Designing Web Usability 74
| Designing Web Useability (The Practice Of Simplicity) | |
| author | Jakob Nielsen |
| pages | 417 |
| publisher | New Riders 1999 |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Danny Yee, Cliff Lampe |
| ISBN | ISBN 1-56205-810-X |
| summary | Down-to-earth, practical advice on making Web sites work at all levels. |
Review One: Danny Yee
Designing Web Usability is the most important book on Web publishing yet to appear. While it contains little that is novel, at least to those who have read Nielsen's www.useit.com Web site and other such resources, the lessons it teaches have not reached widely enough: there are all too many Web sites that are a continual source of frustration and stress to users. (Nielsen begins by explaining why he chose to write a printed book on Web design: for comprehensive, sustained arguments online reading is not yet as effective as print. Another consideration is that, going by the utter un-usability of so many corporate Web sites, there must be many web site managers who don't actually use the Web: some of these might read a printed volume.)
At the core of Designing Web Usability, and two thirds of it by page-count, are chapters on page, content, and site design. The first covers cross-platform design, the importance of minimizing response times, how to use links effectively, and the advantages and disadvantages of style-sheets and frames. The second covers writing for the Web, micro-content (titles, headlines and so forth), and multimedia content (images, animation, audio, and video). The last covers navigation, home pages ("splash screens must die"), search support, and "URL design." Other chapters cover special usability issues with intranets, accessibility for users with disabilities, and internationalization and localization; in a final chapter Nielsen takes a stab at predicting the future of the Web.
Because Designing Web Usability addresses underlying ideas rather than specific technologies, it will date far less rapidly than most books on Web publishing. It doesn't contain as much as its 400 pages would suggest, since a lot of space is used for screen shots of example Web pages. (These are not, however, gratuitous, as is often the case with books on HTML.) Web publishing is very different from paper publishing, but Designing Web Usability is a high quality, usable book -- only a few minor things got past the proof-readers. Check Danny's Other 500 Reviews
Review Two: Cliff Lampe
The Scenario
In Designing Web Usability, Jakob Nielsen codifies his ideas and wisdom on user-centered design. This is the first book in a two-parter, to be followed by Ensuring Web Usability, which will be more analysis centered.When I first was reading through this book, the irony of reviewing a usability book for Slashdot absolutely thrilled me. A common complaint about Linux, whether deserved or not, is that it is completely unusable. Except for a few shots at both the Windows and Mac OS, Nielsen obviously stays away from this topic. On the other hand, his advice on Web design is well researched, sensible, and right on target. Since human/computer interaction is what may be referred to as my "bag," I found this book impressively concise and comprehensive.
For those who may have missed the usability boat, Nielsen advocates user-centered design. This is the radical idea that a computer is a tool for managing information, not an end in itself. As many of us know, this concept is remarkably easy to lose in the rush to make everything work in the first place. When it comes to usability, everyone has their ideas about what they like, and tend to include them in their own designs. The problem is, we creators of Web sites may be too far removed from our users by experience or some other perspective to be designing in their best interest.
Eminently practical, Nielsen gives step-by-step advice on how to design with your user in mind. His examples are backed by screenshot examples and extensive user studies. The first section deals with page-level design, with advice on colors, layout and use of special features. Further sections of the book deal with site and intranet design, usability issues surrounding various disabilities and the future of Web design. One especially welcome chapter deals with actual creation of content in a Web environment. Writing for the Web is vastly different from writing for other media, like newspapers or magazines, but this is rarely recognized.
Once Nielsen has dispensed with the advice that is applicable to the Web environment we all deal with today, he spends the last section discussing the future. As the author says, we tend to overestimate the short-term effects of technological change and underestimate the long term effects. Keeping this in mind, Nielsen makes some stabs at predictions of his own (like the gradual erosion of the Post Office) that seem accurate and eerie at the same time. He makes the good point that most of the user interfaces we deal with today are descendents of the 1984 Mac. That's like using your little aquarium net to snare salmon. With the eventual dissolution of Web browsers will come a need for user interfaces that more capably deal with a glut of information.
I have some advice for reading this book. Treat it like a computer manual, and don't necessarily read it from cover to cover. Read the section on content design for sure, but depending on your familiarity with human/computer interaction principles, you may want to poke around a little more. Fortunately, and in typical Nielsen fashion, the book is laid out perfectly to make this kind of browsing convenient. That being said, if you do read straight though it, you won't be disappointed.
