Clearly, I’m indebted to Tim Berners-Lee. Without him, I may be doing something entirely different for a living.
However, although I agree with most of his latest article over at Scientific American (certainly the aspects regarding totalitarian governments) I’m a little surprised at some of the apparent contradictions. For example, he states:
The Web evolved into a powerful, ubiquitous tool because it was built on egalitarian principles and because thousands of individuals, universities and companies have worked, both independently and together as part of the World Wide Web Consortium, to expand its capabilities based on those principles.
And goes on to say:
Large social-networking sites are walling off information posted by their users from the rest of the Web.
Hang on a minute, surely every user has a right to protect their own privacy? Surely it’s an implicit “egalitarian” majority decision that this should be the case? Facebook for example allows users to make vast amounts of personal information available to the world at large, but most people choose not to. It’s almost like saying, back when homes were invented, it was a mistake to include a lockable door.
Also, he seems to think that the web would’ve advanced as far as it has without being partially driven by commercial opportunities.
Apple’s iTunes system, for example, identifies songs and videos using URIs that are open. But instead of “http:” the addresses begin with “itunes:,” which is proprietary. You can access an “itunes:” link only using Apple’s proprietary iTunes program. You can’t make a link to any information in the iTunes world—a song or information about a band. You can’t send that link to someone else to see. You are no longer on the Web. The iTunes world is centralized and walled off. You are trapped in a single store, rather than being on the open marketplace. For all the store’s wonderful features, its evolution is limited to what one company thinks up.
Unsurprisingly, when an organisation creates amazing technology, they don’t often wish to allow everyone to share in their rewards. Although, what he overlooks is the fact that Apple encourage the development of apps and a whole community of developers has arisen off the back of it.
Tim also makes a point regarding monopolies and how they can inhibit fresh thinking. Well taking Apple as an example, surely without their commercial aims, we might not have an alternative to the PC.
And it’s not like there aren’t rivals to Google either.
Restrictive Governments aside, the web IS running on egalitarian principles. We chose to make it this way.
Internal politics make it virtually impossible to deliver a website which isn’t metaphorically riddled with personal agendas - right?
Not in my view. In fact, more and more I find myself agitated by the fact that an agency seemingly haven’t worked hard to find a common ground.
Having worked within a large Government department for several years myself, at one time I was the cause of a degree of “internal politics”. The reason was simple - I was biased towards my own area of work - which I was directly assessed against.
Large organisations almost always create a silo mentality by assessing staff on the quality of their performance within a specific remit. Needs must.
For an outsider, this can seem alien and frustrating as it appears that you’re up against a raft of contradictory perspectives. However, if you appreciate the reason why stakeholders have different viewpoints, they can actually be quite useful.
For example, speak to an equalities team and you’ll get a set of requirements which are focused on their own objectives. Another perspective if you speak to a section responsible for FOI requests. Another if you speak to comms etc… But rather than sigh and feel that noone is listening, try to involve the various stakeholders in specific and relevant elements of the project, whilst speaking to your lead contact about how you plan to engage with all of them.
Follow this up with rationale and fact-based recommendations throughout the build and you may be surprised at the amount of buy-in you achieve.
Every time I’ve deliberately dived in to the midst of internal politics rather than turning away, the issues associated with “design by committee” have never arisen.
Appreciate why people have different perspectives and involve them in a way whereby their bias can be beneficial.
Approaching, a member of staff in appropriately smart attire smiles and holds a potentially very weighty door open for you.
Upon entering, the first thing you notice is the temperature, which is decidedly warmer than outside (in my mind it’s Winter). It’s probably got those huge units above the door that blow warm air from above – go with me on this.
The flooring is comforting underfoot as you walk further in. You’re pleasantly surprised by the ease at which you can move around without fear of bumping in to someone. The products look incredible – just what you hoped to find, but better - and at a price you can afford.
You don’t directly notice the lighting which has been carefully positioned to improve the experience, but you do notice the intelligent decor which helps to create a sense of being truly comfortable.
In a nutshell, you’re very pleased and in no time at all you make your way to the counter clutching a number of products.
