on white (supposedly adhering to the 70% differential guideline) is hard for me to read. It helps if there are solid color blocks on the page to 'seep away' some of the shimmer effect, but what helps the most is a light, matte background behind black text. Eliminating the 'shimmer' or halo effect is the goal. (I don't know if I'm describing 'shimmer' correctly, but if you've ever had a migrane headache and you get that strange shimmery effect at the periphery of your vision just when it's about to kick into some real pain, you'll know what I mean. Totally white backgrounds do that all over the page for me, but especially around type and form elements.) While this is not a very usability-oriented reference, consider http://www.k10k.org - look at the areas where they have text on a white background, but it is surrounded by other color. Easier to read. Then, look at areas where they have black/dark text on a light, matte background - also pleasing. Areas where they have gray text on a matte background are harder to read. Basically, there is no shimmer on this page for me. I could spend all day here. Well, if I had a magnifying glass. |
| Tue 15 Apr 18:39 | MadMan | Try using #EEEEEE instead of #FFFFFF for background colour. It reduces the glare a lot. Morris, technically you're correct - black on white is best. However, the white in magazines and print publications is quite different from the white on your monitor. The problem with monitor white on PCs is the glare. It's too damn bright. On Macs, it looks great. That starts to burn your eyes after a while. Lydia, do you have an email address? I wanted to mail you something. I'm webguru AT vsnl DOT net. |
| Sat 19 Apr 01:32 | Morris Cox | JK, I consider myself relatively skilled at CSS, but don't know how to do that yet. I'll have to hunt around for that. I think I have seen it before. Lydia, I really do try to code my pages so that the most people get the most benefit. However, sometimes I wonder if there's a limit. Current technology (or rather the shambles the browsers have made) makes a battlefield of making webpages. XHTML compliance really helps, but getting people to upgrade their browsers is a never ending battle. It would be nice to have a browser that would take XHTML or XML and automatically present it in the most accessible way that would currently be of benefit to you. Right now, you need to create a CSS file and have your browser use it. If I knew diddly squat about programming, I might attempt it. Madman, I made the change. How does it look? |
| A new look at Internet access and the digital divide | Thu 17 Apr |
| (PEW) More than half—52%—of non-users said that lack of need or desire was a major reason why they were not online. Older Americans, women, rural and suburban non-users and whites were among the most likely to cite their lack of interest or need to be online. |
| Thu 17 Apr 09:11 | Tom | I think it's important if you work in the industry! |
| Thu 17 Apr 12:03 | Francis Wu | I think it's important 'cause I believe it's an accurate measure of how educated/progressive a demographic/country is. I make this relation because I believe that those who lack a certain amount of education/culture have no clear idea of what kinda information/services is available on the Internet, nor do they have the desire to know. |
| Thu 17 Apr 13:23 | Brian | That may be true, but I think you're coming from a biased position: the notion that it's only uneducated or otherwise 'unaware' people who don't use the Internet. C'mon, it's not THAT universally wonderful. Plenty of people simply have no real interest or desire for what it offers, and that doesn't make them ignorant. Apologies if that's not what you meant. |
| Thu 17 Apr 13:59 | Anonymous | I think it's important 'cause I believe it *will* be an accurate measure of how technologically intoxicated a culture is. (Naisbitt's term). I make this comment because those who are overeducated tend to apply a certain amount of magical thinking to everything from the record to television and now the internet. The history of this delusion is constantantly repeated (no thanks to the knowledge work industry). There is a growing number of people who have been on for awhile, saw what was available, and simply disconnected. Let's face it, most people overestimate what's on the internet and mistake it for the sum total of human knowledge. I would agree with Wu - if the libraries all burned down. |
| Thu 17 Apr 15:19 | Lydia | Well, I personally am interested, just from a cultural/anthropological standpoint. I am not surprised at their findings, really, but that doesn't make them less interesting. I can see computer manufacturers and broadband sellers being interested in this data. Businesses who are considering an online presence would certainly be interested, especially if their target audience is the same as the audience of disinterested parties. |
