90 percent of everything : Usability Blog

Written by Harry Brignull

Has anyone else noticed how great Facebook image tagging is?

Granted, it is only for putting names to faces, but it’s incredibly quick to use (say 5 seconds per photo), and it’s really satisfying. Your friends see you’ve tagged them (the images appear in their news feed on their facebook homepage), and usually respond with a comment or by tagging some of your photos in return.

Compare this to Flickr where image tagging feels heavyweight, tiring and you get no quick payback for your effort.

Come on Flickr - you’ve dropped the ball on tagging. It should be a rapid, social and fun activity!

Four good reasons for you:

1. This year it’s all about user experience design.
2. The conference is small and friendly enough to actually meet and get to know new people.
3. You actually stand to learn something useful since there are some great presenters and workshops.
4. It’s in Brighton, about 3 minute’s walks from the beach and right by the Pavillion gardens.

And three reasons to tell your boss:


5. Registration is really cheap
6. It’s commutable from london
7. It’s short - you’ll only be out of action for a day (or two if you do a workshop)

Hope to see you there!

Read more at dconstruct.org

Microsoft Surface is a pretty amazing piece of research: tabletop touchscreen computing done really well. But, the “origins” section on the Surface website strongly implies that the whole concept of tabletop computing originated from Microsoft. It didn’t. If you find this stuff exciting, you should check out some of the prior research in this area.

MERL’s diamond touch : one of the first multi-touch technologies (works by running an electronic signal to your finger via your chair to identify each user).

IPSI’s roomware: this is an entire room decked out as touchscreen surfaces that are all linked together.

Stanford’s Tabletop groupware: they’ve done tons of stuff in the area. You may recognise some of the gestural stuff that also appears in the MS video.

Jun Rekimoto’s work (Sony) this includes “holotable”, “smart skin” and “augmented surfaces”. Jun is a genius- in my opinion, his research is genre defining.

I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that Microsoft are building on top of prior research - this is, after all, what research is all about. I’m just trying to say that there are some talented people and research groups out there that also deserve recognition for the state of the art today.

Google’s new “website optimiser” is one of the biggest and most exciting user research tools to emerge on the scene in quite some time.

It’s a bit surprising, then, that hardly anyone in the User Centred Design field is talking about it. Perhaps it’s passed a lot people by – after all, it does have a rather bland name, it’s been released alongside Adwords (their advertising product), and the sales blurb says that it’s for “online marketers”, which is not a title normally associated with UCD.

Basically, Google Website Optimizer allows you to evolve your site using live user data. You give it a number of different page elements and it alternates between combinations of them on your live site. It gathers performance data (i.e. click-throughs) and you get a live report on which combination is the most successful.

It’s like natural selection- the good combinations win, the bad ones die, and you sit back and watch it all happen.

But it won’t solve all your design problems - it doesn’t compete with traditional UCD tools like lab-based user testing, participatory design and so on. Its place is at a very specific part of the design process, when you have some very specific questions to ask. Here’s a quick illustration:

A few months ago I did some user testing for a .com start-up who was focussing on achieving a huge number of sign-ups. We held 8 one-on-one user sessions on a prototype of their website. Afterwards we had some great findings. Users had real difficulties understanding the proposition of their service – it was just so new and weird, they have nothing to compare it to. Through a process of behavioural observation, interviewing and low-fi design exercises, we nailed down where the problems were and how to solve them. By the end of it we had a new tag line and step-by-step explanation of the service that most users grasped instantly.

This is something that Google Website Optimizer would not have been able to do. It can’t talk to your users to find out what they are thinking, and it can’t engage with them creatively. With Google Website Optimizer, all the richness of your customers’ needs, goals and expectancies gets left behind. All you get is some numeric data showing what they clicked.

Going back to the example scenario - by the end of the project debrief meeting we got to a point where many of the big issues had been dealt with, but lots of smaller issues started cropping up. Should the copy on the registration button read “Join” or “Sign up”? Should it have some associated copy like “No credit card needed” or “First month free”? What about the bullet points on the front page? We had 6 good ideas but we only had space for 3 bullet points, so which should we choose? You get the picture - we’d sorted out the big issues, but now we needed to finesse. This is exactly where Google Website Optimizer should come in.