But sadly, from here it goes wrong. The assistant doesn’t look you in the eye and communicates using one syllable grunts. You’ve only got a Visa with you and the assistant simply states:
“We don’t take cards”.
This may sound ever so slightly spurious, but I relate the above tale to visiting a website with poor form validation. By this I mean that the website can offer users an aesthetically pleasing design, thoroughly considered information architecture and an excellent product offering, yet when you get to a critical point of interaction (completing a form) the error message just grunts:
I’ve just been reading an interesting article regarding “The Goldilocks Effect” over at UX Booth. In essence, it refers to how Goldilocks tried three bowls of porridge; the first and second being off the mark, the third “just right”.
Goldilocks’ scenario has become a metaphor regarding how we all generally choose a middle option when confronted with three choices (or a seemingly middle option when confronted with more). I’ve witnessed this during usability tests first hand and, on the face of it, the logic makes complete sense. Most of us will, without always realising, look for the middle ground. Cheap is too risky, whereas expensive, well, it’s expensive.
Some firms offering 3-4 options have made the decision-making even simpler by highlighting a “most popular”, which is usually the one they want to sell most of.
However, I don’t agree that this compulsion to find the middle ground is always the case and I personally often sway towards less popular options.
Two things to consider here, firstly, surely whether we choose a cheaper or more expensive option in contrast to the majority depends on a number of factors including where we fit on Maslows? And also how important/relevant the product or service is.
Secondly, there exists in most of us an ever-growing level of scepticism. We may automatically think, well they clearly want me to take the middle option because they generate more revenue from it, thus I’ll take one of the others!
I wonder if a better way of compelling a customer to select an option that you want them to take is to accompany that option with genuine customer feedback/ratings instead?
The desire to fit in is evident from an early age; from having the latest “must have” present at Christmas, to having the latest style of clothing. Can we honestly say that Nike Air Max trainers, with their inch of bubble and infinite stripes of laces, were really all they cracked up to be? You owned a pair didn’t you…
We all love to be loved. If we post something on Facebook and we get “likes” from those we know, it’s a pleasant surprise and said approval from your peers only further fuels the need for future kudos.
Facebook interestingly is a prime example of how social validation can be used to positive effect. By the simple and regular application of the “like” button, we can “like” everything that anyone does, without having to go to the actual trouble of reasoning as to why.
I can “like” a tv show. I can “like” a cheese sandwich. I can “like” a photo of my best friend in a witty scenario. However, I cannot so easily “dislike”, as the functionality doesn’t exist. To be derogatory, I have to go to the efforts of manually creating a comment to explain myself. And then there’s the possibility of a backlash from onlookers. In this context, Facebook have got it right, they’ve kept it positive.
There are times when negative feedback can be beneficial of course. On Trip Advisor, they’ve employed a star rating mechanism which is ideal as they’re impartial. However, if a woeful hotel were to employ the same technique on their own website, and everyone rated them poorly, nobody would book in (student backpackers excluded).
Social validation is a powerful mechanism, but it needs careful consideration. If it refers specifically to a product/service only you offer or a community-based website, it potentially needs to operate like a totalitarian regime.
Search is the user’s lifeline for mastering complex websites. The best designs offer a simple search box on the home page and play down advanced search and scoping.
[Jakob Nielsen - Search: Visible and Simple - 2001]
I totally appreciate that to not offer users a search facility (particularly on a large content-driven website) is asking for trouble.
In an ideal world, of course one would exist. However, what if it throws up confusing results due to a poor search algorithm and/or the amount of content that has been tagged/classified incorrectly.
Poor search results lead to serious frustration. Often a user will be presented with a set of less than relevant results, but as they have personally made a choice to search, they often click one. At some point they need to abandon this route and select another (sometimes returning to search and trying again because they feel that the poor results were due to their own error).
Surely, the answer is to improve the quality of the results? Well this may not always be achievable in the short term due to the infrastructure of the organisation. If there’s 100 plus content authors, then retraining is quite an onerous task in itself.
So in summary, if realistically a search can’t display decent results, it’s better to not have one at all in the short term and guide the user to down other routes to locate their content.