| Thu 17 Apr 16:03 | Francis Wu | Perhaps Calybos is right, that I do have a biased position. My opinion comes from my experiences with inexperienced users who visit my site and ask me where I find my crazy content, to which I can only reply, 'It's the Internet... aren't you curious to know what else is on it besides news and porn?' In retrospect, I'd like to retract my hasty generalization. While I don't really believe the Internet is the sum total of human knowledge (yet... in the end, that's really up to the Vatican and the Pentagon), its vast indexes makes it the easiest route there :). |
| Thu 17 Apr 22:15 | Anonymous | NY Times article just up talks about a demographic: internet evaders. Part of this group lives in an connected house, and often with a 'net connected spouse. Some have been there, and found no real 'there' there. You have to admit even with broadband, it is easier to get a Discovery Channel documentary blasted through tv than 'net. Then most of the stuff is still postage stamp sized and moves like a mailman in a coma. A tv remote surfs multiple bit dumps of media channels what, twenty times faster or maybe fifty? Most people are just too practical when the bits are mostly flowing one way anyway. |
| Fri 18 Apr 11:18 | JB | I think it is a nice sobering message for all of us in the industry that it is not the most important thing to everyone and that the Internet has not changed everyone's world :) |
| Fri 18 Apr 12:49 | Beth Mazur | I think the Pew stuff is really valuable. I'm interested in this because folks who don't have the 'literacy' skills necessary to find and use the information and services on the WWW may be at a disadvantage compared to those who do. BTW, one thing that is probably worth mentioning is that the data for this survey were collected a year ago (spring of 2002)...that's a long time in the timeline of general consumer use of the Internet/WWW. Then again, the UCLA study (which happened around the same time) reports different results for Americans online (71% compared to Pew's 58%). Interestingly, UCLA reports this in a positive way: 'More than 70 percent (71.1 percent) of Americans in 2002 went online' while for Pew looks at the opposite view: 'While 42% of Americans say they don’t use the Internet, ...' But I agree with Pew that to some extent the story is in the folks who won't go online, even when they have easy access (which is new to this year's version). They write: 'Non-users say they feel no need or desire to use the Internet, or that going online is not a good use of their time. This nonchalance and resistance is often related to a general misconception of what the Web and email have to offer. In other cases, reluctance is connected to specific obstacles, fears, or previous online experiences.' So, IMO, the reason to care is the extent to which you think that it's worth it to address these misconceptions, fears, and general reluctance. BTW, the UCLA report is here: http://ccp.ucla.edu/ |
| Fri 18 Apr 14:41 | Anonymous | I missed the section on leading misconceptions in the UCLA report. And, as no technology reaches 100% saturation and few even get close, is worrying about non-users productive? Unless we can use it as incentive to substantially improve user experience in some way. It is more interesting by far to study those who care about the number. I still don't see a lot of sophisticated use of the web or mail, it is probably this lack which has to be dealt with first. |
| WebWord Comment | Mon 14 Apr |
| Check out this book on Amazon.com. Scroll down a bit and you see Customers interested in Emotional Intelligence may also be interested in: (Screenshot here) They look like regular Amazon recommendations except that theyre labelled Sponsored links in really tiny type. Their reason for this is Generating additional revenue from Sponsored Links allows us to offer lower prices to yousomething we are dedicated to doing every way we can. Do you buy this explanation? What do you think of Amazons new strategy? Can it finally make them some profit? |
| Mon 14 Apr 14:22 | Joshua Kaufman | I find it a little ironic that MadMad used his Amazon associate name in this link to that book. (What's this?) ;) Regarding your questions: yes, I buy it. I think it's okay as long as it's text and generally unobtrusive, which those links appear to be. And as far as I know, they've reported profit twice. |
| Mon 14 Apr 14:37 | MadMan | Er, it's MadMan, Joshua. ;) Why is it ironic? If John had posted this link, he would have used his associates ID. I don't expect to make any money from this, fwiw. And as far as I know, they've reported profit twice. I should've been more precise. Can they make sustained profits? They've reported profits for two quarters so far. For a company that does billions of dollars in sales and has been in business for, gosh, 8 years (32 quarters), I find it a bit of an underperforming company. |
| Mon 14 Apr 16:33 | Joshua Kaufman | Woops, my apologies for the typo, MadMan. It's ironic because you're talking about sponsored links on Amazon indicated by really tiny type, and you're using your associate name (which has the potential to generate money, albeit not much) along with the link to Amazon, literally indicated by really tiny type. |
