unsystematic

MapQuest vs Google: A comparison

There’s a reason Google is the top search engine of choice. Better yet, there’s a reason Google is the top ____ of choice: it’s because they know how to cater towards the user. I was doing some work for a client who said they specifically wanted to use a MapQuest map for their contact page. Myself, being as stubborn as it is at times, thought, “Psh, yeah right. Why? I recommend Google.” It’s like I go towards Google without even thinking about it at all. Default. Swallowing my pride I went to the MapQuest website to grab a screen of their office location and upon loading the homepage I remembered exactly why I love Google Maps so much. I took screenshots of both so I can illustrate why Google has become the company of choice for most people.

The MapQuest homepage

The Google Maps homepage

Just to give you a little information on the setup here: These screenshots were taken on a 24″ monitor. I use Firefox with the bookmarks toolbar turned off and only the main navigation bar and my tabs showing. I use the ‘small icon’ settings for the buttons, not the larger, default ones. And as you can see, there are no other toolbars or clutter to deal with.

Both MapQuest and Google Maps have one goal and that is to provide people with maps and driving directions. These are task-oriented applications meaning people come here to perform a very small set of tasks.

The MapQuest homepage has the map shoved down so far that you have to scroll to see it. And by scrolling you can’t see the directions panel up top or the navigation. In MapQuest’s defense it places extreme priority on driving directions/location search, so much so that it takes up almost 100% of the “expensive” screen real estate. And look at all that wasted space to the top right… what’s up with that?

In contrast, Google Maps places the map front-center filling the majority of the screen. The directions panel is there, very unobtrusive and can even be tucked away if desired. It provides the exact same functionality as MapQuest, but does it in a more elegant and appealing approach. Both company’s make it extremely easy to find locations and directions, but overall Google is more effective. Also, please note that with Google Maps the need to scroll is completely eliminated as the map resizes to fit your screen. Everything can be done at the start, no scrolling and no messing around.

(Once again) props to Google for their user-friendly, task-oriented approach to design.

Open, says me

I’ve been reading Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things and I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. It was written a few decades ago so some of the stuff to the reader might seem funny. For example, Norman makes a big deal about computers – because they were relatively new at the time of the book – and VCRs, which were also fairly new. The underlying principles of usability and the cognitive approaches to memory and mappings are still very valid today.

My favorite example thus far has been the example of door handles. When it comes to doors, you can push them open, pull them open, or slide them open, but take away the handle and you have no idea how to open the door. Handles are very indicative of function and as a result should be designed to clearly describe how the door opens, otherwise you slam your face into it, or, in the case of Mr. Norman’s friend, get stuck between two sets of glass doors.

Good design doesn’t need instruction. A door should be easy to use without having to use the words “PUSH”, “PULL”, or “SLIDE”, and handles should be designed obviously. Consider the following examples:

These doors are clearly made to be pushed open.

Without the words PUSH, you'd probably pull these doors.

These handles signify pulling. The PUSH label only makes it confusing. This company chose asthetics over functionality. These labels were probably added after the doors were installed because people were having trouble opening the doors.

This could be the Nielsen/Norman coming out in me, but notice the first set of doors is the least attractive but the most usable? It’s nice to make something look attractive, but if you take away the usability in the process, you’ve only made the product worse. Part of usability is reducing or eliminating the requirement for users to think. Essentially it’s dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator of users. Good designers can create things that are not only very attractive, but also very usable.

Google vs. bing or Familiarity vs. Competition

A good friend of mine recently calmed my abhoration for Microsoft and/or bing, the new search engine from Microsoft that is a direct competitor to Google which we all know and love. What was a blatant and probably over-the-top hatred for bing, including but not limited to commercials, advertisements, and other assorted sightings, turned into an opinionated distaste based on personal preferences rather than emotional ones.

(Thank you)

I’m a fan of simplicity – less is more. If it’s not needed, it’s wasteful, so get rid of it. Maybe I’ve learned a tad too much from Jakob Nielsen and have taken a liking to stark, graphic-less layouts that allow nothing to compete with usability? Or maybe I just like to hate “the man”? Ever since I learned about Google I fell in love with the simplicity of it all, which is effectively and efficiently tailored simple, quick searches. After all, the act of searching is to accomplish one thing and one thing only: to search. Why then, must I have to look at all this other mumbo jumbo that does nothing but distracts me from my goal? This is what I thought when I saw bing for the first time.

Sure, the site looks pretty, but am I really going to be spending more than five seconds on the bing homepage? Not likely. If it’s not needed, get rid of it. My initial reaction was, “Search engines make a killing off of advertisements and paid listings… Microsoft just wants more money!” But I guess what matters more than the initial appearance of the search engine is how it lists its search results. I’d say, depending on what you search for, bing and Google are comparable, with bing having better presentation at times and Google having better presentation at other times.

