Can You Get TOO Usable? (Of Blinders and Peanut Jars) Options

[bragadocchio]

I'm not sure that usabilty is just about ease of use. There's more to it than that.

But I do think that we've framed this fairly well. It's a matter of expectations, and deciding what the best way is to broaden and widen the expectations of visitors to a web site, or eaters of peanuts.

Having a bit of variety, in ways that people can learn and understand and remember can create a richer and more enjoyable experience.

I mentioned in the blog post I wrote about earlier, when discussing the John Ruskin chapter, that Macromedia introduced an element of individuality and change and variety by having a number of their employees start up their own blogs.

The company created a number of ways to start conversations with thier customers by doing that. Smart marketing ploy, or usability? I'm not good with those lines sometimes, Scottie

But I've always placed visitor satisfaction as part of the definition of usability that I believe in, and think that Macromedia's attempt to provide a number of perspectives and individual voices is an interesting attempt to provide a rich experience.

[peter_d]

I don't think that ease of use is the opposite of depth of content. After all, a book by Kafka is identical, in terms of ease of use, to a book by JK Rowling. Open cover. Turn Pages. Read words.

It's a matter of expectations, and deciding what the best way is to broaden and widen the expectations of visitors to a web site, or eaters of peanuts.

Agreed. And the problem of definitions occurs again. Where does usability end and design begin? Where does marketing start? Is SEO copywriting? Depends who you ask.

They are all elements of a whole that must work together in order to function. I feel web job descriptions may have got too specialised.

BTW: Read a great quote the other day: Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.

[scottiecl]

The company created a number of ways to start conversations with thier customers by doing that. Smart marketing ploy, or usability?

Definitely a marketing strategy.

Peter puts it well- love the Titanic and the Ark quote. There is overlap and someone has to keep an eye on the big picture.

You can hire the best plumbers, electricians, framers, and drywallers that are out there, but without an overseer each will do what makes the best sense for their part of the job. While their work may be excellent, they may cancel each other out or even damage the building if someone isn't managing the timing and overall progress of the work.

Very much like specialists working on a website- someone has to maintain the big picture view of the goals of the site and work with the specialists to stay on track and pull things together. Design, technology, usability, marketing, copywriting, and SEO all have to work together.

[wanderer]

Usability: The ability to easily learn and use a site with a minimum of obstacles.

Does this mean web site has to cater to peoples' expectations to be usable? I don’t think so.

When visiting a chain store in a different location than the one we usually shop at, we expect to find the store to be laid out the same way. One of the pharmacy chains here in Canada comes to mind as I write this. Almost every Shoppers’ Drug Mart I’ve gone into is laid out the same. A few weeks ago, I walked into one in downtown Toronto, and the layout was completely different. I was looking for two standard items and it took me forever to find them because nothing was where it was supposed to be. Major frustration. On the opposite end of the scale is Sears – a department store chain. No 2 stores have the same layout. I know that. I expect it. I do not walk into a Sears store with “blinders” on. It doesn’t frustrate me either.

Another brick & mortar comes to mind. This particular store forces shoppers to traverse an entire floor (which is huge at over 5,000sq. ft.) before reaching a place where they can exit (or continue on to the second floor). It is laid out like a maze with the products forming the path walls. Is it usable? Must be. Most evenings and on weekends you can’t get a parking space in the huge lot.

What is the difference between these examples? Expectation.

Users expect to find a home link in the top left corner.

I don’t think this is an accurate statement. More accurate would be “Users expect to find a home link on the page. They look first in the top left corner because this is where it is commonly found.” Does that mean if it isn’t where they first look, they will get frustrated and leave the site because it isn’t usable. No. At least not yet.

One of the dangers of striving for usability is applying a label of usable on habitual behaviour. By catering to the behaviour we run the risk of entrenching the expectations to the point where unrealized expectation = unusable. So many of these usability studies seem to me to focus on habitual behaviour.

Further, there is a side-effect of catering to the behaviour. If everything is where we expect, we pay the minimum of attention to the surroundings. We’re focused. We don’t want to be distracted and worse, distractions result in frustration and an unpleasant experience.

Usability does not preclude uniqueness. Unfortunately, web sites don’t have the real estate of a brick and mortar so the limitations are greater – there are only so many places to put that home link.

Personally, I like websites that differ from the norm in terms of where things are (unless the navigation sucks). It’s refreshing, and I’m much more likely to pay attention to the entire page on my screen.

So, what to do? Make sure the home link is obvious, find out what areas of the screen web users look at most frequently for those “expected” items and put what you want them to see right there. Keep in mind though, that once repeat visitors learn where things are, the blinders are back on.

[cre8pc]

Does this mean web site has to cater to peoples' expectations to be usable? I don’t think so.

Then whose expectations does it cater to?