| Mon 14 Apr 16:51 | Lydia | That's weird, MadMan, I didn't see the section you were talking about. Could they have removed it, or maybe they only show it to certain users? I am fine with sponsored links when they are clearly labeled. I don't tend to be swayed by the 'people also purchased' section anyway, so I'm only likely to click through if that sort of relational link interests me. It's not obtrusive or invasive, so I don't mind. I like Amazon just fine, but I don't know how they stay in business. It seems like everytime they get a bit of money, they take on a new type of product to sell, and so on. |
| Mon 14 Apr 19:07 | JB | I could not see the small type either. I am happy with Amazon doing this as long as they are up front about it. Does it transfer into them offering lower prices...I doubt it, but if that is the story they want to spin, then so be it. I must admit I am finding that their prices for electronics are not as competitive as they used to be. a LCD TV on their site was 800 more than on a cnet comparison listing...ouch!…especially when it was meant to be one of those ‘add it to your cart to see the price because it is so special’ kind of deals. |
| Mon 14 Apr 22:28 | Che Tamahori | I remember reading somewhere that Amazon somtimes soft-launch new features with a random (but persistent) sample of users. That way they can directly compare click thrus on the 'new' vs 'olde' pages. Hence, perhaps some people are getting the new sponsored links, and the rest of use aren't. How about a screenshot, MadMan? |
| Tue 15 Apr 00:56 | Anonymous | Anyone else getting this on their product pages? 'Answer the following question correctly and we'll put a nickel in your Amazon account.' Yeah, that held my interest for one whole question. Give me 25 cents a pop and I'll look up answers to dumb vendor product questions all day long. |
| Tue 15 Apr 02:23 | MadMan | I've added a screenshot link to the entry. |
| Tue 15 Apr 12:21 | JB | Now it is clear to me. They have to do this by law. No different to Yahoo, MSN or Google placing paid placements before the free search results. They are not doing this for any other reason, but at least they are putting a slightly more interesting marketing spin on it. |
| Thu 17 Apr 04:07 | glassBruce | I've been seeing the sponsored links for a few days now, on different machines. What's wierd is that a friend of mine found his site in the sponsored links, but he's paid no money to amazon (tho he has been running a google ad....) |
| A day in the life of BBCi search | Fri 11 Apr |
| The majority of users on BBCi put something unique into search the search box, and 80% of the users of the service put in search terms that never appear on any of the statistical reports, because they only happen once or twice during the course of a day. (MadMan comments: Heres a thought - by making commonly searched information more easily accessible, are we making the other information more difficult to find? Thanks IASlash) |
| Mon 14 Apr 09:48 | Derek R | I think it is more-than-telling that some usability folk cannot grasp the simple fact that partiality is not equal to equality ('by making commonly searched information more easily accessible, are we making the other information more difficult to find?') and approach this simple fact with curiosity ('here's a thought?') as if they are unsure!! And I know history will show there has been a great deal more 'terrorizing' of Derek Rogerson on WebWord than the other-way-around! Shame on you. Grow-up and get the facts straight please. |
| Mon 14 Apr 11:01 | MadMan | I don't know if you've seen other posts of mine, Derek, but just because I said 'here's a thought', that doesn't automatically mean I'm unsure. Rather than laying it down cold, I like to stimulate discussion. John Rhodes too does the same thing. I was hoping more people would come up with issues they've faced and how they've solved them. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. Pity you couldn't get the intent of my post. |
| Mon 14 Apr 12:33 | Derek R | Ok, Madman. Forget about BBCi for a moment. Do you believe that by making commonly searched information more easily accessible, it makes other information more difficult to find? Even looking at the BBCi case, it appears the obvious holds true: that what is 'commonly searched' is *contingent,* so that each searcher is indeed an individual, and not some 'aggregate' composition (i.e. the abstract vs. the particular, the imaginary vs. the real) . . . . Are you living in the happy delusion of la-la-land (a symptom of mental illness)? Or are you aware of actual use (praxis)? These are important questions not intended to inflame. |
