Webword Statistics - Recent Comments


	United ~~Nations~~ People 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

last updated:04 Apr 2003 04: 35 Webword time, or 04 Apr 2003 09:35 UK time

Webword Statistics - Recent Comments
(Comments added for week ending Sun 30 Mar 2003) | View Other Weeks

Problem of sleep-deprived soldiers is as old as war itself | Sun 30 Mar

(Kansas City Star) For others, such as a B-2 stealth bomber crew that recently completed a 30-plus-hour mission into the war zone, rushing adrenaline, catnaps and a go pill or two can keep them functioning for days.

Sun 30 Mar 14:04 | Morris Cox | That's a shoddy way to run a war. Cannon fodder waiting to happen. Maybe with these battlesuits they're working on, some improvements might occur. Though they have problems of their own. What uses of technology, that would be useful in this war, are not being used?

Sun 30 Mar 14:07 | Anonymous | Nuclear bombs. They're not being used. They would be useful. What, and kill civilians? As if that's not happening. If you don't have the stomach for war, perhaps you shouldn't be playing.

Why Docs Don’t Wear White Coats Or Polo Shirts at the Mayo Clinic | Fri 28 Mar

The Mayo Clinic works hard to build relationships with patients and their families. In this excerpt from Harvard Business Review, the authors explain how Mayo uses visual and experiential clues to tell a compelling story to customers. (Comments: Thanks Lyle.)

Fri 28 Mar 10:24 | Lyle Kantrovich | My comments on this article are on my site. I also included some related links, like a photo of the Mayo waiting room.

Fri 28 Mar 13:38 | Lydia | I like this article's focus on the usability of these environments. It definitely changes my mood when I go to a doctors office and I see flowers or fish tanks (the standard 'feel good' accessories). I used to work in finance, and we faced a similar question about attire when many businesses started going casual or business casual. The question was whether we wanted to relax our mode of dress and potentially give customers the idea that we weren't as secure and competent. We did some customer surveys and finally decided not to relax the dress code, but to have 'casual Fridays' where we could wear slacks and a company polo shirt. At events outside work (but related to work, like annual meetings) we still had to observe dress code. Where I work now, the developers dress casually and the sales people dress in suits or business casual clothes. I sometimes feel weird sitting in all-staff meetings with my sweater and jeans, but I'm still taken just as seriously as the sales or marketing guys. I think developers have pioneered the relaxed look as a sort of 'uniform.' Interesting stuff.

Fri 28 Mar 16:35 | Anonymous | I have an immediate negative reaction to the Mayo waiting room. I expect a hospital to be white. Sure, there's no health-related reason for white, but so what. You break the convention and you leave me unsettled.

Fri 28 Mar 17:35 | Lyle Kantrovich | I think it's worth noting that Mayo is a premiere clinic - world leaders go to Mayo for serious health problems. Their doctors are the most special of specialists. My assumption is that most people going to Mayo have already been to a bunch of standard 'white' hospitals and clinics that look sterile. One attribute of Mayo's brand might be that they are different - that they care and listen more. If they had a 'standard' white waiting room, people would expect the same kind of experience they've had at other facilities - usually those other facilities haven't been able to answer the patient's questions (e.g. what have you got?) or to solve their health problem. I'd guess Mayo wants people to enter their facility and think 'maybe at this place it'll be different.'

Sun 30 Mar 10:58 | Anonymous | ...or is shatters their confidence in the Mayo name and they wonder, 'What have I gotten myself into? Who are these clowns?'

Become a Cross-platform Wireless UI Expert | Sat 29 Mar

(DevX) Writing a user interface for your app that runs on all of todays mobile devices can be a huge challenge. Among the things you need to consider: diverse appearances, functionality, memory, screen real estate, and persistent storage availability. This article describes the many pitfalls of developing a user interface for diverse devices and tells you how to devise a plan that will save you time and headaches.

Sat 29 Mar 17:05 | MadMan | Also why the 'write once run anywhere' dream of Java isn't such a great idea. You need different interfaces for different devices.

Simplifying Lotus Product Names | Fri 28 Mar

The new names should facilitate faster recognition of what a product is, so more attention can be focused on the value it brings to customers.

Fri 28 Mar 20:24 | daniel szuc | Anything that makes the buying decision easier is a good thing ... especially with so much choice and information available. See the buying decisions moving slowly from the IT areas of the company to the business and anyone making it easier for the business or product people to understand a new product will win in the long term.

Fri 28 Mar 23:31 | Anonymous | It's always nice when IT companies embrace actual information.

Microsoft chokes Hotmail to stop spam | Fri 28 Mar

(ZDNet) Microsofts MSN Hotmail, a free Web-based e-mail service, has tightened restrictions on daily outbound messages sent by subscribers, a tactic it says will help curb spam. (Comments: Thanks Ronnie Cooke.)