I know you're not thinking this, but what's commonly found is that a design is based on the owner's expectations and what they think is the primary reason to have a website. Little thought is given to the people who use it and what they "expect" to accomplish there. (And then they wonder why the site isn't earning a profit or breaking even!)

The "expectation" is basic for website visitors. They arrive and want to understand immediately the purpose of the site. Then, they want to perform an action, whether it be to browse, search, purchase, play a game, contact you, etc.

It's while performing any task that becomes confusing, hard to learn, frustrating, or worse, not obviously enabled (as in, the design provides little clues on how to purchase, contact, search, etc.), that a site is considered to need usability/user interface improvements.

The first question I had when I read Stock's post that started this thread is "Did they perform user testing on the product redesign?"

It's no accident that a company like Site-Report.com does user testing and is on stand-by for any company smart enough to test their designs on people BEFORE final code lockdown and rollout.

Same with product designs, software design, hardware, etc. Anything that will be touched by a human being is going to be handled in a wide variety of ways, including peanut jars and web pages. The only way to know how to provide a perfect product is to watch people use it and correct errors based on the feedback.

A video camera zeroed in on Stock with a usability engineer monitoring it would have learned that a regular user of their product was caught unaware, frustrated and maybe even felt dumb for not realizing there had a been a change in the design.

"Don't make them think" is one of my favorite lines too (by Steve Krug, who wrote the book of the same name) and also, Don't Make Me Feel Stupid

GREAT THREAD!

Kim

[Grumpus]

It took 23 posts, but this is where I thought this thread might eventually lead us (though I was expecting some technical term, maybe):

One of the dangers of striving for usability is applying a label of usable on habitual behaviour.

It also seems, to me - a guy who'd never given the concept of usability a second (well, maybe third) thought until I met Kim about 15 months ago - that hindering someone's likelihood to be able to fall into habits that are detrimental to my mission for the sake of their mission might be a desirable aim.

It has been suggested that using color and lines can make things stand out - drawing the eye to the spot on the page where I want the user to look to be able to see what's "new" or whatever. But, at some point (with a regular user, obviously) doesn't the user get into the habit of seeing those lines and color and begin to ignore them just to get to their objective more quickly?

It has been stated that, here, people notice the new logo at holiday times because they've become accustomed to seeing one there. (I suppose I should take that down some time soon, eh?) Isn't it really more that the logo has a different color in it and that the lines that draw you eye have changed on that part of the screen? I think it's not so much that people have become accustomed to seeing something there at holiday times, but that it actually disrupts the habit of their eyes by being unexpected.

This doesn't hinder the user's ability to get to their objective when they get here, but it disrupts them just long enough to notice it. And now, our Christmas logo has been up long enough so that people no longer notice it. When I take it down later, the "red" will go away and people will notice again, but if I were to leave the snowman in there and change the "u" in forums to an "a", would people notice?

G.

[peter_d]

would people notice?

Ask "is it important that they notice".

A change will certainly attract attention, but that attention isn't necessarily positive. Are you distracting people from achieving their goal? If so, then you need to have a good reason to distract them.

It's a balancing act. If your desktop changed every day you'd notice it, but the downside is that it would hinder and confuse you. Familiarity and blinkered vision can be a good thing. Depends what you are trying to achieve.

[DianeV]

First, I have to say that I've been incorporating usability into websites since about 1997, so I'm no stranger to the concept.

However, what troubles me about some discussions of usability is the assumption that "it's all about the user and what the user wants". Well, certainly the user is vital, but even more vital is achieving the aims of the company. If the site somehow satisfies users but does not achieve the company's aims, what good is it to the company? In fact, the whole point of including usability is to achieve the company's aims via the user. This seemingly slight distinction provides a vital orientation point: I'm not so sure that companies will thrill to hire usability folk to help their users in a vaccuum without with the overall reference point of achieving the company's aims.

Moving on:

But, at some point (with a regular user, obviously) doesn't the user get into the habit of seeing those lines and color and begin to ignore them just to get to their objective more quickly?

Oh-ho, Stock, you've hit the nail on the head. But used properly, the user could recognize that those lines and color are where he's likely to find what he's looking for. In design, there's something called the "eye trail" ... where the elements of the design are built and placed such that they lead the user to the point where you want them to focus. It's used to direct attention. This is particularly handy where there's a lot of information on the page, but you want them to see one thing. Therefore, with astute and adroit usage of elements, you can identify for the user where the info he's looking for is likely to be.

[cre8pc]

I'm not so sure that companies will thrill to hire usability folk to help their users in a vaccuum without with the overall reference point of achieving the company's aims.

I'm not aware of usability oriented teams or companies that do this but maybe they exist. I can't speak for the entire profession, but I was trained to request business and functional specs first and to not even consider proceeding without them. My tasks and test cases (what I prepare to test a site with) are designed to test if those goals, such as website goals for example, are met. The user interface engineers also demand this same information.

There's varying levels of experience in web design and development. From what I see in my work, nearly every small business has no idea that they need documentation and a plan so that they can later return and determine if those goals were met. It's more common to design for an "I want this to happen" and "I want this put there" scenerio, without giving thought to how it will be utilized later by the website visitor.

Case in point are images in catalogs that say "Click to enlarge." There's nearly zero thought given to this action and I think many users don't bother because an enlarged version of a poor quality picture isn't helpful. Different angles, clothing viewed in different sizes of humans, showing close up details...these are what the user wants.

The goal was to sell. The spec may have said "include screenshots". But, unless there's somebody there who understands what the online customer wants to see and what will help them decide to buy or not, it's more likely nothing will happen at all.

Kim

[Grumpus]

where the elements of the design are built and placed such that they lead the user to the point where you want them to focus. It's used to direct attention.

Yes yes yes, that's my point. A site has regular users. The thing they do every time they come there is down on the left. The designers want them to look to the right - so the graphics and art all lead the eye to the right. This is effective the first time or several times a person visits, but once the person knows that what they want is on the left, then the lines leading right become useless. In order to get someone to look there, I need to move the lines to break them of the habit of ignoring the lines trying to take their eye to the right? Right?

They can get into the habit of ignoring those lines - unless you can manage to give them something they want to see at the end of those lines every (or most of the) time they come in.

G.

[peter_d]

In order to get someone to look there, I need to move the lines to break them of the habit of ignoring the lines trying to take their eye to the right? Right?

That's one way.

Is it the right way? What are the costs? If your mission is to grab the attention of regular users at all costs, then frequent radical change is probably an effective approach. You might not end up with many regular users if changes continue however, as most people will not bother to spend time re-learning your site layout every five minutes.

All comes back to who you are trying to help do what.

[Grumpus]

Isn't a web site's primary mission to grab the attention of the users - both new and regular ones?

G.

[DianeV]

Excellent, Kim. I think you've said more in that last post than I often see in usability forums. It's important, I think, to let potential clients know these things ... what you'd be looking to help them achieve. (Which I'm sure you do.)

> "I want this to happen"

Yes. I think one of the ways this happens is that, because clients aren't web professionals (just as we aren't professionals at what they do), they don't necessarily know how to develop out a site to achieve their goals, but they do know what their goals are. On the other hand, you may get the occasional client who knows quite a bit, and that "quite a bit" gets explained in detail. In either case, it's up to us to take it from there and, in collaborating with the client, to help realize that vision. Then everybody's happy.

but once the person knows that what they want is on the left, then the lines leading right become useless.

Sure, but then you're happy that they're finding what they want. If I wanted to ensure that they *also* noticed something else, I don't know that I'd start moving lines around, but I would do *something* to get their attention. You'll see.

Isn't a web site's primary mission to grab the attention of the users - both new and regular ones?

Is it? That is, while I think you've got at least some of their attention by virtue of the fact that they visited the site on their own, I would think getting their attention is not the ultimate goal ... which would be sales, subscriptions, whatever. How you might do it could vary among types of sites.

[peter_d]

Isn't a web site's primary mission to grab the attention of the users - both new and regular ones? 

It's an over simplification.

Pop-ups grab attention, but are they desirable? Might be. A website that makes me sit through a big flash intro grabs my attention. Not in a positive way, I might add.

[Grumpus]

Peter, you keep playing the Devil's Advocate without advocating anything.

There have been a lot of good suggestions made by folks about things we can do in this thread. I, and I assume others, are trying to get a good picture of what can be done to achieve my goal when habits come into play. You seem to have a good grasp on all of this, so rather than just saying that things are bad ideas, maybe you could suggest one or two good ideas.

I'm glad Kim came in with the fact that my goals as the designer of a web site are important, here, and that it's not all about the user. I comprehend that we can't go annoying them. I really do get that. I'm just looking for techniques that I may employ or concepts to consider that will help me achieve my goals without ruining the user's experience. I have enough bad habits as it is. A list of other bad ideas doesn't help me come up with new ones.

Primarily, I'm looking for things in the realm of "habit", as that's what spawned my journey into moving down this train of thought.

I would think getting their attention is not the ultimate goal

I used primary meaning "First" not "ultimate". I suppose it wasn't the best choice of words. I still contend that my "first" goal is to get the user's attention. Now, I need to keep there attention - not for this sessions, but to be able to get it back again the next time they visit. I don't need it for long, but I need it for a moment. If they are interested, cool, if not, then by all means, go back to their habits. If I can't get their attention for that moment when they first get there and present them with what I want them to see, then the efforts I put into designing a site that people will come back to are wasted.

