You’ll rarely go wrong by simplifying.
A simple, obvious thought, but one that can elude even the brightest among us at times. Often when I think I’ve hit a wall, I’ll remind myself to trim, strip, shave, and reduce. You can always build back up again, if you like.
“So what, exactly, do you do?” Every information architect dreads this question. Fear not, now you can just point your inquisitors to this little gem:
I just completed a pro bono project at Netsoft USA for a local non-profit called Top Honors; they provide free math tutoring to middle school students in NYC. The project was a soup-to-nuts redesign, including strategy, information architecture, copy development, and WordPress implementation.
The goal of the site is not only to raise awareness of the Top Honors mission, but to drive users to donate, volunteer, or get math help. We took an audience-centric approach, splitting users into their unique user types at the outset of the site experience. Whenever possible, we provided telegraphic calls to action, as well as reinforcing messages such as testimonials and statistics to foster confidence. We were fortunate to have excellent photographs of actual Top Honors tutoring sessions to make the experience feel that much more real.
Because this was a pro bono project, we had to be creative on the implementation without sacrificing the quality of the user experience or the ability of Top Honors staff to maintain the site in the future. Therefore, WordPress was chosen as a free, lightweight CMS. This allowed for an integrated blogging platform that should help drive traffic to the site.
In addition, we used Top Honors’ existing Google Calendar rather than implementing a custom-built tool. This allows Top Honors to update one calendar and have it populate their website with the latest information.
We used a highly-rated WordPress theme called Purity, but we made significant edits to the UI to make it match the Top Honors brand. The site features integrated social features for sharing and following, integration of videos, and a live Twitter feed on the blog.
If you’re interested in supporting Top Honors, volunteering, or getting math help for a middle school student, please visit Top Honors today!
I would only like to add that I feel fortunate to work for a firm, Netsoft USA, that demonstrates its commitment to the community by supporting organizations like Top Honors with pro bono assignments like this.
This year’s Netsoft holiday card (a quick design I came up with just in the nick of time).
I just launched my first truly responsive website for the talented painter (and good friend), Sean Patrick Gallagher. Check it out!
After a too-long design period, my iPad Sudoku app is being developed by the talented Ilya Rivkin. While I would have liked to get it out for the holidays, given how busy I’ve been I’m just glad it’s being built at all!
Recently I was asked why I suggested a Cancel button be moved to the right of a Delete button in a dialogue box. The confusion was understandable: in this particular UX, the paradigm had been established that termination actions were on the left, whereas continuation actions were on the right. My response was that, since this was the last chance the user would have before losing their data, they should have to look just a little harder before selecting Delete.
This reminded me of a good UX maxim: make it as easy as possible for people to do that which they want to do, and harder for them to do that which they might not want to do.
If users want to enroll, subscribe, purchase, read, save, whatever…make it as easy as possible. Remove all roadblocks. Get out of their way!
If a user might do something they don’t really want to do, make it hard. (Or, make it less than easy.) For example, while one warning might suffice when deleting a file, perhaps two warnings need to appear before wiping a hard drive.
As UX professionals, we trumpet the art of making things easy, but we also need to remember that sometimes, in some cases, it’s better to make things just a little bit more difficult.
Henry Blodget is convinced that Apple’s iPhone-based voice recognition tool, Siri, poses absolutely no threat to Google search. He’s even more certain than Google’s own Eric Schmidt. How is he so certain? Let’s analyze excerpts from his article to find out, shall we?
“I don’t even have an iPhone 4S yet, but I’m still ready to call BS on this one.”
Okay, we’re off to a good start. He doesn’t own a 4S and, as you’ll read later, he hasn’t used Siri either, but don’t let that prevent you from making a grand proclamation!
“With the exception of a few very limited circumstances, using Google’s search interface is vastly more convenient, precise, and helpful than using voice commands.”
Yeah, this whole “talking” thing is vastly overrated. I mean, why press a button and say, “Find me some Mexican restaurants,” when you can launch your web browser, put your cursor in the text field, type your question with your thumbs, and wait for those accurate results to pour in. Make sure to enter your ZIP code, kids!
“Unless you are walking or driving at the exact moment that you conduct your search, it is much easier to punch a few characters into the search window and then look at a full page of results than it is to try to verbally ask your phone to conduct the search for you.”
Good thing people don’t search for things while they’re “walking or driving” then. (Aside to aspiring tech journalists: if you want to sound like you get the ‘lingo,’ use phrases like ‘search window.’)