Fri 28 Mar 13:24 | Lydia | I especially like the guy who was moaning about having to split up his emails for his newsletter because of the new cap on the number of emails that can go out in a day. Is he aware he's using a free service? Personally, I think a limit is a good idea. Yahoo spam filters work really well (for me, at least), and if they have a similar measure in place already, perhaps that is the key to why.

Fri 28 Mar 20:27 | daniel szuc | Look forward to seeing an operating system that comes with a security tool that auto updates against virus and spam protection. Perhaps Longhorn? I would be happy to pay a little extra to have this included in a new OS purchase without having to hunt around for extra add ons.

How to get in touch with Dave | Fri 28 Mar

The way to reach Dave is to write him a letter, using the U.S. Disgruntled Postal Worker Service.

Fri 28 Mar 13:41 | Lydia | E-mail is just too easy to do. I hear all the time that if you want to make an impact, write a 'real' letter because it shows that you put more effort into the task.

Fri 28 Mar 14:38 | Anonymous | One of our local news affiliates just ran a story last night about a man finding a frog in a can of peas...that Dave Barry is simply amazing!

Fri 28 Mar 16:34 | Anonymous | If time is the issue, simply write really long e-mails so that you can impress the recipient with the amount of time you devoted to the task.

WebWord Comment | Wed 26 Mar

Im giving presentation tomorrow to some Systems Science Engineering students at Binghamton University: A Brief Review of Usability (520K PowerPoint). I whipped it up in about an hour. It could be much better; shame on me (dont blame Dan Sloat). The download will only be available for about a week.

Thu 27 Mar 23:30 | daniel szuc | Like the psychological test ... great! Thanks John.

Study: Spell-check makes writing worse | Tue 25 Mar

(Salon) The study found the software helped students find and correct errors in the letter, but in some cases they also changed phrases or sentences flagged by the software as grammatically suspicious, even though they were correct. (Comments: Thanks MadMan.)

Wed 26 Mar 16:15 | Matt Round | The first thing I do after installing Word (if it was up to me I'd never touch it) is switch off 'Check spelling as you type', 'Check grammar as you type' and most of AutoCorrect. Having multi-coloured squiggly underlines all over the place is too distracting, particularly when they're highlighting perfectly valid text.

Wed 26 Mar 16:40 | Lydia | I can see doing a spell-check as a way to reduce work, but it is not a substitute for carefully checking the document yourself, since it can easily overlook words that are spelled correctly but used incorrectly. I would be more likely to rely solely on a spell checker for something personal, such as a website post or an e-mail, where it isn't critical if I make a few word-usage mistakes. Critical writing would require a personal double-check. I have noticed the way grammar checkers can degrade writing if the writer isn't confident that he/she is putting sentences together well. Most good writers I know never go near the things.

Wed 26 Mar 23:57 | Morris Cox | I remember one instance about 9 years ago when I was in the English Lab working on something for my English class (which I never passed). They only had Macs and I decided to try the grammar checker to see what it would say (no pun intended). It proclaimed a certain line to be incorrect, though I knew it was perfectly fine. I let it change the line and it promptly flagged that line as being incorrect!!! It had put that line in itself! I clicked on Correct and it went back to the original line that has been there and reflagged it as being incorrect. This loop went back and forth till I got tired of it and clicked Cancel. I've had no respect for grammar checkers since then.

Thu 27 Mar 22:55 | Anonymous | I disable all of Word's auto-correction settings. Too often they 'fix' things that are not broken. Plus, things like 'smart quotes' don't convert when copying & pasting text into my web editor. I do like the red underlining of misspelled words and feel it has vastly improved my spelling over time.

US Patent 6,004,596 | Thu 27 Mar

A sealed crustless sandwich for providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly. The sandwich includes a lower bread portion, an upper bread portion, an upper filling and a lower filling between the lower and upper bread portions, a center filling sealed between the upper and lower fillings, and a crimped edge along an outer perimeter of the bread portions for sealing the fillings therebetween. The upper and lower fillings are preferably comprised of peanut butter and the center filling is comprised of at least jelly. (MadMan comments: In other words, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Anyone want to patent a hamburger? Think of how much you could charge McDonalds in royalties.)

Thu 27 Mar 10:43 | Francis Wu | I guess selling quick diets and get-rich-quick schemes through telemarketing and spam didn't quite work out for this guy.

Thu 27 Mar 12:17 | Wallace | Smuckers has a product called 'Crustables'. They are self-contained PB+J sandwiches. They are good for a no-hassle snack for the kiddies. I would patent it if I thought of it, its a great idea. I am sure there is a patent on HotPockets as well. Although, it's interesting to see that this guy either sold/licensed his idea to Smuckers or they just stole it. New to the list. Great so far :)

Thu 27 Mar 16:52 | MadMan | This is what Wallace is talking about. (I come from a land that doesn't know Smuckers)

Thu 27 Mar 18:20 | Lydia | I can't imagine this tasting as good as a freshly prepared pb&j sandwich. You can get crustless bread nowadays, and you don't even have to stir the peanut butter before spreading it. Still, I'm intrigued and want to try it. I'm such a sucker for marketing.