| Mon 14 Apr 12:36 | Mac | ...More inclined to present information, than to give commands Able to make compromises in order to maintain harmony Know how to express opinions so that no one feels threatened I can always look at a situation from a fresh viewpoint and see angles which others miss. This is because my approach is so exciting and alive that it keeps me, as well as the circumstances and people around me, from falling into ruts. From About Derek Derek, I would like to hear more about your views and opinions on the items posted in WebWord, but do you think you can do it in such a way that it doesn't alienate your audience? Ruts have value too, and are there for a reason. |
| Mon 14 Apr 12:55 | Derek R | I am not aware of any value associated with ruts. Quite the opposite. I gladly confer on you, Chris McEvoy, the title of 'Champion of Ruts' - good luck with that. More to the point, as I have stated elsewhere before, there is a profound difference between *knowing* the path, and *walking* it. |
| Mon 14 Apr 13:04 | Mac | Immediately make an impression on other people Attract people and maintain a strong influence Inspire confidence From About Derek One out of three isn't too bad. |
| Mon 14 Apr 14:24 | Derek R | Chris, Why don't you try keeping your views and opinions focused on the items posted in WebWord, and not on terrorizing me personally? I would like to hear more from you, but I am not willing to engage in childish games. Let's please try and be professional? Pretty please? |
| Mon 14 Apr 18:44 | Derek R | So how 'bout it, Madman? Do you believe making commonly searched information more easily accessible makes other information more difficult to find? Are you not sure? |
| Tue 15 Apr 10:53 | MadMan | Do you believe making commonly searched information more easily accessible makes other information more difficult to find? Yes However, you could've asked me that without implying that I was deluded or mentally ill (is 'la-la-land' an American expression?) This is the last time I'll enter into a debate with you, Mr. Rogerson. |
| Tue 15 Apr 13:32 | Lydia | MadMan, I'm interested in hearing you expand on that idea; I'm not sure I understand. Usually when I go to a search engine, it is for a targeted search, but if I see a 'most popular' search term that seems to match what I am looking for, I'd probably click it thinking I'd get better results. Is that what you mean? I see that as unintentionally narrowing individual search patterns. It reminds me of a scene from a movie where a teacher tells his kids to walk around in a circle. They start shuffling around, but eventually they get into sort of a rhythmic marching, and the other kids start clapping in time with the marching, and at the end the teacher asks them all to consider why they all conformed to the marching when they started out walking around at their own pace. A bit of a digression, but you pose an interesting question. |
| Tue 15 Apr 13:40 | Derek R | >| you could've asked me that without implying Actually, I implied 'living in the happy delusion of la-la-land' was 'a symptom of mental illness' and did so to facilitate understanding (i.e. delusion=symptom). see def. #3--> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion Your own paranoia is making a malicious personal implication. Don't do that and you won't face that obstacle. That is your ego getting in the way of reason. # Nevertheless, we agree, so isn't that nice? There is no need to engage in theatrics ('this is the last time...'). How do we empower others to see clearly as we do? Clearly the BBCi, for instance, is engaged in a state of *delusion* (a false judgment) when it presents statements like the following: _____________________________ Popular Searches Right Now Are: o fire strike o music o jobs _____________________________ since their own 'invalidating evidence' clearly shows otherwise --> 'The majority of users on BBCi put something unique into search the search box, and 80% of the users of the service put in search terms that never appear on any of the statistical reports.' In other words, how can we convince Web sites like BBCi, and the people who control them, that they are *deluding* themselves (a symptom of mental illness) and others by making statements like the above 'popular searches right now' ? ...over 80% of users make unique enquiries How can less than 20% be indicative of popularity? Is this not just whimsical categorizing (i.e. marketing)? -- An attempt to 'dress-up' and provide *appearance* of authority or 'popularity-of-use' where none, in reality, exists. In short, how long will we tolerate being lied to? This is an open question to the readership, and an important one which may be difficult to face, I realize. Nevertheless, true personal growth is, by all acceptable psychological standards, a *deflating* experience -- but once you take the plunge and dive-in you will discover that the truth is not so bad and, behold, you are better off, having left your delusions and false security-blankets behind. Let's challenge this dog-'n'-pony show! Let's get real and face-up! __________________________________ It might help if users revolted a little. -- Harley Manning |
| Users still find 56K's fast enough for them | Thu 10 Apr |