In summary: it’s fantastic, but not a magic bullet. Consider it just another tool in your User-Centred Design toolbox.

I’ve been having a lot of fun doing out of box experience design consultancy over the last few weeks (OOBE as it is pretentiously called by those in the know). If you’ve ever opened an Apple product then you’ll know what an excellent out of box experience is; and, if you’ve ever opened a packaged copy of Windows Vista you’ll know what a bad out of box experience is. [See a nice comparison on Robert Hoekman’s blog, via Reaction.]

If you look around on the web, there isn’t much in the way of out-of-box design guidelines, with the notable exception of IBM’s offering. So I’ve put together a mini set of guidelines based on a metaphor of the bento box.

A bento box:

• Is a joy to use.
• Actively improves your perception of the contents, through attention to every minute detail.
• Encourages an order of consumption - the physical structure affords consumption of the top layer first. This is very useful if you need your user to do things in a certain order.
• Compartments are spacious enough to allow easy access to contents.
• Makes it just as easy to put things in as to take things out.

So next time you’re doing OOBE design with a bunch of non-UX people, introduce this metaphor to your team. It’s quick, it’s easy and it’ll give you a piece of common vocabulary to hang your ideas off.

I’m really interested to hear your comments - so please comment below! >>>

This is Luis von Ahn giving a Google TechTalk presentation about “human computation”.

He talks about Capatchas and the ESP game among other things. He’s particularly qualified to talk about them because he basically invented them.

Really interesting stuff. It’s been online for about year so this isn’t a very timely post, but it’s so worth watching if you haven’t seen it already. Enjoy!

Here’s a little walkthrough of the Linked-in user experience:

1. When you register, it encourages you to add weak links to your network.
It does this by trying to get you to add your entire address book to join your network (as shown below). I don’t know about you, but many of the people I have in my address book are “weak links” – people I only sort-of-know.

2. Even if you dont fall for the trap, people you sort-of-know will.
So you end up with a mix of strong links (close friends and colleagues) and weak links (people you have met a couple of times, or have only ever had email contact with).

3. One of your contacts requests an introduction with someone you don’t know, but one of your weak links does.
Linked-in allows your contacts to request “an introduction” with not just people on your network, but people they know. So if you’ve never met Bill Gates, but one of your weak links knows him, another of your contacts could ask you to ask your weak link to introduce them.

4. You are given two options: “forward” or “decline”
This chain of vague association would probably make you feel a little awkward at this point. If you go ahead with it, you’d could find yourself saying “I know you don’t know me that well, but this other person I don’t know that well wants me to introduce you to someone you are linked to”. What if you don’t want to do this? Is there a polite way of getting out of this situation?

Basically linked-in shows you two buttons (as above), which force you to make a choice. The problem is that this is so black and white. You are either actively helping, or you are actively blocking. In a face-to-face conversation, you might change the subject, or be non-committal - “I’ll see what I can do”. The requester might then realise you don’t feel hugely comfortable about it and drop the subject. Also, with voicemail or email, one of your options is inaction. You can postpone indefinitely. Basically, in the “real world”, there are many shades of grey, and both parties have many options to avoid socially awkward interactions.

But in the Linked-in world, their system forces you into a direct confrontation. You can end up saying to yourself “I feel awkward about forwarding, I feel awkward about declining”

5. If you ignore the email, linked-in keeps hassling you
So Linked-in now sends you a reminder email again, and again, and again. How very, very annoying.

Here’s what Linked in should do to sort this mess out:

• Don’t allow people to add their entire Outlook contact list. If they must offer this feature, they should add a step where the user is encouraged to remove the weak links. Weak links dilute your network.
• Allow users to set their chain length. I personally would only want chains of 3 (a friend asks me to introduce them to another friend). Other users might be happy with 4.
• Don’t force direct confrontations: Allow people to gracefully ignore or “sidestep” thorny requests.
• One reminder email is enough. Two is nagging. three is ridiculous.