WebWord Comment | Tue 25 Mar

Click on the Permanent Link below.

Tue 25 Mar 22:42 | John S. Rhodes | Here is an email (spam?) that was forwarded to me. Read it, and then read my ramblings, if you want. Take a look at the note below - if you go to www.google.com and type in your telephone number it will actually pull up directions to your house - there is a way to have your number removed. Many people are unaware of this danger. I was, in fact! Go to www.google.com then type in your phone number (separated by hyphens, including area code) and click on Google Search. If your phone number is listed it will show your name and address and give you two map options. Yahoo and MapQuest. See how accurate the map is to your home. VERY SCARY!!! Any person wishing to discover the physical location of a phone number, be it a home or business address, could use this feature to locate a physical street address, and receive directions on how to get there from anywhere in the country. In the age of the internet communication we all know the dangers of this - for adults and CHILDREN! Google has made available an option that will allow anyone to REMOVE their telephone number from the database that is linked to the mapping feature. You will first need to check if your number is listed in this manner by attempting a search-entering your full telephone number separated by dashes (e.g. 555-555-5555). If the number appears in the mapping database, an icon resembling a telephone will appear next to the first or second entry on the results page. Clicking on this icon will take you to a page containing a description of the service, and a link to request your number be removed from the database. So far unlisted numbers and cell phone numbers, do not show up. Happy searching! Be safe! I decided to reply to the person who sent it to me. The body of my email is immediately below. I admit that my thoughts aren't completely logical, but I wanted to see what other people thought. My response: Without going into details and offering a strong argument, I would say that I have pretty much given up on the idea of privacy. Given what I know about technology, what I have read about privacy, and what have seen regarding actions taken by the government since 9/11, I have no sense of privacy. I've decided to accept the fact that nearly anything I say or do is being captured and could be used against me. (Not *could* be captured but *is* captured.) This is a cynical point of view, but I just don't feel like I have all that much privacy. When you think of the number of times you are captured on video each day, you'll see what I mean: gas stations, banks, ATMs, retail stores, schools, and much more. And, basically every web page you've been to has been stored some place. There is always a trail. If you are doing something with electronic technology (email, web, phone, cell phone, television, credit card, etc.) it is being captured. Often the data is purged or eliminated as being useless, but much of it is not. When you add the online databases and search engines to the mix, privacy becomes a joke. Note: There are articles on 'Googling', which is basically what has been described below in your email. Here is a good definition: http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci799367,00.html The erosion of privacy will continue. There is nothing stopping this from happening. In fact, it will probably accelerate. Most people are willing to trade convenience for privacy. Most people are willing to trade security for privacy. That's a scary proposition, but ask most people and they will confirm what I have said. If nothing else, it is clear that laws are being pushed through the system every month that reduce privacy. Despite our tough stance as a nation on the war, I actually feel that the U.S. is becoming more and more hollow. Too often we are gutless. When it comes to privacy, people are not taking a stand. In fact, quite the opposite. We shrink from privacy as if it is a bad thing! Something of shame, that we want privacy. We let it go without even a whisper. We give it up because it means we can pump cheaper gas and eat cheeseburgers on the run. I have a friend who has taken an interesting position on privacy, particularly related to pornography. He openly says that he likes pornography and downloads it all of the time. I asked him why he is so shameless about it and he says that by saying he likes pornography no one can ever use it against him. He's right. No one can blackmail him. It might make some people recoil, but his honesty is so interesting when you think about privacy and what it means to different people. Enough rambling! - John

Wed 26 Mar 00:45 | Anonymous | Yes, and to complete the erosion of privacy, we should do away with anonymous postings on web sites.

Wed 26 Mar 09:00 | Anonymous | I live in Canada and tried it, both narrowing my search to Canada and then not. Didn't find any entries. Which means I'm spared ...for now.

Wed 26 Mar 09:18 | Francis Wu | Yeah, privacy isn't what it used to be. However, while everybody's complaining about lack of privacy, I believe that this lack of privacy can serve me, the user. Take cookies the misunderstood cookies, for instance. It's great that a site remembers my customized settings. Or, the LG fridge that can place orders for you as soon as it knows you're low on Cheese Whiz. To me, it comes down to usability. A system's knowledge of the user is directly proportional to its potential usability. So I think there are two sides to this privacy coin and people are mixing'em up. Sure, it's good when private information is actually used to improve our lives, but when it's used intrusively, then that's where I draw the line.

Wed 26 Mar 12:12 | JB | So far...so safe! Is this legit or is it one of those urban legend emails?

Wed 26 Mar 12:18 | JB | I tested it on a co-workers phone number and this is scary! It will ge to the stage one day when you can enter a cell phone number on Google and this will link to a mapping function so you know where the person is at any time as they are speaking to you or anyone else.