The fact that bing was even created was beyond me. Why try to fix what’s not broken? The same thing goes with the next generation Zunes – Microsoft had an obvious fail with it when Apple controls the MP3 player market, yet they’re trying again. I’d sit and stress over things like the Zune and bing, but for what? I prefer Google and Apple, why do I care what they do?

Then we discussed competition and how it’s good that Microsoft came out with bing because it will keep Google on their toes and if Google is on their toes, it means better functionality, results presentations, and a better overall product for us users. So very true! And for those who wish to use bing, you can be sure Microsoft is trying hard to produce a product that’s better than Google. It’s really a win-win situation for everyone, but I didn’t realize that until this weekend.

But simply out of curiosity, for those of you who’ve used both, which do you prefer and why? And if results are equal, do you prefer the added visuals and graphics of bing, or the simplicity and “to-the-point” of Google?

What UX is not

Whitney Hess recently wrote a really great article about the top ten common misconceptions of the user experience. In it she explains what those top ten misconceptions are and details their truths using quotes from well-known UX designers. Here they are in synopsis form. For the full article see Whitney’s blog.

User experience design is not…

User interface design
It’s not uncommon to confuse ”user experience” with ”user interface” – after all it’s a big part of what users interact with while experiencing digital products and services. But the UI is just one piece of the puzzle.

A step in the process
It is the process. In order to create a great experience for your users, not just design something that we’d like to use, we need to keep listening and iterating. It doesn’t have to be a rigid process, but it does need to exist.

About technology
User experience isn’t even about technology, says Mario Bourque, manager of information architecture and content management at Trapeze Group. ”It’s about how we live. It’s about everything we do; it surrounds us.”

Just about usability
”People often think that [UX design] is a way to make products that suck into products that don’t suck by dedicating resources to the product’s design,” says Chris Fahey, founding partner and principal of Behavior. Making stuff easy and intuitive is far from our only goal. In order to get people to change their behavior, we need to create stuff they want to use, too.

Just about the user
As user experience designers we have to find the sweet spot between the user’s needs and the business goals, and furthermore ensure that the design is on brand.

Expensive
Every project requires a custom-tailored approach based on the business’s available resources, capabilities, timeline, and budget, and a whole slew of real-world constraints. But that doesn’t always mean that it needs to be costly or take forever.

Easy
Just because we know how to conduct some cool and useful activities and you know your business really well doesn’t mean that this whole process is a breeze. And cutting corners on some important steps is a recipe for disaster.

The role of one person or department
User experience designers are liaisons, not subject matter experts, doctors or any type of magical beings. We don’t have a set of best practices that we can robotically implement, nor do we have all of the answers. Our greatest skill is that we know how to listen. While we can help evangelize the most effective process within your organization, it’s ultimately up to all members of the business to make it a success.

A single discipline
We have proliferation of nebulous titles: information architect, user experience architect, interaction designer, usability engineer, design analyst, and on and on. And they don’t mean the same thing to every person or company.

A choice
For those of you who think you don’t really need a user experience designer, keep this in mind: ”Nobody wants to believe that what they are offering is of poor-quality or deficient,” says Kaleem Khan, an independent UX consultant, ”because nobody sets out to achieve a bad design as a goal. It’s always a risk. Bad designs and bad experiences happen.”

For businesses of all types, by understanding what the user experience is we can create a better online experience. A better online experience is never bad.

I miss IA

My first job out of college focused heavily on usability and information architecture. We spent 90% of our time planning a site and 10% designing it. How well it works was more important than how it looks (not to say how it looks wasn’t important). I loved the technical aspects and detail of planning: site maps, flowcharts, content maps, wireframes, etc.

There are two mindsets here, neither is wrong, merely a preference. One sees the web as a tool – “how do people use it and how can we make that tool easier to use” – knowing people are task-oriented. The other sees the web as a marketing system – “how can we attract new users and sell more”.

The hard part, at least for me, is the merging of these two mindsets. I’m without a doubt a member of the first. When I go to an online shoe store, for example, I go with goals in mind to find a specific type of shoe. Who goes to a shoe store to just look? Yeah, we price shoes (which is looking), but we still have a goal in mind – to eventually buy a certain type of shoe.

I don’t like superfluous stuff floating around my web sites with no purpose other than to make it look exciting. “Toss in a picture there; make it catchy!” But why? “Make this section here *points on screen* more exciting.” But whyyyyy? I hate advertisements, why in the world would I make them?

I am clean. I am order. I am task-oriented. I am functional. I am usable. Period. I am not a sheep. I don’t just “do” for the sake of doing, I need to know why; I need to understand. I can’t do a good job if I don’t understand what it is I’m doing or why I’m doing it.

I’ll leave you with two quotes from famous architects (since what I do is in the general realm) that say much, much more than the few words they’re made of:

“Less is more.” – Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
“Form follows function.” – Louis Sullivan