“For many people, it actually takes more effort to speak clearly and precisely than it does to type a few characters.”
Indeed. I would go so far as to say that it actually takes more effort to write a clear and precise tech analysis than to type a few characters.
“To get Siri to work properly, you have to spend time thinking of what and how to ask—more time than it takes to type a few characters into Google Instant.”
Good thing most of us never “spend time thinking of what and how to ask” Google before conducting our search. Seriously, typing “Mexican restaurants 10010″ is not any easier than saying, “Find me a Mexican restaurant” or “Mexican food near me” or “Get me Mexican food.”
Care to guess which search was faster, easier, and more accurate?
“Siri often doesn’t understand exactly what you want, which leads to immediate frustration in a way that using Google does not.”
This is true. Google provides its frustration when you get meaningless, impersonal, irrelevant results.
“Any time you are in the presence of other people—in the office, on a train, on the street, in a restaurant, at a meal—talking to your phone is rude, inappropriate, or alienating in a way that typing a few keys is not.”
I’m glad I don’t sit near Henry Blodget at work. Can you imagine me calling a friend for information? “Hey, Alex, what’s the name of the restaurant where we’re meeting tonight?” “Keep it down over there, you ill-mannered beast! I’m writing an article about a device I’ve never used, and you’re prattling is making it hard for me to concentrate.”
“And then of course there’s the other obvious point, which is that Google also has a voice interface. If searching by voice does, by some miracle, become immensely popular, Google will be there, too. But I doubt it will.”
So he hasn’t used Google voice either? That’s probably why he’s able to leap to the conclusion that it understands natural language like Siri, and doesn’t require the user to memorize rote commands.
“Although Siri looks like a fun toy to play with, and does seem useful when driving or setting reminders, I have no interest in using it for search.”
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, he HAS NO INTEREST IN USING SOMETHING HE HAS NO INTEREST IN USING. Doing so, after all, might cloud his judgment.
“To make sure I’m not just in some fuddy-duddy minority, though, I just asked the newsroom how many folks with 4Ss use Siri to search.”
Another note to aspiring journalists: never go outside your newsroom to do research; it’s time-consuming and you might encounter opinions that differ from your own.
Of the one person he works with who uses Siri for search: “I sit near Ellis all day in the office, though, and I have never once heard him use Siri to search for anything.”
Another nugget for aspiring journalists: an excellent method for gathering user insights is to eavesdrop on your coworkers. I can hear it now: “My colleague, Mr. McWatters, will occasionally laugh at things he sees on YouTube, which convinces me there is humor to be found when using one’s search window.”
“Entertainment guru Dana Eisenberg, meanwhile, says she never uses Siri for anything, because Siri never understands her.”
Those hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of people using Siri every day? They’re just babbling away at a device that has absolutely no idea what they’re saying. It’s like they’re suffering mass delusion.
“So go ahead and dream about Apple disrupting Google with Siri, folks. But it just ain’t going to happen.”
Duly noted. We’ll check back in, say, a year?
In the meantime, last night I showed Siri to my wife for all of two minutes, and her response to me? “So I don’t have to use search anymore?” Ding ding ding.
Note: I wanted to test Blodget’s theory that Siri is vastly inferior in terms of efficiency. I turned on my iPhone, launched Safari browser, positioned my cursor in the search field, typed ‘Henry Blodget’ and waited for the results: 18 seconds. Next, I hit the home (Siri) button, said, “Search the Web for ‘Henry Blodget,’” and lo and behold the same set of search results appeared in just 9 seconds. But what do I know? I’m not a journalist.
We knew this day was coming. We could see it in his gaunt frame. We suspected it when he stepped down. We felt it when he handed over the reins just a short time ago.
And yet many of us hoped it would all work out, that there would be a fix, a patch, that Steve would pull through. Not just because we think Apple and Pixar are cool; not just because big chunks of who we are and what we do are a tribute to him; but because we simply don’t like the idea of a world without Steve Jobs.
You see, in some way, on some level, in the back of our minds, it was comforting to know there was a Steve Jobs among us, someone who knew what was next, what might be, what could be — even if he was in semi-retirement, nursing his illness and biding his time until his triumphant return (yet again). Even those people who were anti-fans gave credibility to the stature of his accomplishments by rebelling against them.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “There are no second acts in American lives.” That wasn’t true in Steve’s case; his was the remarkable story of the comeback kid, the underdog who made it after all. And it’s too bad he didn’t get a chance at a third act; I think it would have been great.