Wed 26 Mar 13:01 | Anonymous | The only people concerned about privacy are people who have things to keep private.

Wed 26 Mar 15:10 | Annoying Puff Cat | 'The only people concerned about privacy are people who have things to keep private.' 1. Is that why you post things anoymously? Your statement is made to make people feel bad about wanting privacy. Yet you obviously want privacy. What are you hiding Craig Colostomy? 2. I like deep fried twinkies!

Wed 26 Mar 16:23 | Lydia | Aw, jeez - that was just scary, APC. What's next, deep fried fat?

Thu 27 Mar 00:54 | Lyle Kantrovich | The plenary speaker at CHI 2002 (author David Brin) gave an interesting talk related to privacy - basically he asserted that once nothing is private then we don't have to worry. I wrote a report on CHI 2002 for Boxes and Arrows that covers Brin's talk. In Brin's future of ultimate transparency, you'd only have to worry about what IS kept private. He fears the 'big brother' type watchers who you can't watch. I suppose it'd be sort of like if everyone was walking around naked - it wouldn't be a big deal to see someone nude. I suppose then it would just take the mere mention of a cumberbund to make people blush. :)

Thu 27 Mar 09:01 | Boyink | I fail to see how Google is taking away privacy by this functionality. Phone numbers, reverse lookups, and city maps have been publically available for years. Google is just stringing them together from a search engine.

The Tyranny of Evaluation | Wed 26 Mar

(Media Lab) I hate to break the news to some of you, but user interface design is, in no small part, art, as much as it is science or engineering. Thats not a bad thing. It doesnt mean that we shouldnt ask scientific and engineering questions about our interfaces, just that they are not the whole story.

Wed 26 Mar 23:32 | daniel szuc | IMHO some testing with customers is better than none. Doing it more of the time with a bigger range of users would also be nice ... but many businesses don't allow for it to happen :(

Usability Myths Need Reality Checks | Mon 24 Mar

You have undoubtedly heard that users give up because pages take too long to download. This is also a myth. Testing shows no correlation between page download time and users giving up. How does this myth continue to defy gravity? (Comments: Usability Testing: Myths, Misconceptions and Misuses, Debunking the myths of UI design, A Collection of Usability Myths and Maxims, Linux Usability Myths, Top 5 Most Common Myths About Usability)

Tue 25 Mar 00:21 | Lyle Kantrovich | Awesome collection of links - thanks!

Tue 25 Mar 01:33 | Anonymous | Another myth to add to that list: 1) Jared Spool and UIE understand what usability means Yes, it's a myth. :)

Tue 25 Mar 05:55 | Mac | You only need to test with 5 users. I have 'discovered' the formula for proving how many users you need to test with, in a particular situation: NUMBER_OF_USERS_TO_TEST = (BUDGET / NUMBER_OF_ITERATIONS) COST_PER_USER NUMBER_OF_TEST_ITERATIONS = 5 COST_PER_USER_TEST = 1,000 BUDGET = 10,000 x = (10,000 / 5) / 1,000 x = 2 You can change the number of iterations to 3 and then have 3.3 users x = (10,000 / 3) / 1,000 x = 3.3 If you are analysing real time usage automatically, your cost per user will go down and you can dramatically increase the number of users involved to 1,000. NUMBER_OF_TEST_ITERATIONS = 5 COST_PER_USER_TEST = 2 BUDGET = 10,000 x = (10,000 / 5) / 2 x = 1,000 As a simple rule of thumb, the more you charge for usability testing, the smaller the group of users. If you are using 5 or less users then you are 'Doing a Nielsen'. If you are using between 10 and 20 users then you have 'Hit the Spool'.

Tue 25 Mar 05:57 | Mac | Should have been: NUMBER_OF_USERS_TO_TEST = (BUDGET / NUMBER_OF_ITERATIONS) / COST_PER_USER

Tue 25 Mar 06:02 | Mac | Should have been: NUMBER_OF_USERS_TO_TEST = (BUDGET / NUMBER_OF_ITERATIONS) / COST_PER_USER

Tue 25 Mar 08:55 | Frank Lynch | Users may not bail out if a page is slow to download, but I suspect that slow download discourages further clicking. It's a bad experience, and users are in constant trade-offs... I thought there was a good POV (untested) on this at shorewalker.com, but I can't find it now... Basically, the idea is that a long download time makes a user more hesitant to click other links. It stands to reason, and I have heard it come up spontaneously in focus groups.

Tue 25 Mar 08:58 | Darin | Does he take into account that users won't give up because pages take too long to download and that users won't leave a site if they don't find what they want after three clicks, is because they're performing a test in a testing environment? I know if I were testing a site, whether in a testing facility or in my house on my own time, I'd probably wait longer for the page to download or click through a few more links to find what I'm supposed to find because it's a test and there's an expectation to complete the test.

