« December 2004 | Main | March 2005 »
January 30, 2005
Shopping for Frames
Any opinions?
Posted by dme at 07:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 26, 2005
Errrg. Common Usability Misunderstanding
From an article in Internet Retailer.
Most developers of e-catalog technology conduct usability studies to find out what shoppers want from their e-catalogs. However, RichFX’s Creanult says usability is not always as important as what improves sales. “We’re not always looking for what is most useable to the shopper as much as what sells the most product,” he says. “We’ve found that customers will sometimes say they don’t like certain features, but we often find the features customers say they don’t like actually sell the most product.”
And this from Jared Spool
In a recent usability test, I once again witnessed something I’ve seen a hundred times before: a frustrated user claiming he knows exactly what is wrong with the interface he was fighting with. What was his suggestion? “These guys need to make this thing a lot more intuitive. The problem is that this program isn’t intuitive enough. It needs to be more intuitive!”I think he used the I-Word no less than 25 times during the session. His frustration was real and his desire was great. So, why wasn’t the interface ‘intuitive’? Well, it’s probably because it’s really, really hard to do.
This is what I thought when I read the last quote. “‘Why wasn’t the interface intuitive?’ Did you ask him what stuff meant, what things would do and why? Because that’s how you find out.”
When I’m conducting a usability test, my goal is to observe behavior, not listen to opinion, and this is what bugs me about these two quotes. Jared describes something he “witnessed” but he’s talking about an opinion he heard. In the Internet Retailer article, a user’s opinion is treated as a measure of usability, but they’re totally different things.
It’s not that the user’s opinion is irrelevant, it’s just easy to come by and does not require a usability test, and it certainly does not correlate directly to usability.
Here’s a common scenario; a user completes a task quickly with no errors or misunderstandings. This is the fourth one in a row. The user turns to me and says, “I can do this, but other people, they’re going to have trouble. It’s too difficult.”
So what should I write in my notes? “Task too difficult – need to write an essay,” or “Task makes users feel superior to their peers.”
This is what I would jot down, “User completed the task quickly and easily with full understanding. Consider art direction to give a less complex appearance.”
I’ve seen the opposite situation even more. A user goes though a task clearly clueless about the meaning of the interactions or results they would get. I ask them, “What does that mean?” “What does that do?” The answers come back wrong, wrong, wrong. At the end they turn to me and say, “That was great! Really easy and intuitive.”
In that case my notes would read, “Bravo me! Good interface designer! Next!”
Posted by dme at 01:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 19, 2005
It's Music. Music is the Metaphor.
A mouse is one finger that can point, and touch. While computers have added orders of magnitude more memory, speed, storage, screen pixels, color, and networking, people are still using one finger. Point. Point. Poke. Poke. Drag. Drop.
More specialized inputs are being invented for video games, but I think musical instruments are the better metaphor for future input devices. Video games are reactive and competitive, and they have a short design history, a few decades, much of it reacting to new technology. Music is collaborative and creative. It is more like work. People have been designing musical instrument interfaces for centuries. Much of that history is a collaboration between craftspeople, musicians and composers. The sophistication of a saxophone or piano interface beats any video game.
Anyway, I saw this wonderful interface and it got me going. This video especially.
Posted by dme at 10:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 18, 2005
Flickr Fun
...and on a lighter note. The chest hair tag on Flickr deals up an unlikely pair.
Posted by dme at 11:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
No WMD Changes Nothing
Iraq didn’t have WMD. Now it is official and everybody knows. So this seems like as good at time as any to make a point I haven’t heard anyone articulate in the last 3 years.
We took a perceived risk to innocent civilians in the United States and weighed it against the certain death of innocent civilians in Iraq. Then we decided that we preferred the certain death of innocent civilians in Iraq. As it turns out, there were around 100,000 innocent civilians randomly killed. Half of the population of Iraq is under the age of 14.