You are presented with 100 blenders. You choose one to purchase. Two weeks later, you hear that the blender you’ve selected has been voted best blender of 2010! Nice feeling eh.
Alternatively, if you’d selected one of the others and found out that the best blender of 2010 was actually cheaper that the one you bought, you feel a little daft. This is known as buyer’s regret.
We all crave choice. We love the supermarket. We like to feel that we’re confronted with all the options – we don’t want to miss out. However, we all have a fear of making the wrong decision. This concept manifests itself online in many ways.
For example, if you offer a user multiple routes to navigate to content, the user will hesitate before choosing one. This hesitation typically takes longer than if they had simply pursued one route and clicked the back button if they’d gone wrong.
Why do they do this? They don’t want to make what they perceive as a mistake. They don’t want to feel stupid.
Clearly, the most obvious way it manifests itself is when buying online. Let’s take Amazon as an example. Millions of products are available which satisfies our need for the widest possible choice. However, left to our own devices, we’d become almost unable to choose for fear of buyer’s regret. Amazon (and most leading ecommerce brands) get around this by narrowing the choice down immediately.
I search for a blender. I have over 500 results. I’m thinking that I’ll certainly be able to find the one I need from that lot. I’m also starting to think about choosing the wrong one (and the amount of time I’m going to need to make my decision).
Luckily… I’ve got a range of ways to narrow down my options. I can filter by price, by brand and even by popularity. I know I’ve got about £20 to spend, so I narrow on price and select the filter option of between £15 and £50.
Ah, now I’ve got 232 results which Amazon helpfully tells me. Still too many, so now I’ll customise my price range to £15 to £25. And I trust other buyers (most of us follow the pack), so I’ll narrow down based on customer reviews. I now have 20 options. My last action is to check the best-selling ones, so I order them by using the drop down.
And I see the one I want. The chances of making a wrong decision are now minimised. I am confident to purchase and feel quite satisfied that I’ve invested a little effort in narrowing down my choices.
Conclusion – for information-led interfaces, minimise choice. For ecommerce, typically maximise choice but allow the user to narrow over several stages.
I like cycling but I’m not obsessed with my bike. I know the basics of how it works – wheels, gears, brakes and that kind of thing, but I couldn’t tell you about every detail of its composition. Frankly, it doesn’t really interest me.
That’s why when I enter a bike shop and ask them to give my bike the once over, I feel a bit daunted. A bit stupid. When speaking to an expert in their field about a subject they’re passionate about, often the expert is unable to talk to you without using specialist terms or unnecessary levels of detail.
The last time this happened to me, I was a little nervous and when I went back to the shop to collect my bike, I was asked “what is it?” to which I replied “the silver one”. I do actually know the brand of my bike, but my mind went blank.
This translates online. All too often, copy is written by a specialist within the organisation (particularly true within the public sector) and specialist terms are used which makes the user feel a little daft.
I’m not saying that all copy should be dumbed down to one syllable grunts, but check your copy with some target users before setting it live. Maybe look to hire an external copywriter too.
Don’t make your users feel like they have just said “the silver one”.
Wiki: A cyborg, also known as a cybernetic organism, is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts.
I reckon they’ve arrived. In fact, I think I am one.
One thing that becomes startlingly obvious during usability tests with users of mixed abilities is the different approaches to technology in general.
A basic user will treat the computer as exactly that. It’s a machine that they have to turn on, move the mouse, click on things. An expert user will not even consciously consider that they are interacting with a machine; they will be too focused on the task in hand.
I remember my first computer. A ZX Spectrum. It made a terrible noise when it loaded a game and then after an hour it would announce that there had been an error and I had to load the game again. I was conscious that I was dealing with a machine. These days, my iPhone is like an extension to my body. Like an extra limb.
This full integration with technology is becoming more prevalent due to touch screen technology. Take the iPad as an example. We’re interacting using natural movement.
The result is a generation of users that have a greater level of trust online due to the lack of traditional barriers. I’m very interested to see how the iPad affects eCommerce sales for example. The fact we feel closer to the product is bound to increase our likelihood of buying.