Tue 25 Mar 09:06 | Kevin | The nice things about these myths are that, as long as they are believed, they will encourage web developers to create smaller, more efficient pages, better navigation schemes and more content-driven sites. If a site is the only source for certain data, I'm sure that users would wait for long downloads and deep navigation schemes. But it doesn't enhance the user experience

Tue 25 Mar 09:53 | Frank Lynch | Darin, what you're suggesting is something that can be verified by looking at log files. If users bail out, one should see less click-through to deeper pages when a page is heavier, and more when it's lightened. Your query reminded me that Nielsen cites results from Claire Amundsen's (?) personal experience as a web master. It's in Nielsen's book 'Designing Web Usability : The Practice of Simplicity.' (Sorry, my copy is many floors away, and I can't provide the page reference.) Amundsen improved download speed by condensing graphics; there were no other changes to the pages. In examining pre-post log files, she saw substantially improved click-through. Nielsen himself has had a challenge out there (SFAIK not accepted or results published, but maybe I'm wrong) suggesting that companies experiment with the impact by degrading the download time using a script, and measuring the impact on deeper click-through.

Tue 25 Mar 11:41 | Ron Zeno | To differentiate between myth and reality, first we must impose minimal standards of research quality. UIE is unable to hold themselves to even the standards of a high school science fair, so they have absolutely no credibility from my perspective. Worse, few in the usability community seem to care. Guess everyone prefers myths to reality.

Tue 25 Mar 12:22 | Francis Wu | Like all things Nielsen, it all depends. I think it depends on the content. If it's exclusive (can't be found anywhere else), then of course a user is gonna wait it out. However, if the content is a dime a dozen (info on a particular CD or movie), then of course a user's gonna switch. I think it also depends on the user's level of browsing experience 'cause an experienced user (such as I) may open a new window and try to find the same information on two different sites simultaneously. So yeah... it all depends...

Tue 25 Mar 12:37 | Frank Lynch | Just as an aside, an additional cost associated with uncompressed images is in the bandwidth. One service I used to use (OptiView) would calculate the savings dollars associated with compressing any single graphic, based on your input of hits and bandwidth costs. I always found the service wonderfully simple to use, and dollars are something marketing people can understand.

Tue 25 Mar 12:44 | MadMan | Darin's point is an important one. A testing environment doesn't necessarily mirror everyday typical use. If I'm in a usability test, what do I do after closing the browser? It's not my PC. I don't have a sales meeting to go to. I don't have any emails to read. Let me tell you a personal example. As I type this, I have at least 10 browser windows open for reading various things. OK, I may not be your average surfer. But I also have an email client which keeps receiving mail. I have an instant messenger where I'm chatting with a friend from USA. If some site loads too slowly, I'll close it and either read the rest of my emails, read the other open browser windows, or type more messages to my friend on Yahoo messenger. In a usability lab, what else is there for me to do? I'll have to grin and bear it. Another thing that these tests don't account for is the anticipation factor. For instance, John links to some story and says, 'Great article'. I just became more eager to read it. I'll wait a little longer for it to load if required. On the other hand, if I followed a link from some site's main page, I might be less inclined to wait. Put me in a usability lab and say, 'read this', and I'll not be terribly interested in it. But again, what do I do next if I don't wait for the page to load? Check my email? I also want to know HOW UIE conducted these tests, what sites they used, what profiles they used for tested users, and what instructions they gave them. Otherwise, it's just a 'because I say so' rule.

Tue 25 Mar 12:55 | MadMan | Damn, forgot to add this too. Another thing that bugs me is when these companies make extremely generalised statements like 'users don't do xyz'. Who are these users? Is my father the same user as I am? Is John Rhodes the same type of user that Ron Zeno is? Surely extrapolating alleged research to the millions of people worldwide who use the Net is a bit stupid? Ditto with sites. Don't tell me ALL sites are identical in the way people interact with them and react to them. If you're going to state a research finding, you should specify what kind of users you tested, and which sites you tested. And even then, it's not particularly reliable. Just because people didn't do [xyz] at Amazon.com doesn't mean they won't do it at BarnesAndNoble.com I repeat: it is not safe to extrapolate research data from certain sites and apply it to your own without questioning it. BTW, all this article says is 'You've heard of this guideline? Well, it's a myth. Don't listen to that guru; listen to us.' Why? How? Who knows? Hmmm... maybe Jared Spoof (comment #2) has a point. :)