What's Bad?
There are a couple of concerns I had with the book. One is that the layout is wacky, though I understand this is more the fault of the publisher than Nielsen. There is a straight narrative, like in any other manual, but it is broken frequently by screenshots and pull-out comments that attract attention away from the main narrative. The integration is good enough that you can pick up where you left off easily enough, but a tighter bundling of content with the visuals would have been welcome.
Secondly, the last chapter should have had some content stolen for the preface. Many of the limitations mentioned by Nielsen immediately beg the question of higher bandwidth on the horizon or more powerful computers. The book is so practical I almost found myself playing devil's advocate in response. At the same time, the advice is so well backed up by research, that to rail against it feels a little bit like yelling at your mom for telling you vegetables are good for you.
What's Good?
This book is so efficiently packed with tons of great advice that I read some sections again and again to make sure I didn't miss anything. Nielsen does not waste time over-elaborating his points, which is a welcome change from most books of this sort. The data from actual user studies are important to prove to a skeptical web developer that these considerations are real, and the actual examples of the Web pages and sites give incredible insight to the point being made. One of the pages captured even has a Jon Katz article on it.
So What's In It For Me?
If you are responsible for developing Web sites, or just a duffer who makes his greeting card collection available on the Web, read this book. The advice is sound, researched and proven over and over. If you are a usability engineer, this book may be on the general side for you, but otherwise it is the best introduction to these concepts assembled in one place that I have even seen.
As I was reading through this book, I kept thinking of various pages and sites that I had designed. What would be said if one of those pages had been captured and displayed? Would it be an example of what to do, or what only an idiot would do? These are good questions for any of us.
Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.
Cliff Lampe dosn't get it (Score:1)
Companies go out of business counting on future, not present, income and profitability, as we are now seeing with so many dot com's. If profitability depends on it's web site's visibility which depends on future bandwidth to succeed, a company isn't going to make it. So Neilson's arguements about simplicity and bandwidth still stand. Design for here and now, not the future.
Re:BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:1)
No, I like the idea of the DOM API, XML/XSL, CSS and so on. I want people to use it, especially for intranet projects where you can control the browser and the security issues. I wish I could enble Javascript and browse the public web without worrying too much. I want to have mouse-overs.
What I don't like is JavaScript's half-hearted sandbox. First of all, the navigator object and it's ilk should not exist. Becuase it does, JavaScript goes beyond scripting DOM objects in the page, and starts to control the browser (and thus my computer) itself.
Second, we have Microsoft's retarded security implementation in Outlook and Outlook Express. I certainly don't want to grant e-mail scripting control over my mail client. But the only way to prevent this is to disable scripting in the "Internet Zone", because of the way IE looks at the world.
Check the security lists. There are numerous "get your e-mail address" and "browse local files" exploits in both IE and Netscape for which the only solution is to disable Scripting. Should I grant this sort of access to my machine just to get some mouseovers and open() links? Is it really worth it? Maybe you think so, but I'll just surf somewhere else, or once in a while, use IE's zones feature.
The only real solution to this is a JavaScript implementation that sticks to the DOM and only the DOM. I already know of one large IE5 rollout where scripting is disabled for the general case to prevent 'virus' problems. If all of this next generation DOM/XSL/CSS stuff is going to get anywhere on the public net, the scripting engine needs to be fixed first.
(BTW, Netscape does suck hard. I generally use IE, including on an intranet site where there is between 1K and 5K of JavaScript on each page. Works fine.)
--
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
lowest common denominator (Score:1)
I "babysit" a 500+ page web site for a membership association, and I am constantly dumbing down stuff to make it easier for morons to navigate, which must annoy the more sophisticated users no end.
Sigh.
This is a permanent part of my bookshelf now. (Score:1)
----
Re:Great ammo for arguments (Score:1)
And if that doesn't work, I'll just throw the book at them. Nothing like bouncing a 400-page book off of your client's forehead. Too bad it's not hardback. :)
Are you nuts? I wouldn't throw this book at a client's forehead. I'd use that now-useless MCSE training book I keep around to look things up in. (One of the 'nice' things is that it does have a good index.) It's hardcover, 700 pages, and a built-in stupidity sink, just sucks the stuff in.
