unsystematic

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.

UX Analysis: Product Carousels

I’m going to start a new series of posts here performing user experience analysis on different (and probably random) on common web elements. I’m going to try to do this more frequently than I’ve been writing so check back often. If you don’t find something within the next week or so, buy me a coffee and send me an email and I’ll get on it.

The first of these series’ will be on product carousels, Javascript-based image sliders that show a certain number of products at a time and the user can click left or right arrows and scroll for more. I was recently posed with a question on the usability between non-continuing carousels and continuing carousels.

Carousels are becoming increasingly popular. They allow the display of several images, products, “things” in a decently small space, letting the user determine if and how much of the products he or she wants to see. They are based on Javascript, and while Javascript isn’t so much a problem anymore, anyone who has it disabled in their browsers won’t be able to use the carousels. Not really a problem though as I don’t know anyone who has Javascript disabled.

One type of carousel works linearly – it starts at the left and the user scrolls to the right and it stops allowing the user to only go back to the left. The other type of carousel is the continuous carousel which loops the products so when the user reaches the end of the display it will loop back to the beginning seamlessly thereby showing the products uninterrupted.

So what about usability of these two types of carousel? Well, a lot of usability is familiarity. When Microsoft launched Vista, they had completely changed much of its interface which was a large part of the confusion. For ten years Windows worked in a specific way and we got used to it, then it was all of a sudden changed and we were forced to go with the changes. Ok, back to the topic, carousels. It isn’t safe to assume everyone knows how to use a carousel, but I’m going to go on a limb and assume that most people know how to use them and if you’re a user shopping on a web site I’m going to guess you have a pretty clear understanding of how the site works and therefore how a carousel works.

A non-repeating carousel stops at the end giving the user the chance to mentally organize the products and make a selection – if any – of which to choose. A repeating carousel, on the other hand, requires the user to make more of a mental note since there isn’t a definite “end” of the list. We have to be aware that “Hey, I’ve seen this one already – I must’ve reached the end”.

So as far as usability is concerned I’d say they’re both on the same level. A carousel technically and mechanically works only one way. But as for the user experience a non-repeating carousel requires less work and effort from the user – even if subtle – and is therefore a better choice for the user experience.

Comment on this post and read others like it at my UX Weblog.

Study: Netflix web site

Usability for the web is becoming more important and more desired. And rightfully so. Internet usage climbed 305% last year and is used in nearly every country on the planet. This means that the people who use the Internet range from savvy to uneducated and everything in between; from people with great understanding of how the web works to people who barely know what to click. And this is no exaggeration.

The ability for people to understand and use the web is more important now than it ever has been and as technologies increase and as more options become available online, the need for great usability will never wane.

So I’ve been a Netflix subscriber for a few months now and every time I visit the site I am more and more impressed. Yesterday, for example, I had to file a missing disc report on their site. It literally takes three clicks to report a disc missing. And there are no questions involved. Like I said, impressive.

The navigation is extremely logical. The elements are in places where you’d logically expect them to be. The layout is a fairly common one, but Netflix somehow does an excellent job at making their web site exceedingly easy to use. I like that.

Searching for movies is easy and the search feature works better than most search features I’ve seen – including Apples. However, this is probably because Apple is searching a database far larger than the one(s) at Netflix. I still give Apple credit though. Entering a search term will, without a doubt, find the movie you’re looking for. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

The Queue is probably one of Netflix’s best features. It’s certainly not unique as an idea, but I think Netflix has done an outstanding job. One click adds a movie to your Queue at the bottom and the user is given the immediate option to move it to the top. It takes a single click to move movies around in the Queue. It even tells you which movie you currently have and which one is up next.

And the best part: all this is done using a super elegant modal window. Love.

Netflix does a great job at keeping the user informed. Emails that are sent out are brief and generally don’t require any action from the user. While some might find this annoying, I wasn’t bothered at all. Had the emails been lengthy or spam then of course, but these aren’t at all offensive.

When it comes to web site usability the Netflix web site is a fantastic example, encompassing all of the really important usability features such as familiar navigation, extreme ease-of-use, highly intuitive searching, and elegant modal windows minimizing the use of confusing querystrings.

http://www.netflix.com

Into the mind of a UX designer

When it comes to design there are several branches all pertaining to different mediums and psyches. Even though they all stem from the same basic principles all design is not the same.

Let’s start with print design, for example. My knowledge of print design is only limited to my four college years. My major was Visual Communication Design with an emphasis on Graphic Design. Sure I did some pretty sweet layouts and yeah I got good grades, but my focus was not, and is not print. I think what turned me off of print, aside from the lack of good ol’ dirty code, was the whole printing aspect. I don’t mind designing for print, but ask me to actually get the thing printed and the deal’s off. I hate it. Two jobs in one if you ask me and the second one being the headache.

Now, design for the web – ah, that’s my niche – is something in and of itself. People use the web differently than they use a printed piece. Not to mention web designers don’t really have the freedom or flexibility to “step outside the box” like print designers do. We have to follow trends and make designs that are comfortable and familiar lest we (or our clients) lose the users’ interest.

Every designer has his or her own tastes and approach, but I’ve worked with some print designers who have tried web design only to rack my head trying to find some tangible way to make the design work for the web. Not that the design was bad – it just wasn’t “configured” properly for the web without a considerable amount of tweaking.

I tend to take the more common sense approach. I like to make things as easy to use as possible; as usable as possible. I believe people who use the web use it to find information and so I think the web should be a tool that presents that information as easily and as understandably as it possibly can. Therefore I take a highly utilitarian approach to the web. I don’t normally do lavish, decorated, ornate, or otherwise superfluous designs, rather I create beautifully simple web designs that don’t leave the user lost in cyberspace.

Print pieces can be informative too, but imagine using a dictionary or encyclopedia covered in all sorts of ornate decorations (that’s what they are – decorations) that do more distracting than assisting. The web is informative, but it is mostly a tool and therefore it should be usable.

I’ve worked with some people who have directed me to “give that title a bit more space around; let it breathe” only to entirely disregard common layout and proportion elements of design. Because making a usable web isn’t only about the consciousness, it’s also about the subconsciousness and what “feels” comfortable. That’s why we have things such as the “rule of thirds” and other similar layout “rules”… because they somehow feel more comfy and things which aren’t comfy aren’t used.

Part of my job as a web designer is the user experience (UX for short). Not only am I tasked with creating a web site that works and gives the user the information he or she is looking for in a timely matter, but I am also tasked with making the web site memorable. Some people believe memorability is done by visuals, I believe it’s done by usability. But it’s completely personal, really.

Take Wikipedia for example. Not a whole lot of visuals there, but each of us, for some reason or another, use it to look up information. Why? What about Google? The search engine is extremely stripped of superfluous design elements, yet we remember to use it every time we search. Why, if not because they are usable.

My web sites look good, but they work better. I back them with my name and my credibility is on the line after all. If you’re looking for frills and all sorts of distracting designs then I’m not your vendor. However if you want a web site that is clean, simple and highly usable… I’m an email away.

:)