Tue 25 Mar 13:35 | Lydia | I much prefer pre-project research where I can sit with a user in their own environment and observe their daily activity. The behavior of someone in this environment is so different from what I have encountered in arranged testing of a working program. Paid testers, especially, have an unusual amount of patience and will try to do their best to give you your money's worth while they are testing your application. Therefore, I find that traditional usability testing gives me excellent feedback as far as the impression of the product, the feel of it, and the high-level usage, but I never expect to uncover everything or even get much beneath the first couple of layers. (Perhaps this is why I am continually amazed at what I find, and things seem so interesting!) Whenever possible (and this has been regrettably sparse) I try to go observe usage in the user's environment when it is released. As for the 'myth' of users giving up due to long download times? I see this a lot, but it is usually in situations where the user is going to a website that they are not incentivized to visit; they are just checking it out. If it takes a long time to load, it's just as easy to close the browser. If they are going to their favorite clothing store to order something or going to their banking site to look at their account, though, they'll wait. If I had to make a stab at numbers from my observations, the amount of time spent on an 'unproven' site is approximately 10 seconds and the time spent waiting for a 'proven' site is 30 seconds to a minute. None of it is scientific, but why not go with my figures? They're just as good. ;)

Tue 25 Mar 13:46 | MadMan | Lydia, you used a word like 'incentivized'. Congratulations, you just became eligible for management. :) None of it is scientific, but why not go with my figures? They're just as good. I hereby appoint you CEO of User Interface Engineering.

Tue 25 Mar 15:08 | Lydia | I thought you'd like that one, MadMan. ;) I think my first act as CEO will be to appoint a 'Secretary of Interface Dogma' who will sit around and make up things to brainwash new recruits with. And we will post inspriational messages about the office that say things like 'Remember: Three Clicks!' and 'The Formula is Your Friend' and 'Good Rules make for Good Usability' My first column in the employee newsletter will be about how to get programmers off your back when they want to make one of their 'suggestions.' Everyone knows they don't know usability and wouldn't have anything useful to say. Oh, and during 'Free Lunch Friday' everyone will be expected to review the latest Alertbox. There will be a quiz on Monday. [Yes, I am joking. I post this disclaimer in case the sarcasm isn't traveling well over the ether.]

Tue 25 Mar 17:13 | Lydia | Oops, that should be 'inspirational'!

Tue 25 Mar 17:41 | Morris Cox | Shades of Dilbert.

Tue 25 Mar 20:42 | daniel szuc | The WHAT to test is particularly important given that most projects have aggressive timelines - this perhaps can be broken down into 1. Critical tasks 2. Number of users and 3. Impact on business. This is all closely related to understanding NOT just the user needs but balancing this with the BUSINESS needs as well :) i.e. How does the business measure the ROI?

Tue 25 Mar 21:21 | daniel szuc | Also a fan of breaking 'Usability Testing' into as many chunks as the Customer can afford. Test with 5-8 and then re-test to note iterative improvements. This also allows the 'development team' to see if they can make changes on the go rather than at the very end. All very good reads - thanks John!

Tue 25 Mar 23:34 | Lyle Kantrovich | I think there's a grain of truth in many of the 'myths' or maxims: - 3 clicks => all things being equal, fewer clicks are better (although sometimes one click might be too few - for example: 'click here to stop your pacemaker') - 5 users => you have to stop testing at some point due to diminishing returns - UIE's thousands of users theory (5 isn't enough) => there are lots more problems to find if you just keep looking, oh and lots of goals and users you didn't design for either The fact is that people blindly follow maxims too much. If you tested with 5 users and saw no duplication of issues found in test sessions, then you should realize that you didn't find your '70%' of isses - you've just dipped your toe into a quagmire of crappy usability. Misapplication of Nielsen's 5 users maxim isn't Nielsen's fault -- it's the practitioner's. Is UIE saying to test at least 200 users? - I don't think so. Lord knows prioritizing findings from a small qualitative study takes long enough. I can't imagine spending weeks and weeks sorting through thousands of usability issues - and I also know most companies can't afford to pay for that level of scrutiny, let alone pay to implement the actual fixes. Also, for those of you bashing UIE, let me just say that I sometimes have questions about their research, and I've given some suggestions to Jared in the past. I think they can do a better job of explaining their methodology - sometimes it feels like qualitative research presented as quantitative research. Having said that... There is clearly a huge need for more basic research. I'm glad UIE and others are trying to provide at least some research. If you don't like their findings, then go disprove them with your own studies. BUT, if you won't disprove their research, then all you have is a THEORY - and how is that any more reliable than qualitative research? We need more verifiable published research, but recognize that just because you don't like someone's methods, reporting style or whatever, doesn't mean their findings are necessarily inaccurate.