I was never into superheros. I don’t follow celebrities or athletes. I’m not excited by politicians. But I do admire and revere visionaries, those rare people who dream of a better world and those, rarer still, who make it a reality. And for that reason, Steve Jobs is my hero, and I now understand how others feel when their hero is gone.
Describing what I do for a living to people unfamilar with the UX profession often elicits confused looks and/or polite head nodding. With that in mind, a few months ago I asked several UX professionals whom I admire how they describe what they do for a living.
I received some great answers, and one of my favorites came from Graham Ericksen, who wrote, “I make websites easy to use.” Alex Kirtland wrote something very similar: “If I get confused looks, I just say I’m the guy that makes websites easy to use.” (A gift of great UX professioals is succinctness.)
I’ve adopted this description, adding to it just a bit: “My job is to make websites and mobile apps useful, engaging, and easy to use.” I might also add that, “I’m responsible for making sure content, structure, and design support that goal.”
I’ve tried it out a few times recently, and people seem to get it.
Magical Weather is a new weather app for the iPad, and I can already hear you asking if we needed yet another weather app. I thought the same thing, until I tried it.
Magical Weather differentiates itself from other apps in its minimalist approach. Instead of trying to make the most of the iPad’s capacious screen real estate, it reduces key weather information to a slender but readable panel. It focuses on the details that matter most, but presents them as an elegant infographic.
You know how sometimes you want to look outside and just see the weather? The animated sky background — which is really lovely — allows you to do just that. I’m not sure how they’ve accomplished this, but in several informal tests I noted that the sky image matched very closely the sky outside. A nice touch.
The location selector screen eschews the traditional list of options for a panel of tiles, much like the iOS home screen itself. This is nice because it allows the locations screen to do triple duty: in addition to letting you add or delete locations, you can see at a glance the current weather and time of day in all of your chosen locations.
If I had one nit, it’s that the icons for things like humidity, temperature change (delta), etc. aren’t always immediately decipherable.
Magical Weather won’t replace my other weather apps. For example, there are times I want the rich depth of information provided by, say, The Weather Channel’s app. But similar to what Shine does for the iPhone, Magical Weather does for the iPad: quick, simple, non-nonsense weather reporting.
For such a minimalist app, it’s packed with a lot of great UI niceities. So, if you like weather apps, go get Magical Weather; during it’s launch, it’s being offered for just $0.99.
Today I was the first person at work, and upon entering the office I heard the warning beep of our burglar alarm. I panicked for a moment, and then mentally scrambled to remember the code to disarm the system.
When I entered what I believed to be the correct code, the system presented me with the message “Not ready to arm.” My nerves were on edge, as I knew that if I’d entered the code incorrectly the alarm would go quiet (as it had) and the police would be arriving at any moment.
Unfortuantely, the alarm system offered little solace. “Not ready to arm.” What does this mean? If I’d entered the correct deactivation code, shouldn’t it say “Alarm deactivated”? At the very least, wouldn’t the proper message be “Ready to arm,” reflecting the state of an alarm that was not presently armed?
I’m sure in the alarm system’s functional requirements, the phrase “Not ready to arm” makes sense to someone somewhere. But to me, the groggy morning user, it made absolutely no sense. I decided not to fuss with it any longer; if the police showed up, I’d plead ignorance.
But I was reminded, yet again, how important it is to write alerts, messages, warnings, tips and cues that are concise, telegraphic, and accurate. Most importantly, they should be contextual and attempt to anticipate and answer the most pressing user question at that particular point in whatever process is taking place.
Vagueness and ambiguity — great when you’re writing the screenplay for an indie film — don’t help the user in the least.
PS Apparently “Not ready to arm” does in fact mean that the code I entered was correct. I will remain out of jail for another day. Go figure.
Are you trying to dictate the path your users will take through your experiences? If so, you might be making the same mistake as the urban planner who designed the right-angle-only pathway in the photo above.
As the image shows, people have decided — quite correctly — that they can get from A to B much more quickly by cutting across the grass and, in doing so, creating quite a dirty mess.
While it’s easy to label these grass tramplers as scofflaws, the truth is they are just normal human beings doing what human beings have always done: finding the quickest, easiest way through any given situation.
So, if you’re going to try to dictate a path for your users, you better be absolutely certain (with a lot of user testing) that it’s a path that makes sense for them. If you can’t do testing, then you better offer options and escape routes.