----
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
On one site I worked on, a lot of the questions became very dumbed down. It was an incredible process...one question went from something like "Choose a decorative motive that suits your style best" to simply "Which color do you like best?"
So I agree that it does take some skill to use the net. On my own site I occasionally get email (and they ALWAYS come from AOL) like "How can I get a copy of this picture" and no link or further description of what they want is included...like I'm supposed to have some sort of psychic connection
I think a lot of designers have trouble translating from print as well...they don't realize that things work differently on the net, there's only so much you can control and direct where the user goes.
----
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
I have training in information usability, but some of the stuff...like ppl who don't know how to use email...or don't even know that AOL *IS* their browser (I'll never forget the person who told me they never used a browser. Quite mystified, I asked them, how do you view pages on the net? "With the AOL thingy")
There should be some mandatory guide out there for new users...like what FAQ means. I have a FAQ link on every page, and I still get the same questions every week. Sigh...am I being unrealistic?
I don't see why a scrollbar is so hard to use. You use it in so many other applications - hmm, OK, maybe not in Solitaire, but I find it pretty hard to believe that someone couldn't be exposed to a scrollbar and still use a computer.
I am trying to keep another site of mine single screen where possible, simply because the viewers are ppl not familiar with the net...it definitely presents a design challenge
----
Re:I remember an HTML class I took in 1995 (Score:1)
----
Re:Website Design (Score:1)
Web rot certainly sux...ever see the Ghost Sites of the Web on www.disobey.com?
----
how about 2100 books? (Score:1)
Jokob Nielsen's Website (Score:1)
web content and advertising (Score:1)
Exactly.
I'm a web designer for an ad agency, and while I agree that splash pages are the bane of the web, every client seems to want one. The last thing these folks care about is 'ease of use', they just want a better website than their competitors, which will invariably involve JavaScript, Flash, and other bandwidth hogging features.
I would love to give every one of my clients a copy of this book...sigh... Oh and one for the Art Dept., as well, who are having trouble understanding why a web page can't look exactly like the print ads they produce.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
>Bad user interface can increase the complexity that the user has to deal with,
>but even the best user interface can never decrease complexity below what the task demands.
I find this an extremely insightful point (if I had any moderation points at the moment I'd say so in a different manner), but I'd note that it's not the complexity of the task per se that's the issue, but the number and type of options available to the user.
That is, we tend to be inundated by choice, and a good UI tries to minimise the choices in order to keep them manageable. In fact, I suspect that intentional channeling of effort on the part of GUI designers is why a lot of self-proclaimed old school types fear and shy away from GUIs (especially ones that really try to make this point work, like the Mac) - it feels like choice being taken away, because it is (I should note that I find such a reaction naive, because the choice was necessarily similarly limited in whatever UI the neo-neo-luddite previously preferred, a CLI for instance - it's just less visually obvious and perhaps actually more insidious because of that). It's not just the choices the user that need to be managed, but the choices a developer might make (for instance in presenting the user's choices in some nifty neato way). But then we get onto the teeter-totter of consistency vs. creativity, and I'm not playing there today.
The point about making things appear too simple - which I'll recast as obscuring choice that the user or some subset of users really needed to be aware of - is well taken, though, and may be part of a larger point where the user needs to be aware of the simple fact *that* other choices have been obscured in the name of ease-of-use, a sort of meta-UI design.
a more detailed review that keeps it real (Score:1)
Isn't this half the battle though? (Score:1)
I have recently had an intranet web design project dropped on me (I made the mistake of picking up an HTML intro book and a reference book and foolishly left them on my desk at work) and years of writing little utility scripts for users helped me in the thinking about the web page from the user end. I've caught myself making a number of rookie mistakes (an, no doubt, I will find many more before this project is done), so I will end up picking up this book. But my biggest concern at this point is a growing awareness of the maintenance nightmare that I'm creating. And this is just for a couple dozen interlinked pages.
Open question: can anyone recommend a good book or site that focuses on the maintenance side of web design?
I find myself wondering, as I code an HREF to the same page for the tenth time, what happens when I need to change the file name? Is there some sort symbolic I can define on my main page that will be available to sub-pages? The "Visual Quickstart" book I picked up was good for a quick start, but lacking in substance when it came to long-term considerations. This is just one of a number of areas of potential rudeness, and I have a bad feeling that there are many more that my ignorance has obscured. Help!