Wed 26 Mar 10:08 | Ron Zeno | I'm glad UIE and others are trying to provide at least some research. If you don't like their findings, then go disprove them with your own studies. No need when those in question cannot conduct valid research. As I said, UIE is unable to hold themselves to even the standards of a high school science fair. If researchers cannot work to the standards of at least a Master's thesis, then it's junk. UIE publishes junk: Evolution Trumps Usability Guidelines - Shows they don't understand how to choose a valid hypothesis. (My comments) Testing Web Sites: Five Users Is Nowhere Near Enough - Shows they don't understand the consequences of variables in a study, and that at least some CHI reviewers don't either. Their book is far worse: Book Review: Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide

Wed 26 Mar 15:16 | MadMan | I don't have to be a chef (which I am, incidentally) to know when the fish at a restaurant is past its prime. If you don't like their findings, then go disprove them with your own studies Lyle, what you're saying is a logical fallacy: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. In plain English, I don't have to prove you're wrong; you have to prove you're right. if you won't disprove their research, then all you have is a THEORY - and how is that any more reliable than qualitative research? I'm not advancing any theories at all. I'm merely questioning their research methods. As I have said in my earlier comments... The article makes an assertion: You have undoubtedly heard that users give up because pages take too long to download. This is also a myth. Testing shows no correlation between page download time and users giving up. And why is it a myth? No idea. The article sure doesn't tell me squat. Is it a myth because they say it's a myth? These tests... did they account for any of the factors I and others have mentioned in our earlier comments? but recognize that just because you don't like someone's methods, reporting style or whatever, doesn't mean their findings are necessarily inaccurate Actually if their research methods are questionable, their findings are probably more likely to be inaccurate. Lastly, I'm not the type to conduct specific research with specific user profiles on specific sites and then use that to make general guidelines for all sites and users. Or do you still believe users don't read on the Web?

Episode One: Alert Level Orange | Tue 25 Mar

Whats your school doing to protect my daughter from terrorism?

Wed 26 Mar 00:25 | Anonymous | (Comments: Thanks ...)

Wed 26 Mar 11:07 | Anonymous | With a name like Sleestack, you don't get no respect. Thank you. Thank you.

Web Page Analyzer | Mon 24 Mar

Enter a URL below to calculate page size and download time. The script sizes each individual element and finds the total for each type of web page component. Based on these page characteristics the script then offers advice on how to improve your page download and display time.

Mon 24 Mar 23:23 | John S. Rhodes | Just for giggles, I dropped the site into itself. It only gave itself one caution: 'CSS_SIZE - Caution. The total size of your internal and external CSS is 1892 bytes, which is above 1160 bytes and less than 4K. Consider optimizing your CSS and eliminating features to reduce this to a more reasonable size.'

Tue 25 Mar 02:21 | MadMan | Giggle, giggle. :p

Tue 25 Mar 03:03 | Chi Lambda | I was looking for something like this. It's nice. But it doesn't take into account images used as backgrounds in a table cell.

Tue 25 Mar 08:41 | Frank Lynch | I'm familiar with these types of services, but have found that NetMechanic's html check is superior. It provides all the same download statistics, but in addition to providing you with the bytes for each image, also displays potential byte savings from condensing graphics more. (It also displays code lines where height and width parameters are missing...)

Tue 25 Mar 13:54 | Morris Cox | I notice that the load times between it and NetMechanic are quite different. I get 1.23 seconds at 56K with it, whereas with NetMechanice I get 3.24 seconds at 56K. I do find it a somewhat useful and handy tool, though somewhat odd that it suggests that images be less than 1160 bytes each.

Wed 26 Mar 00:00 | Anonymous | The analyzer does not respect Robots.txt unlike Netmechanic's tool.

How Do People Evaluate a Web Site's Credibility? | Sun 23 Mar

When evaluating the credibility of a Web site, participants commented on the design look of the site more often than any other Web site feature, with 46.1% of the comments addressing the design look in some way. When coding for comments on design look, researchers included comments on many elements of the visual design, including layout, typography, white space, images, color schemes, and so on. (Comments: Thanks Daniel Szuc.)

Tue 25 Mar 13:28 | boysen | Very worthwhile link. Thanks Daniel and John.

Tue 25 Mar 19:54 | daniel szuc | Thanks boysen :)

Eve of destruction | Wed 19 Mar

That this war, like Bushs larger war on terrorism, has no clear definition of its aims, its scope or its foes and that such a war has no end in sight and can have no victory. (Comments: Thats the point. Bush doesnt want a clear ending. The presidents real goal in Iraq)

Tue 25 Mar 14:45 | boysen | By the wave upon wave of anti-war speech, you're (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) now being perceived as anti-West.

The Arrogant Empire | Mon 17 Mar

(MSNBC) By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

Tue 25 Mar 13:02 | boysen | Mac, would you once the evidence comes out showing Saddam's ties to Al Queda and those WMD that he says he doesn't have? I'm just asking...

Ease of Use/PC Quality Roundtable | Sun 23 Mar

The Ease of Use/PC Quality Roundtable was started in August 1998 in response to data suggesting that Ease of Use was the number two reason that potential new buyers were not buying PCs. The participating companies include representatives from the following: desktop and mobile PC OEMs, server OEMs, IT-solutions providers, peripherals providers, communications equipment OEMs. (Comments: Thanks Daniel Szuc.)