If you don’t, expect your grass to get trampled.
If you own a restaurant, chances are your website is frustrating the customers who visit it. Restaurant websites on the whole are so bad that it’s actually become a bit of a joke in the user experience community (you know, those of us who design and build websites for a living). In fact, Matthew Inman over at The Oatmeal has done a pretty bang-up job describing what he (and most people) really want (and don’t want) from a restaurant website.
Sure, it’s easy to point out the flaws, but I think it’s important to figure out why these sites are failing, and what we can do to fix them. Aside: I think the notes below apply to almost any industry, but I’ve isolated restaurant websites because they tend to be so bad.
Restaurants have limited budgets, so they’re more likely to try to get their sites on the cheap. This isn’t to say that an inexpensive website is going to be a bad website, but it does increase the odds that you’re dealing with novice user experience professionals.
Your website shouldn’t be an afterthought. It’s a critical part of the experience you’re providing your customers and, because it’s often the first point of contact, it better be good. If you can, think of your website just like any other fixture in your business, and try not to skimp.
One thing you can do is find restaurants in your area that have good websites (based on the concepts I outline below) and ask the owners who did their site; sometimes the sites even have links to the web design agency. Alternatively, you can look up good but small local user experience and design firms; often they’ll take on a smaller project if it interests them, and restaurant websites can be great portfolio pieces.
Restaurant owners (and their designers) often hope to re-create the dining experience on the website. They use Flash which requires a third-party plugin, isn’t great for mobile devices, reduces search engine optimization, and makes it harder for users to print out key information like directions or menus. They add music or other distractions that slow the website down and create a fussy, intrusive experience. They provide menus in PDF format, which takes longer to load and isn’t as easy to review in a Web browser. In short, they put form ahead of function, decoration ahead of useful information.
Believe it or not, your customers aren’t as interested in ambiance as you might think they are. They want basic information like location, hours of operation, contact information, and menus. Sure, your site should be attractive and match your brand; it should support the final experience you want your diners to have. But it’s important to remember that when people visit your website, they’re not actually in your establishment. They’re at work, at home, or on the go. Your website needs to work in those venues, not the other way around.
Okay, so this might sound a little contradictory to the point I was making above, but bear with me: people visiting your website do want to know what your restaurant is like. They want to get a feel for the place, they want to know if it’s what they imagine for their date, or if it will work for their kids. In other words, they want to get a sense of the place.
One of the best ways to do this is through photography. But instead of creating giant Flash slideshows that clog the browser and slow the experience, provide a gallery that’s easy to find, with useful captions and a logical structure. And, hire a professional photographer (see my point above about hiring professionals). You might think you’re pretty handy with your iPhone camera, but a professional photographer is light years ahead of you; they will know how to shoot your space so the images are meaningful and inspiring to your customers.
People often make dining decisions on the fly, so it’s not surprising they’re going to be visiting your site on a mobile device. Nonethelss, very few restaurant websites are designed to work well on mobile devices. Instead of getting a simple site that loads quickly and gets them the information they need, users are presented with scrunched up websites broken up over several pages or, worse, a broken Flash plugin symbol.
But you have options: you can provide a website that degrades gracefully from its full glory on a desktop PC to a much simpler, more streamlined version on a mobile device, or you can simply provide two websites — one for desktop users and one for mobile visitors — and rely on technology that serves the appopriate website to your customers depending on what kind of device they’re using.
In either case, it’s important to remember that mobile users probably want information prioritized differently than desktop users. Whereas a desktop user might expect a more traditional experience with a home page and sub pages, mobile users might appreciate a one-page design that presents location and contact information first.
Every decent chef knows you don’t send food out to your diners without doing a taste test first, and that you modify your recipes over time to suit the changing tastes of your customers. The same is true of your website: launch your site and get feedback from customers about what works and what doesn’t, then make adjustments. Over time, plan on updating, improving, and possibly redoing the site entirely. If you want your restaurant to stay fresh and current, your website needs to come along for the ride.
Restauranteurs are often entrepreneurs taking big risks; adding a website into the business plan can result in unwanted stress and anxiety. Nonetheless just as the best recipes are often the simplest recipes, made from basic wholesome ingredients, I believe the same is true of websites. If you’re worried about doing it right, just keep it simple: focus on the information that matters most, present it in a way that’s easy to understand, and don’t get hung up on adding seasoning that will just muddy the taste.