According to Diggnation, Microsoft ran a number of focus groups for Office 2007 and asked people what new features they wanted Office to do. They gave a list of needs and nice-to-haves. Funnily enough, all of the requested functionality was in Office already, but nobody could find it because it’s all hidden away in the many-layered UI.

This is an important lesson - if your users can’t find a feature, it may as well not exist and you’ve wasted your time making it. The Ribbon menu has done a lot to fix this problem, since it only shows you the features relevant to what you are doing at that particular point in time.

Touchscreens. Pockets. Keys. Big Fat Thumbs. These things haven’t managed to go together very well in the past … but have Apple managed to crack it with the iPhone?

The great thing about physical buttons is that they stay in the same place, and they have a “tactile landscape”. This means that if you are familiar with your phone, your hand can feel where the buttons are, and your motor memory can make using them feel “automatic”, a bit like riding a bike. The tactile landscape can help you do things while you are using your phone, like walking down a busy street and writing a text without bumping into anything. This makes your phone into a genuinely mobile device - something that you can use while moving, rather than just a portable device - something that you carry around but only use while stationary. [Ref]

This all seems fairly logical, right? So the question is, will the touchscreen on the Apple iPhone require too much visual attention? Will it be one of those devices you have to use while standing (or sitting) still?

Then comes the question of robustness. Apple tends to make devices that get scratched just by looking at them. I resent having to mollycoddle my ipod. I dread having to do the same with my phone. I don’t just want a phone that works with itunes and osx. I want a phone that’s compatible with my keys and my loose change.

But having said all this, when are they released in the UK? I badly want one!

Adobe have uncharacteristically released a public beta of the new version of Photoshop - mainly so those people with shiny new Intel Macs don’t have to put up with running Photoshop under emulation any longer.

Everyone’s very excited. There’s a improved UI (no more floating palettes. yay!) and they’ve finally added a feature I’ve wanted for a long time - the ability to add filters to images non-destructively. To put it another way you can add an effect to an image and if you go back later and change the settings Photoshop will reapply the effect using the original image as a source. Previously you would have permanently changed the image when you applied a filter.

Now actually Photoshop already had a limited version of this already in the form of ‘Adjustment Layers’ which did pretty much what I just described but only work with a limited subset of effects - mainly those that do colour correction and adjustment.

Also there is a feature that has been around for ages called ‘layer effects’ which again let you apply effects to a layer non-destructively. But these are a different kind of effect again - effects that use just the perimeter of the image layer to create an effect.

Now I’ve used Photoshop for a fair while (since version 2.51 which didn’t have layers and only had one undo if you can believe such a thing. It was also made of copper and ran entirely on coal) so these subtle distinctions make a weird kind of sense to me. I know what the difference is between filters, adjustments and layer effects and have enough of a feel for Photoshop’s internal workings to see why there is a technical basis the these categories.

However I also teach Photoshop and am not looking forward to trying to explain this stuff. It’s really not going to make much sense. You’ve got three different categories of non-destructive effects all with their own means of being applied and with three different sets of limitations. Whatever the technical reason for this, it’s definitely something that could be fixed with some clever coding (After Effects and Fireworks both manage to avoid the problem with their own implementation of non-destructive effects).

This is part of the Photoshop interface. Not so much in the sense of buttons and on-screen widgets but in terms of the conceptual surface that you encounter when you learn the program.

You really notice this when you try and teach software to other people. It might make sense to you as you’ve learnt the creases and wrinkles over time but when you have to detour into non-obvious distinctions and internal workings to explain to someone why blur can’t be an adjustment layer and posterize can’t be a smart filter then you start to wish that a bit more consistency had been enforced when the features were added.

UPDATE - A great explanation from John Nack (The Photoshop product manager) on the reasons for the way smart filters have been implemented. They had some tough decisions to make to maintain a good user experience and I can understand why things are the way they are. Also see my comments and John’s response.