Tue 25 Mar 12:46 | Francis Wu | Will someone please please please make a quiet PC, where the cooling fans won't keep you awake at night, where the HD doesn't sound like crippled crickets, and where the CD-ROM doesn't sound like it's gonna take off like a jet?

WebWord Comment | Sun 23 Mar

Someone told me this was sexy. Note: Not sexy like sexual intercourse but sexy like cool and interesting. Wink, wink.

Mon 24 Mar 00:31 | Anonymous | I hate to say it, but he should have launched his site into a new window. If he's not going to use a fluid layout, he's prone to making incorrect assumptions about my window width. If I have to fiddle with basic browser controls to correctly view a web page, I question the mindset behind the company or designer.

Mon 24 Mar 11:00 | Alex Volkow | no, indeed, it's not too sexy. A little sleek, but definitely not sexy. Yeah. Jelly letters? Sexy? Hmmph.

Mon 24 Mar 11:29 | mcw | So I hit the link, watch for a bit, and hit the back button to get out. No joy. Hit it again & more.... can't get back to where I was. What's 'usable' about that? Sites that capture your browser window and won't give it back suck.

Mon 24 Mar 12:56 | John S. Rhodes | Sites that capture your browser window and won't give it back suck. I agree!!

Mon 24 Mar 13:36 | Anonymous | Phase 1: Capture browser windows. Phase 2: Phase 3: Profit!

Mon 24 Mar 13:55 | John | I don't understand. It doesn't capture my Netscape 7. Buttons are pretty annoying.

Mon 24 Mar 19:27 | Julia Motte | I find the web site extremely disturbing.

Mon 24 Mar 20:09 | Gerald | not sexy, not really cool - flash is a form of time robbery and in terms of usability it's a paradigm disruption.

Mon 24 Mar 21:31 | Anonymous | ... and I find 433K to be distiurbing ! http://www.eden-designs.com/phobia/mottephobia.html Pfffft !

Tue 25 Mar 00:16 | Anonymous | Why was the thumping love button splash screen not linked to?

WebWord Comment | Thu 20 Mar

The McDonalds Wireless web site is so nasty! Graphics used for text, mystery meat navigation, bizarre use of fonts, and more.

Mon 24 Mar 11:33 | mcw | The site is so - so . I am intrigued by the idea of using the scratch-off cards to provide time-limited access to their service. Is this an economical and easy to use model that other service providers could adopt? It's sort of like buying long distance phone charge cards. Maybe this method can break through some of the barriers to paid WiFi access. I'd rather do this than have accounts with multiple providers for when I'm going through airports and so on.

Mon 24 Mar 15:56 | Lydia | I didn't see the mystery meat navigation on the first page. Did it change, or did I miss something? This looks like a first stab at something so they can test it in a small market. Perhaps it will be updated?

37BetterGoogle | Fri 21 Mar

(37Signals) Our idea for 37BetterGoogle was to go beyond Google’s standard search and offer alternatives based on the words you originally entered. (MadMan comments: How does knowing the number of results tell you anything about whether those results are relevant? Is 7821 results better than 5479 results?)

Mon 24 Mar 15:42 | Lydia | I wish I could remember where I read this, but I thought I had heard that Google had something like this in the works? I think I was reading an article on their internal system for gathering feedback from employees for new feature development. It was talking about how they recognize employee contributions even when they didn't have the technology/time to build out a really great idea. It seems like a logical outgrowth of the user-assistant features they have now. It's funny, but it works so well as a spell-checker and thesaurus that I probably only actively search on about 40% of my visits in a day.

Mon 24 Mar 15:47 | Frank Lynch | I understand the concept, I appreciate the concept, but I don't like the execution. In each of these examples, one has to choose within a specific search expression where they only vary in their grammatic construction. Think about what would happen when you click on any of the sublists which are (hypothetically) provided — the user would go to the first-ranked google result in that specific expression's subset. Whether or not this subset has the most listings is somewhat irrelevant. To me, a far more preferable execution would be for google to construct a search string based on 'OR' strings; ranks set up by the interlinkages of any of those terms. Users would not have to choose between subsets... Or, for those who think the combinations could occasionally be so important that it should not be automated, offer check-boxes of related phrases to include in the search terms. (Now that I think about it, google labs was testing an algorithm which would suggest related terms, which could ostensibly be used to round out a search.)

Wrox bankrupt? | Sun 23 Mar

In a rush to get books out, they often had four, ten, even fifteen authors on each book. Editing appeared to be non-existent. The books were terrible even when each author tried their hardest.

Mon 24 Mar 15:35 | Lydia | Interesting. I thought it was just me that felt kind of creeped out by those covers. My local book store stacks those books facing forward, too. It isn't so much that they don't look like Mel Gibson, it's that the obviously unprofessional photography and the size of the photot makes the books look cheap. Plus, it seems like a few guys writing books in their spare time, which doesn't bespeak 'quality' to me. I never like to hear about a company (even a parent company) going bankrupt, but it might be a shot in the arm for them.