Don't shoot the engineers... (Score:1)
At least, not always.
Many of the Web design sins described by JN - splash screens, excessive bandwidth requirements, lack of user-centric design - may stem from the fact that while the people who build Web sites have a good grasp of the issues, the people who sign off on them are often marketing types who don't. The senior management who sponsor major Web developments generally learned the ropes in completely different media, and old habits die hard. All too often the sign-off is contingent on meeting glitz-and-glamour quotas.
Cold, hard figures showing the very real dollar losses associated with poor usability is just as important as expounding design rules. Jakob's website [useit.com] provides such figures; I'm not sure whether the book does.
Experiment In Common Linking (Score:1)
I think it an interesting concept.
the URL can be found here: http://oshate.com/cl/ [oshate.com]
Sorry... no lynx users...(frames)
The purpose of this site is just to experiment with a new type of user interation.
Dave
Re:I remember an HTML class I took in 1995 (Score:1)
hehe
Dave
Common Linking [oshate.com]
Re:The cover (Score:1)
If the book is hardcover, just remove the slipcase that covers the book. Then read for your enjoyment.
If the book is on paperback, just take a large white sheet of paper and make a book cover (remember those?) and slip it over the offensive cover art. Be sure you label the book cover!
No need to whine, just fix the problem.
If design is not Bauhaus, it is Baroque.
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
I disagree strongly with this statement. The Web is an information medium that most people just happen to interact with visually at the moment. There are certainly many non-visual users such as search engines and other robots as well as blind people.
The visual focus common among today's Web designers is seriously hampering the growth of the Web into content-rich but visually-challenged devices like pagers and cellphones.
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
Neilson doesn't spread text across your entire screen; you do. Unlike with PDF and Word documents, Web pages allow you, the reader, to decide how wide lines of text should be by changing the width of your browser window. A Web author can try to control the width, but it only makes for an unusable site when my preferred width is narrower.
Re:No, it's worse than that. (Score:1)
But DO NOT *REQUIRE* javascript for the damn thing to work!!
The stupid people will all hava javascript turned on. The smart people will not.
Re:I might be blinded by the cover, if it arrives (Score:1)
Re:Patents (Score:1)
Jakob Nielsen
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
The cover (Score:1)
Swedish Made Web Usability and Me
This sort of thing is my bag, baby"
kwsNI
Re:I might be blinded by the cover, if it arrives (Score:1)
kwsNI
Buying the book (Score:1)
If you are interested in buying this book, the best price that I've found is at www.TheBigStore.com [thebigstore.com]
They are offering the book for $18 and they don't charge any shipping for books.
By the way, I don't have any association with this site.
I remember an HTML class I took in 1995 (Score:1)
HTML Artistry - More than code (Score:1)
OK, let me do my homework... here [barnesandnoble.com] is it.
While I'm talking about it, I'd say that I found it good as a design book, for it brings many examples from areas other than web sites (TV ads, packaging, magazines). Something I didn't like is the usage of MSIE-only techniques, as well as NN-only ones that are presented. I never use those.
Re:The cover (Score:1)
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
Is it just me or is most of the stuff that Neilson says just common sense?
Most of the stuff is indeed common sense. A few things are just plain wrong, like saying you shouldn't mess with link colours. I almost always use red links (purple visited ones) because I think links should stand out.
I didn't read the book, but "stuff that Neilson says" can be found in his site, which is really bad. Would anyone dare say that spreading text across the whole width of the screen is good user interface? What about those horizontal rulers?
BTW, thanks for that Apple link!
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
Re:The cover (Score:1)
Is this a conspiracy or what?
Re:No, it's worse than that. (Score:1)
I don't mean to put you down, but requiring visitors to do this is in itself an example of a badly designed user interface. Unless you're a numbers-loving idiot savant, such a task is very annoying to perform. The stuff you put on your website must be really worthwile for your visitors to attempt this at all.
Re:BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:1)
Personally, I think the advent of JavaScript is a Good Thing. Monitors weren't made for looking at static research papers and photo albums. The performance of dead trees in this area is much more convincing, and much easier on the eyes. Like it or not, the web is most suited for quick, graphic (yes, superficial, if you insist) presentation. JavaScript is actually quite helpful in creating attractive, simple to use web presentations. A simple OnMouseOver-script can greatly enhance the usability of your site. As the user base of the Internet has shifted from scientists and computerfreaks to Ordinary Men and Women, validation of user-entered data on forms has greatly increased: another area in which JavaScript is extremely useful. As the democratization (infantilization) of the net progresses, the use of JavaScript and other non-HTML-techniques like XML/XSL, CSS and even (**gasp**) Active Server Pages, will increase, so W3C and Microsoft (and, to a lesser extent, Netscape) have been right to give more support to these techniques.
Also, I'm totally unaware of any serious risk involved in viewing pages with active content (except for ActiveX of course). Feel free to enlighten me, though.
---and one more thing---
The poster you replied to mentioned he/she/who cares turns JavaScript off because it crashes Gnome. You yourself state that you turn JavaScript off to keep Netscape running. It seems to me like the problem isn't JavaScript but the applications you use. Gnome, to the best of my knowledge, is still more or less beta software, and as for Netscape: they might have had the lead in the early days of the commercialization of the web, but they sure as hell have lost it now. Netscape's compliance with W3C standards is much worse than IE4 and IE5. Often Netscape refuses to perform perfectly acceptable JavaScripts for no apparent reason. Also, Netscape will be brought to a crashing halt by normal HTML for no reason at all. It's almost as if they want to be killed of by Microsoft.
Re:BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:1)
It depends. The navigator object can have some uses. On the other hand, if you're just doing mouse-overs, it's not really very necessary. Perhaps the solution is to enable the user to turn off access to certain objects, instead of the current all-or-nothing approach. The question is, though, whether the average user would understand what it all means.
Second, we have Microsoft's retarded security implementation in Outlook and Outlook Express. I certainly don't want to grant e-mail scripting control over my mail client. But the only way to prevent this is to disable scripting in the "Internet Zone", because of the way IE looks at the world.
Check the security lists. There are numerous "get your e-mail address" and "browse local files" exploits in both IE and Netscape for which the only solution is to disable Scripting. Should I grant this sort of access to my machine just to get some mouseovers and open() links? Is it really worth it? Maybe you think so, but I'll just surf somewhere else, or once in a while, use IE's zones feature.
I assume these "exploits" serve some purpose: to make life easier on the average user. I've known people who just wouldn't understand that they could partake of "this Internet thing" by simply double-clicking on the IE-icon on their desktop. The average user is stupid, needs to have a simple life and probably has nothing to hide. This doesn't mean that the non-average user does, but if you care enough about your security, you'll probably figure out a way to tweak the settings of your browser in such a way as to accomodate your security. Or at least, you should be given the option to. So I do agree with you...the scripting engine needs some work, but right now, for most users, it's better than nothing at all.
It's just that I get sick of all this Bleeding Edge/JavaScript/etc bashing all the time that is so popular among 1337 HAX0RS and Jakob Nielsen (who has an ugly site). "Dynamic HTML" has its uses, especially in the real world, where you have to sell your stuff.
And yes, Netscape sucks. Very big. If I say "border=0" I MEAN "border=0". Among other gripes.
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
Oh, man. Let me offer my sympathy. I love it when people don't know how to use a scrollbar. And people wonder why programmers look down on lusers at times?
I think a user has to have some sort of minimum competancy level before their opinion should be considered relevant.
Would Ford Motor Company ask a five-year old (or someone else who has no idea how to drive) if the dashboard of a car is usable enough?
Re:Err but that is the point at which reduction st (Score:1)
that will change (Score:1)
Re:that will change (Score:1)
Re:I might be blinded by the cover, if it arrives (Score:1)
Really, has anyone managed to find a real paper copy of the thing?
cellphones on the web - back to text only (Score:1)
I might be blinded by the cover, if it arrives (Score:1)
Re:Common Sense? (Score:1)
Is it just me or is most of the stuff that Neilson says just common sense?
You are right. By "common sense" I think you mean simple and logical. This sounds right. The best ideas are usually just this (c.f. Occam's Razor [2think.org]).
What is interesting is to be able to say why a simple and logical idea is the way it is and what implications that idea has. This is the field of expertise. Virtually every field that has experts is like this - the basic ideas are simple and can be understood by anyone. The expertise comes in being able to analyze the ideas, explain exactly what they are, and explaining what impact flows from them.
The test of a great idea is that once you have discovered it people say "well, obviously that is so, it just has to be that way". Then we call it common sense. The genius comes in being the first to see such an "obvious" rule. Newton's laws of gravity seem blatantly obvious to us now, but the guy was still a genius for figuring that out.
for(;;) (Score:1)
In C programming, you can write an infinite loop with for(;;) like this:
for(;;)
{
}
It's not particularly good style, though, because it's not obvious what it means. A better way to do it is like this:
while(TRUE)
{
}
However, you would have to be pretty inexperienced in C programming to not know about for(;;). That's why the guy was going off about the programmer who called them.
Re:Website Design (Score:1)
They should beable to work out that people can't find stuff if they take the time to look at their logfiles. For example, I have been to this site [microsoft.com] quite a few times searching for something specific that should be easy to find on that site. I have never successfully found it on the site. I was looking for a telnet server for Windows NT. I used the search function on the site [microsoft.com], and found nothing. I did an alta vista [digital.com] search and found a page with the information I wanted and a link to the site [microsoft.com] that had the software I wanted! The company running a site which has a box saying "search this site" should log failed searches and work out why their search function is failing to give people what they want.
Also, I don't like transparent GIFs. People make these GIFs and then make them transparent, assuming that my browser will have a white background. So for users with a black background, often the GIF looks really crappy, or in the case of diagrams, often totally invisible! If they want to assume that users will have a white background so that their GIF will look good, why don't they just use a non-transparent GIF with a white background???
Crank (Score:1)
I bought this book and read through it. Good stuff, but Nielson is something of a crank -- always complaining, but short on actual advice. Many of his recommendations are dead on, but he just never has anything nice to say.
His own site is rather poorly designed, too. It just doesn't make sense to ONLY organize the archive of columns chronologically. Why not thematically? All those areas of text on the home page could be better separated and organized.
Also, though some of his columns cover some of the territory of the book, it's enlightening that a self-proclaimed "usability advocate" would fail to release this book online. His argument that books are better for "straight narratives" than Web sites doesn't wash. (Particularly given the numerous side-bars of the book.) He also claims the large number of screen shots "would have been difficult to present on the Web and preserve the ultra-fast response times I believe in." Maybe so, but I've never heard him acknowledge the business model: it's much easier to make a buck off of selling paper. There's nothing wrong with trying to earn a living, it's just the more you deny it the more your schtick looks like posturing and self-promotion.
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:1)
One AOLer - who didn't even have outside email turned on - kept complaining that her submission had been "lost." It had moved off the new page.
The pages are listed in order down a table column:
New
Author
Title
Date
Communicating through another AOLer, we told her to find her submission using the Author or Title page. Her reponse - "I can't find the Author or Title pages!"
I couldn't figure out how to provide her with any further help. I just stopped there. Sometimes, there's no curing stupidity.
Re:BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:1)
Re:This is a permanent part of my bookshelf now. (Score:1)
No lowest common denominator (Score:1)
Nielsen himself has a great article about this topic, Novice vs. Expert Users [useit.com], on his Web site.
Re:Website Design (Score:2)
Arguably this is the fault of your browser. It ought to do something sensible when a transparent image doesn't stand out against the background. Don't forget that in most cases, transparent images are helpful when you want to switch background colours; you don't get white rectangles messing up your tasteful lime green page.
Re:Common Sense? (Score:2)
Because you think that? What do your users think? If they wanted different-coloured links for some reason they could change the settings in their browser. And if you want links to stand out, fine, you can set them that way in your browser.
Of course, I'm just trolling here. But I think web designers often forget that it's not about what the designer prefers, it's what the users prefer - and as far as possible, you should let the users make their own choices. This is why CSS is good - your style sheet could specify red links, but the user could have an 'important' part of his style sheet to override it.
Re:Common Sense? (Score:2)
You're probably right, but never forget that common sense is not common. This leads to the next point...
Don't get me wrong, his ideas are great for people who are clueless (and there are a lot of them), but I wouldn't call his notions revolutionary.
Sometimes things like this just need to written down. Sure, lots of people know about it, but the act of telling someone by writing it down makes a nice reference for those in or out of the know.
I also agree with you about the lowest common denominator. You don't always have to pander to it (although, my new site design has graphics, I did make it lynx friendly, but have yet to put it up).
Woz
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:2)
I think you're making the (incorrect) assumption that easy to use means simple.
Re:BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:2)
I browse with JavaScript disabled for security reasons, and in Netscape, to just try to keep the damn thing running. However, the writing is on the wall for us anti-scripters. Look at the DOM specification, XML/XSL, CSS2, and so on. Scripted pages are the future. And it's going to be a huge disaster until someone figures out a better way of sandboxing javascript.
--
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:2)
========
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:2)
I'm constantly barraged by requests to make my site easier to use, and I take them very seriously. We did a survey of our users to find their most frequent difficulties. What did we discover?
When filling out a form where you had to enter percentages as whole numbers, people had trouble adding to 100.
They don't know how to use the scrollbar to find the submit button at the bottom of the page if their browser window is too small.
ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!! I mean, really, what can you do with people who can't perform basic addition or use a scrollbar?
(There's is a point to be made in "single screen" Web design, but often there's just too much information, and jeez, how do they do anything ELSE on their computer without figuring out scrollbars? Of course, these are inevitably the same people who complain as well that everything is too small and there are too many steps in a transaction.)
Sometimes you just have to read the directions and think about what you're doing.
No, it's worse than that. (Score:2)
Even so, we tried an automatic JavaScript calculator that keeps a running total at the bottom but people kept calling, pissed off and confused that it didn't update until they changed focus off the field. We had to remove it because it was causing even more calls to customer support than the morons who couldn't add for themselves.
Yes, people actually look up the customer support number and call a rep to get help adding to 100%. That's how I found out about this. It makes me want to cry.
Sometimes I just want to be sarcastic and put a big "Help With Addition" button on the site linked to a tutorial ripped off from some 1st grade primer. "If Jack has two oranges and Jill gives him two more oranges, how many oranges does Jack have?"
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:2)
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:2)
Re:Common Sense? (Score:2)
If these concepts were "common" sense, one would expect the majority of websites to follow them, with the poorly designed websites being the anomalies. However, the inverse is true. Neilsen's concepts may be simple, but applying them seems to be beyond the ability of most Web-exposed firms... usually due to prejudices held from other media, or internal corporate power struggles.
(what's up with the usability expert having an horribly designed site anyway?)
You're confusing usability design with graphic design. As a graphic designer, Neilsen rubs me the wrong way in his almost fanatical drive for function over form. However, I endeavor to incorporate his concepts of usability into aesthetically pleasing designs (the Web is, after all, a visual medium) to avoid having eminently usable designs that are graphically repulsive (like his). The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but there's usually some areas of give-and-take (file size vs. download time chief among them).
Err but that is the point at which reduction stops (Score:2)
How usable is net? (Score:2)
There is a better idea. Go directly into all active nodes of the web and use their power to perform your searches. Distributed computing in the most real sense of the word.
Gnutella http://www.surfacelayer.nu/gnuworld
HotLine http://www.bigredh.com/index2.html [bigredh.com]
FreeNet project http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
No more relying on your large corporate portals, no more commanders to filter your content, no mishits, no broken links.
This is how the usability of the web will increase in the near future.
Content taken from useit.com? (Score:2)
Did this happen to anyone else?
If you havent read... (Score:2)
BAN Javascript!!!! (Score:3)
To all you clueless web-designers out there: I, and many others, avoid these pages. They are a natural security risk, so I now always leave Javascript turned off.
Heh - the last time I tried turning on Javascript, Gnome crashed shortly thereafter. This never happens to me otherwise.
Can you say "stack attack"? Or "buffer overflow".
Personally, I think all clueless web designers, that is, the ones who solely use Javascript ought to be punished by a fate worse than Hell: being employeed by Microsoft.
Javascript: Just say NO!!!
Re:Just a curious question...isn't there a point o (Score:3)
The task itself imposes the minimum level of complexity. Bad user interface can increase the complexity that the user has to deal with, but even the best user interface can never decrease complexity below what the task demands.
In fact, it's rather dangerous to make complex tasks appear simple. Clicking buttons without understanding what's happening can lead to Bad Things Happening (tm) as many NT administrators have found out.