| Zippy, broadband connections may be styled for this millennium, but simple and more affordable 56K links are tailored to this current era. Confusion about installation, service and security with faster technologies - plus a recession - give the elder science a peculiar edge. |
| Tue 15 Apr 07:10 | Ralph | I love getting a good deal, and right now dial-up is a great deal. Broadband priced itself right out of the market for me. My strike price is about $35. I would like broadband best for freeing up the phone line, but I think I'll try V.92 for that instead. |
| WebWord Comment | Fri 11 Apr |
| Do you have tales of situations where you did proper user testing but later found that users behaved in ways that you didnt expect, or in ways not revealed in the usability tests? Post them in the comments section. |
| Mon 14 Apr 19:05 | Ron Zeno | users request interactive features Irrelevent to usability. User requests do not make useful or usable products. Usability 101. Usability tests show that people wanted to be able to move from information to ineraction. Whose usability tests are those and are the results actually valid? Sounds like a gross overgeneralization. |
| Mon 14 Apr 19:41 | Anonymous | users request interactive features Irrelevent to usability. User requests do not make useful or usable products. Usability 101. but why do they keep requesting the same thing? why are these requests translated into test findings (for example a user getting to a certain point and saying 'I want to contribute to this content') what are the obstacles that stop these actions happening is real use Usability tests show that people wanted to be able to move from information to ineraction. Whose usability tests are those and are the results actually valid? Sounds like a gross overgeneralization. Please remember that not all usability tests are carried out in a prescribed way by professionals - many users test, especially for smaller niche sites, happen more informally and can still produce some great qualitative analysis and leads for further investigation. |
| Hold the Phone, It's a Sex Toy | Sun 13 Apr |
| Giving new meaning to the term phone sex, a British company is selling software that transforms a cell phone into a sex toy. Vibelet.coms Purring Kitty software, launched last week, turns certain Nokia cell phones with vibrating ring capabilities into a discrete, vibrating massager. (MadMan comments: Is that a cellphone in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?) |
| Mon 14 Apr 00:54 | Anonymous | I want a cell phone that emits farting or belching noises. |
| Mon 14 Apr 17:18 | jonathan | This ingenius concept could revitalize the unsolicited telephone marketing business. Now people finally have an incentive to be called. ;-) |
| Mon 14 Apr 18:40 | Lydia | Sad, but good to know about. One more reason never to borrow a cellphone!! |
| IA: You Do It, You Just Don't Know It | Mon 14 Apr |
| (stc.org) Technical communicators who have learned to think like information architects can greatly improve the user experience of the information products they design. So how can you learn to think like an information architect? Chances are, you already do. |
| Mon 14 Apr 10:29 | Jenne Heise | The correct URL for this site is: http://www.stc.org/news/Info_Architects.asp (The blogged URL leads you the Dyslexic article) |
| Mon 14 Apr 11:21 | Mac | Jenne, thanks a lot. I have now fixed the link. I checked all the other links I have entered, but I was getting blase and just expected this one to work so I didn't check it. I am ashamed. I will try harder. |
| WebWord Comment | Wed 09 Apr |
| Im going to Italy for about a week, so updates will be sporadic or nonexistent. |
| Mon 14 Apr 04:07 | Mac | If anyone wants to come round to my place on Wednesday evening (16 Apr) I will gladly give them a cup of tea, and some toasted tea cakes. |
| Mon 14 Apr 07:11 | daniel szuc | Same applies to any webworders who come to Hong Kong. We would be pleased to take people to a Yum Cha. |
| Joe 'accessibility' Clark interview. | Sun 13 Apr |
| (madeforall.com) Any kind of judgement or settlement that requires accessibility will be resented, and the company involved might provide only the most minimal and perfunctory compliance. |
| Mon 14 Apr 04:00 | Philip Chalmers | Much more balanced than the average accessibility advocacy. In particular Joe Clark prioritises needs - (1) visual disabilities; (2) motor disabilities; (poor 3rd) hearing disabilities; (possibly never) cognitive disabilities. And Joe's Accessiblog is a useful resource - as he says, 'Virtually all online accessibility resources are glorified rehashes of the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines, which are opaque, very poorly organized, daunting, and in many cases unrealistic', so he links only to material he actually considers useful. But Joe does not address the fundamental question - why should web sites be required to subsidise a social programme when providers of other products and services are not (see for example Digital radio 'shuns' the blind in Webword 12-April-2003)? |