Actually, it's times like this when I can actually sympathize with some of the wild and annoying tactics that sites like Yahoo have tried over the years (audio ads, pass-through ads, and all the others we've seen over the years).

Maybe there isn't an answer or at least a good one that will work in enough situations to make it worth mentioning, but I'm liking it when this thread moves in a direction toward positive exploration rather than a laundry list of bad ideas. I've got my own laundry list of bad ideas.

G.

[Ron Carnell]

In writing, the opening scene/lead/paragraph plays a pivotal role in the success of the work.

The writer MUST capture the reader's interest quickly and completely, else the reader will be lost to the thousand other things simultaneously crying for their attention today. This is usually the first principle every fledgling writer learns, and as a result I see tons and tons of stories and poems that start off with an explosion that makes the Big Bang look like a firecracker. Drugs. Violence. Sex. Anything that will shock and hold the reader long enough to kindle the writer/reader relationship. Unfortunately, the fledgling writer has yet to learn that the opening must also fulfill an even more important role.

The opening represents an unwritten contract between the writer and the reader. "This is what I have to offer," the opening says, "In exchange for your time." You cannot introduce a conflict superfluous to the story. You cannot throw sex on the bed if you intend to immediately lead them into the kitchen for tea and crumpets. You cannot violently kill off a dozen people if those deaths have no effect on any of your characters. Offer more than you can deliver and you gain the readers attention at the cost of his trust. Even if the story is otherwise good, the reader will be vaguely dissatisfied and likely will never look for the writer's name again. The unwritten contract was not fulfilled.

The issue shouldn't be how much you can divert a visitor's attention on the web page, but rather whether the diversion will be suitably rewarded. If getting people to visit the Resource Directory is important enough, shut down the forums for half a day and provide nothing but that link. It'll get them there in droves. And if they agree it was important, most of them will thank you for it. The gamble, of course, is that a few might think the end didn't justify the means. You face exactly the same gamble even if you lower the stakes.

When you take draconian measures to get someone's attention, you are presenting them with an implication that you will make it worth their while. It's an unwritten contract.

You know what advice I usually offer to all those fledgling writers?

If you start out with a Big Bang, you damn well better be prepared to deliver the Universe.

[Grumpus]

Excellent stuff, Ron, thanks. Most of it was stuff I knew, but a lot of it was stuff I'd forgotten. Putting it into the context of writing (when in some ways, writing comes into this, but there's a lot more) gives me a good perspective. I took a creative writing class at some point in college, so I can relate to your message pretty easily.

Thanks again!

G.

[peter_d]

Peter, you keep playing the Devil's Advocate without advocating anything.

I apologise if I came across that way to you. It wasn't my intention. Look, it's easy to get anyones attention on a web site: stick a big red box in the middle of your page with spinning words on it saying "Read Me!!!!". That's a solution, but I think we all agree, it's a crap one

My understanding is that you want a way to attract the habitual users attention to new areas of importance, yes? I've advocated that there are aspects of design that help facilitate this (spacial, repetition, light/shade etc) and that changes need to be balanced against various other directives (as Ron suggests).

There isn't a general prescriptive solution I can offer, because my point is that one doesn't exist. Any solution is relative to context and goals.

BTW: Indeed, I have never noticed the resourse directory link.

[DianeV]

Sorry, Stock (Grumpus) -- I had realized that you probably meant "first" goal rather than "most important goal".

You're right, of course. How many times have many of us been to a website where we did not notice that there are, for example, new offerings. I'm saying that there are a number of ways of placing emphasis on particular items -- and/or placing them in areas where they'd be likely to get attention -- without moving standard layout elements.

OTOH, I'd bet that there *could* be ways of shifting standard elements around in order to accommodate something you want paid attention to *without* totally disorienting people. Most of it would be visual.

[bwelford]

OTOH, I'd bet that there *could* be ways of shifting standard elements around in order to accommodate something you want paid attention to *without* totally disorienting people. Most of it would be visual.

That's exactly right. DianeV. There's so much good stuff in this thread, but I think you hit the nail on the head there. A picture is worth a thousand words. My head is bubbling with a number of ideas but here are one or two.

1. Focus is the first requirement. You can't hope to do a great many things well at the same time.
2. The toughest visitor is the first time visitor coming in as a Guest. They've just dropped in for the first time. They don't know where anything is. So you'd better work out your priorities. Do you want them to know about the Resource Directory as one of the priority areas of the Forums? If so arrange the visual features of the web page so that they will visit that with a high probability.
3. If you don't care whether first time Guest visitors check out the Resource Directory, is it really important for frequent visitors? If so, then why not have a reminder as someone is signing in to become a Member ...

You see the drift. KISS.