Kaa
Website Design (Score:3)
-= Majere =-
Common Sense? (Score:4)
I also have disagreed with his ideas on a number of occasions. He makes good arguments, but that doesn't mean they're always right. Jakob likes to pander to the lowest common denominator. As a web designer myself, I know that this is sometimes not the reasonable thing to do as it actually makes the majority have a less user friendly experience than what they could have, unless you start branching a site based on what a user has, which ends up costing extra $$$ (tell that to a client).
I applaud him for his efforts. I have learned a few things from reading his site (what's up with the usability expert having an horribly designed site anyway?), but I've learned a lot more about user experience reading the Apple Human User Interface Guidlines [apple.com]. Plus, those are free.
For those of you who found the layout wanting... (Score:5)
----Begin my email----
Dear Sir,
For some months, I have been eagerly awaiting Jakob Nielsen's new book
"Designing Web Usability." Unfortunately, when I received the book, I was
very disappointed.
It is ironic that an author who advocates simplicity and usability can put
his name to a book that was so difficult to read. I list some of the key
points I disliked about the book below:
1) Inside and on the cover the book used garish colours for text. The front
inside cover used a yellow/white font colour on a lime green background,
rendering the text almost unreadable.
2) The paper used reflects any light source too readily, hampering
readability. This book will be read at work, where strip-lights reflect off
the page. I understand that to properly display high resolution and colour
images you need paper like this, but combined with the other points I make,
the paper hampers readability.
3) The "serif" font used throughout the book was too thin and unreadable. A
better solution would have been to have used the sidebar font which was much
more visible. This book will be referred to frequently; the text should be
made as readable as possible.
4) The binding of the book is inflexible and flimsy. Look at O'Reilly's
Repcover binding for a good example of how to bind a technical book. This
book does not look like it will stand up to being constantly thumbed or
referred to.
5) The text on many of the pages is too close to the central binding.
Because of (4) above, I am reluctant to try to flatten the book so that I
can read the text properly.
Apart from the presentation, I really liked the content of this book. I can
now use this book to communicate why my department needs to spend more time
on web usability. It is a pity the book was so poorly arranged; I find the
www.useit.com website more readable than the book.
----end my email----
----begin reply----
Mr. Clark,
Thank you for your comments and criticisms regarding the design and materials issues for *Designing Web Usability*. Your points are well made, and I'll be keeping them at hand for when we publish any subsequent editions of the book.
Please know that any design issues are not due to Jakob Nielsen; Dr. Nielsen left the book issues to us, the publishing people, for better or--as you've pointed out in your perspective--for worse. Designing a book by the world's leading authority on usability was a challenge and I'll be the first to admit that we didn't get everything right the first time. That said, we've received several comments from readers telling us they loved the design and the production values in the book. I think the optimal design is something we need to continue working to improve and I assure you, we'll be doing so. To that end your comments are quite valuable to us.
In any event, I'm very glad you like the content of the book: that was the most important matter, getting Jakob's message out for his audience. Thanks again for getting in touch and letting us know your thoughts.
Sincerely and respectfully,
--Steve Weiss
STEVE WEISS . executive editor
professional graphics and design group
new riders publishing . www.newriders.com
201 w. 103rd street . indianapolis . in . 46290 . usa
v 317 817 7369 . fax 317 581 4663
v 800 571 5840 x 7369
steve.weiss@newriders.com
----end reply----
So they know about it. Just don't blame Nielsen for the poor layout.
Great ammo for arguments (Score:5)
I have this book, and I love it. If you're a web designer, one of the greatest uses is the ammo it provides when you're arguing a point with your client.
Everyone knows clients make some really silly requests... this book has solid arguments against some of the more annoying requests clients tend to make over and over and over again such a needless use of HTML frames, graphics-heavy pages, gratuitious multimedia, stupid "welcome" messages from the president of the company, and so on.
I can see this book paying for itself as I quote it over and over again when discussing things with my clients. Sure, *I* know frames suck 99% of the time, but it helps to have a reliable source to back me up. Neilsen's a lot more eloquent than me.
And if that doesn't work, I'll just throw the book at them. Nothing like bouncing a 400-page book off of your client's forehead. Too bad it's not hardback. :)