Preemptive attack is not wrong when it’s a mistake. Preemptive attack is wrong because it might be a mistake. It is always wrong. Morally wrong.
I was raised to believe that Americans are gallant and noble people. And our actions, the sacrifices of my grandparents, during and after WWII were proof. There is nothing gallant or noble about trading the fear of harm to one person for the certain death and injury of another.
In writing this I thought to look up a letter that I sent in 2003. I haven’t changed my mind since then.
March 16, 2003President Bush,
I am writing to express my opposition to waging war against Iraq.
I base my opposition on these facts.
1. Iraq has not attacked the United States.
2. Iraq has not attacked any other nation.
3. An attack on Iraq would kill people.I have heard these reasons for war
1. Iraq might attack the U.S.A. or another nation.
2. We are tired of waiting for Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.Fear cannot justify war. Impatience cannot justify war. I believe war is only justified to stop direct, actual, violent, military attack on a nation or a people. This is simply not happening.
I believe that an attack on Iraq will spoil our relations with people and nations around the world for generations. I do not believe that this war will make the world safer for Americans or anyone else.
Posted by dme at 09:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 14, 2005
Infoporn
There it is again, that term “infoporn.”
I thought Mystic River was “acting porn”. That meant that the story, (or more generically, “the most important thing”) was only present to justify something more base. In this case, lots of crying, yelling, sweating and otherwise gratuitous intense acting.
I guess “infoporn” is supposed to be ironic. I hope that it’s ironic because the information (the most important thing) stands out to the exclusion something more base (chart junk), and therefore great information design is the exact opposite of pornography. But I suspect that the more common interpretation of the irony is that charts and graphs are not sexy and porn is not smart, so the opposite of charts and graphs is porn. Viola, irony!
More irony below.
Posted by dme at 12:19 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 12, 2005
iPod Drip
I find this photo for the new iPod curious. The Black/White/Color ads were all about movement and activity, but this one is kind of mopey. And in that context, the white plastic design stops being fresh and new, and becomes downright medical. Like one of those self-regulated morphine drips that are issued after outpatient surgery. I half expect the white tubes to lead into his nose or arm.
Posted by dme at 10:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Go ahead, cut and paste
I'm really really sure Josh Marshall does not read my blog. So it was funny to see a post tonight that was so close to the letter I sent to my Senators.
I said : "I am 35 years old .... I can expect to get full benefits until I am 83 years old. After that, with no changes, the system is projected to cover 80% of my promised benefits."
Josh said: "I'm thirty-five .... I'll have no problem until 2052, when I'll be 83. After that, they say, there will be a reduction, but again not an overwhelming one."
Maybe I'll get a chance to hang out with him at the old folks home. And if he helps save Social Security, the first round of Ensure is on me.
Posted by dme at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 11, 2005
Letters to my Senators
If you're not in the habit of writing letters to your elected representatives, Congress.org makes it very easy. I've been using it regularly for a couple of years.
Here is a letter I sent last week to John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Feel free to cut and paste if you share this sentiment. The stats came from this editorial in the New York Times by Paul Krugman.
I am genuinely concerned about the proposed privatization of Social Security. I am 35 years old. Without any changes to Social Security, I can expect to get full benefits until I am 83 years old. After that, with no changes, the system is projected to cover 80% of my promised benefits. That difference could be recovered by repealing the recent tax cuts given to people with incomes over $500,000.Privatization of Social Security has been disastrous in other countries. The real threat to Social Security is the deficit, and this plan adds trillions to it. The president is proposing changes that will lower my benefits up to 40% before I start collecting.
I frankly cannot understand who would support this plan unless they were simply ideologically opposed to Social Security. I’m looking to you for a moderate voice to save Social Security for my generation.
Sincerely,
David Erwin
The 2nd paragraph is a little choppy, and the part about the tax cuts for the rich reveals that I wouldn't vote for either of these nincompoops no matter what they do. But still, they need to know that we’re not buying this whole crisis nonsense.
Posted by dme at 10:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack