Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Ask Jakob Nielsen Almost Anything 292

Let's put it this way: when it comes to software, hardware, and Web usability issues, Jakob Nielsen be da man! There's been lots of talk about Linux usability since before kernel 1.0, and there has been so much discussion about Web site usability vs. technological cuteness, not only here on Slashdot but everywhere such things are discussed, that heads spin every time the subject comes up. So let's bypass all the people who have usability opinions just because they have opinions, and go straight to The World's Leading Expert. Read his Web site first to keep from asking questions he's answered over and over, then start typing (or moderating). Answers are scheduled to appear Friday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Jakob Nielsen Almost Anything

Comments Filter:
  • by brennanw ( 5761 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:04AM (#1240027) Homepage Journal
    There has been a lot of usability research concerning text printed on paper that indicates that serif fonts improve readibility, because the hooks at the ends of the fonts make words and sentences easier to follow. Has anything similar been done on the web? It seems to me that sans-serif fonts are easier to read on web sites because the low resolution of monitors (compared to paper, at any rate) make serif fonts harder to look at...
  • by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:06AM (#1240028) Journal
    It is well known that Linux is, in usability terms, an unusable piece of trash, where the interface is changing widely from machine to machine, depending on what window manager is installed and exactly how the user set it up. For those who are trying to move Linux to everybody's desktop, there's a long row to hoe before it even comes close to ideal usability. So, in light of that, do you have any recommendations for standardizing the linux desktop that would provide "maximum bang for the buck"? In other words, what's the most importent thing to add as soon as possible in terms of usability?
  • by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:06AM (#1240029)
    Would you care to comment on the usability of slashdot? Good? Bad? Ugly? Be sure to read the apache section before answering that last one.
  • I wanted to keep this out of the "question" itself.

    I'm not saying that all linux desktops will be on this standard, I'm simply talking about those who are. I'm sure you'll always be able to do what you like with your own desktop, but we need to start getting some standards for the standard distributions.

  • I think they do. They make me press the back button.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:12AM (#1240032)
    How much of your advice is based on experimental research, and how much on your personal experience and intuition? (And how much personal surfing experience do you get each day?)
  • by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:12AM (#1240033) Homepage Journal
    One of the areas I looked into for my MPhil thesis was allowing the user to customise the format of information on-the-fly, both in terms of page layout/format (eg: frames, tables, PDF, Postscript or straight page), and in terms of content presentation (eg: book-style paragraphs vs block paragraphs).

    How practical/useful would it be if computer interfaces, in general, went in this sort of direction, allowing the user to enforce the format they want, rather than relying on the programmer or web-page designer to produce something usable?

  • linux usability..
    is not linux usability directly proportional to how intelligent you are versus how long you have been using winblows?

    if you have been using linux for a long time it doesnt really matter what version you are using or how X windows is config'd.
  • by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:15AM (#1240035) Journal
    Have you considered the Amazon patent issues and your Amazon Affiliate usage?
  • ... that is very obvious and necessary in your opinion, but is hardly ever or has never been implemented, or is implemented poorly?

    And what's the biggest sin you see in most applications?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:16AM (#1240037)
    In most of your writings and interviews, you seem to be recommending short pages as always better than long ones. Sometimes you qualify this as applying only to 'navigation pages'-- but you never define that term. Aren't there more complex rules about when it's okay to have a long page? Don't you yourself find it frustrating when you have to load multiple pages, when one longer page could easily have held all the info?
  • From what information is available, what do you think of Eazel [eazel.com]? Is this necessary, or are Gnome [gnome.org] and KDE [kde.org] too geek-driven to ever meet consumer preference/demand? Do you think that Gnome or KDE could be modified to create a consumer-level GUI, or will it take a project like Eazel to start from scratch? How essential is all this to the success of Linux?
  • by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:17AM (#1240039) Homepage
    To what extent will people start using their browser's features to compensate for bad web sites? For example, your browser might automatically convert frames to tables, or precis long chunks of text, or concatenate lots of bitty pages into one easily-readable page. Since there will always be badly designed sites out there, do you think this is a useful sticking-plaster?
  • by pluteus_larva ( 13980 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:20AM (#1240042) Homepage
    What's the worst Web site you've ever seen, and why?
  • The question just about everyone wants to know about.

    Now the KDE and Gnome are usable and at least one claims to be mature. What are they doing right ? What are they doing wrong and what do the need to address in the near term ( I.e. obvious usability bugs ) and the long term ( pushing the envelope and making things better ).

    How much stuff is needed at the lower levels of the system to make these projects more usable than they are now ?

    What do you think is the most glaring gap among Linux applications. My favorite is a clone of "edit.com" from Windows/dos. What's yours' ?

  • by tbray ( 95102 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:22AM (#1240046) Homepage Journal
    You are the holder (or co-holder) of quite a number of patents [xent.com]. Can Open Source software builders who construct, for example, something that "prints a hyperspacial document" or "updates visual bookmarks" expect to be hearing from your attorneys?
  • by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:23AM (#1240048) Homepage

    Do you think that a good user interface can be designed without an understanding of the process behind it ?

  • by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:31AM (#1240053)
    Any advice on how to do things like even column width on tables in a standard fashion or other more complex stuff?

    We all would like to make standards-compliant websites, but the truth is that MSIE v. Netscape basically killed the idea of using HTML4... anything past 3's extensions and you start getting wierd rendering - is there a solution?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:31AM (#1240054)
    In a Wired article on Eazel [wired.com] posted to Slashdot the other day, you said:

    "They need to rethink the entire approach... They're saying let's implement a Mac-like interface so that we can have a nicer Unix. That's a nice thing, I guess, but it's not really revolutionary."

    Can you describe some specific ideas and UI elements you would consider if you were designing the "revolutionary" Linux GUI?

  • Slightly off topic, but sort of on... I highly recommend anyone doing GUI development read Jakob's book, "Usability Engineering". It provides a great quantitative framework for evaluating the usability of an application and helps you avoid the common pitfalls in GUI design. I know we all like to say "RTFM", but the reality is that nobody does. :)
  • I'm designing an X based GUI (window manager) and am wondering what you would suggest for some reall y basic features.

    Here's what I've come up with so far:

    Movable scroll bars. They can be moved and placed at either side.
    Movable title bars. This would also contain the window operations "buttons" as well. I'm also planning to allow the moving and custom situation of these buttons for maximum configurability.
    Ok, now this one I'm still tossing around. Voice navigation. Using IBM's ViaVoice SDK I could add voice navigation. Do you think this is a good idea or just worthless fluff? I think it would be beneficial to those who either have desks so cluttered they cannot located a pointing device or need to work faster (such as a support desk type of job, etc).
    Most importantly I want to make it as modular as possibly with very little built into the core WM. This is important to ensure that most people can make use of it. I'd like it to run fairly well on at least a 486DX2-66 and 16-20MB of RAM.


    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  • As you have noted. Linux has the most flexible and inconsistant look you can actually have in a graphic system. This is absolutely correct. But this is what it is good for.

    So your sysadmin can create a standard build for your department, section, group or your personal sorry a... that fits your exact needs.

    Asking about what should we standartize globally is either:

    • Not understanding the system
    • Having a very bad/underpaid BOFH. Or not having one at all
  • What are your views on standards compliance for, baseline, HTML 4.01 and CSS-1? Are we fighting towards a goal which is universally unattainable (due to the embbeded nature of some browsers like WebTV and *cough* IE on Windows), or are we nearing a new age for web developers?

    ----
  • by GrokSoup ( 30253 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:39AM (#1240064) Homepage
    You are regularly accused of being excessively conservative. Absolve yourself: Would you agree that it is often better to design a great site for 90% of your customers, than to dumb it down for the sake of the other web-handicapped 10%?
  • Something that's been bugging me for a long time: http://useit.com/ [useit.com] doesn't work as a URL, one is forced to enter http://www.useit.com/ [useit.com]. It seems to me that the ability to drop the "www." from the front of URLs is a widely accepted convention- considering the title of Nielsen's website leaves it out as well, I was wondering why this isn't taken care of, if it's a technical glitch or some kind of design decision.
  • So let's bypass all the people who have usability opinions just because they have opinions


    Well, that rules out a substantial portion of the people here, me included. Will there be a Jon Katz interview at some point, dedicated to people to have opinions just because they have opinions. (It is a matter of opinion whether I am referring to Jon or his detractors.)

    And for people who didn't catch the implied tag at the beginning:

    </irony>
  • by filrock ( 71729 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:44AM (#1240070) Homepage

    What do you think of Palm's new color devices? Do you think that color is the way to go on a portable device, or do you believe that greyscale displays provide all of the funcitonality needed for a PDA.

    On a related note, how do you see Palm/Handheld devices evolving in the next few years?

    http://fortes.com/ [fortes.com]
  • by Phil-14 ( 1277 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:44AM (#1240071)

    I'm currently a user of both an older version of the MacOS and Linux, where Linux is running (on both boxes I have) a combination of Sawmill and Gnome. I've been reading a lot about Aqua, both how much more advanced the rendering library is than anything we have on Linux, and about what a decline in usability it is compared to the MacOS of old. For one critique, check the recent article on arstechnica.com; it goes into more detail than I can.


    I haven't used Aqua myself yet, but I'm beginning to think that in some ways its "dock" is inferior from a human interface point of view to the panel in Gnome, depending on how it's configured. If I've set up the pager to hold minimized applications, they're not in danger of being mistaken for application launchers or links to documents or directories. Applets are dissimilar to either; although the default tiles, IMHO, need to be a little better, all of the above seem to be differentiated much better than in MacOS.


    I'm not thinking in terms of a "we must have a standard and make everyone use it" schtick that a lot of people get on when they talk about improving Linux's user interfaces; it doesn't seem to have helped Windows and MacOS all that much, IMHO. But how would you change the defaults in gnome (or KDE) to improve usability? Might their relative customability be useful in usability experiments?

    I guess a good question would be, even though I like it a lot, is the panel trying to do too much?


  • by washort ( 6555 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:45AM (#1240072) Homepage
    Much attention is given to usability in GUIs and websites, (such as in your column Novice vs. Expert Users [useit.com]) but what about textmode and primarily keyboard applications such as text editors? Personally, i believe that Emacs has the best user interface of any text editor i've ever used (vi's a close second, calm down people :), but it's geared towards experts. What do you see for the future with regard to synthesizing novice usability and expert usability? the "smart menus" as seen in MS Office 2000 seem to head in that direction, only showing basic options unless an expansion button is pressed at the bottom of the menu. The best touch is that it "remembers" what you last used from the full menu and puts it on the basic menu. How can we smooth the curve?
  • >From an objective standpoint, what Slashdot does to sites is no different than little script kiddies with packet machine guns.

    But... the people hitting these site (supposedly) want the information there, which is why a page/site is up in the first place. the DDoS atackers generally don't read for content, I'm thinking 8^D

    It is a major PITA, though...
  • by filrock ( 71729 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:48AM (#1240075) Homepage
    Microsoft is developing a new online service called Mars [activewin.com]. What do you think about this (and AOL's) concept of hiding all of the nasty parts of the Internet from the user? Do you think that it breeds ignorance in users (i.e. not understanding the difference between a URL and an AOL keyword).

    Filipe Fortes http://fortes.com [fortes.com]

  • by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:51AM (#1240077) Homepage
    ...an hour a week of your time and expertise to help the Linux community design a UI that does the right things right?

    --
  • by Duke of URL ( 10219 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:52AM (#1240079)
    What type of education did you (and others )have to receive to become a useability expert? Basically whats the best route to get a career in human-computer factors?
  • From an objective standpoint, what Slashdot does to sites is no different than little script kiddies with packet machine guns. Except it's legal.

    Yes, I agree that from an objective standpoint the slashdot-effect is much like a DoS attack, but you know the difference. At least in this case people are trying to obtain information.

    I guess the question should be who's obligation is it to serve information on the internet? Is it slashdot's obligation to tell the admins that they will be posting a link? Or is it the admin's job to make sure the site is up and running and can serve an amount of traffic that the slashdot effect can induce?

    I feel that I am not personally qualified to answer this question, but I am sure it is a question that deserves some attention by all parties involved.
  • Two thoughts:
    I had a hell of a time looking for a 'post reply to root' link. Unlike the 'Reply to This' feature, which is a link, it's a button bundled with UI elements dedicated to screening results-- my eye ignored the Reply button because I'd glance at the stuff to the left of it first.

    Another issue: on Netscape 4.7 for NT, hilighting text only makes it change color from black to dark blue, which is hard to see. This is mostly an issue with the Netscape search feature that hilights text that it's Ctrl-F found.

    Also, is there a way to get a list of all the past quotes? Sometimes I forget to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page (since all the new stuff is at the top!) and would like to peruse these little bon mots...

  • by SPorter ( 83284 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @08:56AM (#1240083) Homepage
    It has been said that Apple is throwing out years of usability research in favor of glitz and coolness in designing Aqua. Do you agree with this assesment? How does one effectively compromise between coolness and ease of use?

    (You 'da man!)

  • You can't tell if a patent is obvious from the title, you need to read the claims. The claims are the only legally binding definition of what is covered by a patent.

    In the case of this particular patent, the claims appear to relate to a set of (say) radio-button options with two phases of selection. After action one (e.g., waving your mouse over a button), all the items in the particular exclusive set of radio buttons are modified in appearence to give the user feedback as to the exclusivity of the radio button operation. A second action (e.g., click) is necessary to cause the operation of the buttons.

    Not saying it's obvious, not saying it's not. Just saying you're reading too much into the title.

  • ...if you're unable to volunteer, what resources do you recommend to GUI skin designers? Where can they look to learn how to design better (read: more functional/less error-prone/more productive) GUIs?


    --
  • Try here: Web pages that suck [webpagesthatsuck.com]

    ...richie

  • by Sax Maniac ( 88550 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:00AM (#1240088) Homepage Journal
    The art of interface design and usability seem to have both taken great hits as applications move from the desktop to the web.

    It seems that all the good practices we've learned in the last ten years of GUI design are simply thrown out the window, just because an app is on the web.

    Zero keyboard navigability, garish visuals, bad fonts, and unintelligible buttons seem to be the norm instead of the exception nowadays. If a company released the same interface on the desktop, they'd be laughed out of existence.

    What can be done to encourage web developers to follow solid, trusted, UI design guidelines?

  • if you truly believe in the web why have you patented [xent.com] a large number of highly obvious mechanisms such as "Apparatus and method for displaying enhanced hypertext link anchor information " and "Client-side, server-side and collaborative spell check of URLs" ??? I personally detest this type of behavior as do many other slashdot readers.
  • hate to burst your bubble, but it won't work in any real sense. Most of us "abusers" have well over 100-200+ karma points. Why, because over time we've posted more "good" content than crap. It only takes 25 points to get the +1, so anybody who posts good stuff for a month or so (or even a very insightful DAY) will get it. Karma whoring also works if you need it (preach the Linux party line and use big words (Sig11 showed us how)).

    What we need is a higher limit on total scores so the difference between 1 and 2 is less significant, instead of a 20% quality boost.

    Of course, checking the "No Score +1 Bonus" box by default would probably solve the problem, most times I don't even bother with it, although this time I'm ingoring it on purpose.

    When you are a generally good person (poster) you can ignore (or at least not worry about) Karma, just like in real life.

    --
  • With respect to your first thought concerning the "reply to root" button being less than obvious: I believe that this is mostly by design. The fact that it is out of the way and in a less intuitive spot helps to lessen the number of replies to the post description itself. In doing so, it promotes responding to other people's messages thereby nurturing a more discussion oriented comments section. (Admittedly, discussions are few and far between down here.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:12AM (#1240097)
    Dear Sir,
    You say that people don't "read" web pages but instead "scan" them through quickly.

    Do you think that the reason why people don't read web pages is because of some psychological phenomena, or due to the fact that it used to cost a lot to hang around on-line and read stuff, or why exactly is that? Why should web pages be different from books? Or is the reason overtly small fonts used in almost every other page to cram as much information as possible into each page?

    As a side note, an idea: I think all browsers should be able to display the hierarchical structure of the web page, and provide effective means to search data from that hierarchy. I find "search" boxes which always say "no hits" most annoying.
  • That is not a very fair thing to ask.. Phhhhbt!
  • by gargle ( 97883 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:23AM (#1240099) Homepage
    How are usability and aesthetics related, if at all?
  • I'd like to comment on Slashdot's usability- I really wish the pages weren't generated as one big table. It takes a really long time for a big page to load, and you can't see anything interesting until the whole thing does load.
  • Could it possibly look something like the Anti-Mac [acm.org] interface?
  • by vitaflo ( 20507 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:41AM (#1240108) Homepage
    How would you respond to your criticts who say that rather than being a usability "expert" you're simply someone who points out the obvious? What of the people who say your views are actually limiting the evolution of the web rather than making it better place? And what about the notion that it's sorta hard to trust usability opinions from a website that is hard to find your way around?

    (I don't mean for these questions to sound argumentative, I'm just reiterating things I've heard many times from various people on the web)
  • What sources of information are there on methodologies for doing usability testing? I've read quite a bit of your site, and there is some information there, but I'd like to know more about the methods that you and others use. Some of the usability statistics you give are very specific- you might claim, for instance, a 128% increase in usability for a certain modification. Are there methods for estimating the error in these calculations?
  • I believe that Mr. Neilson has registered his views on patents: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980531.html

    "In general, the Web is different from many earlier changes in the business environment in allowing for patents for many of the new business strategies because they are supported by technology. I strongly recommend that companies start treating the Web as their primary strategic business driver such that they can take part in this patent bonanza. The smallest hesitation will allow your competitors to collect the patents on everything you need to survive. Futurism is no longer a luxury: it's a necessary defensive measure to get your patents in place.

    Mr. Neilson, I would like to ask- have you read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and if so do you believe that the open source software movement can make a commercial or social change in the "marketplace of ideas", and finally, if so, how can you reconcile the open-source coder's desire to collaboratively trade ideas and code against the business strategy of definsively patenting all potentially useful intellectual property?

  • by moonboy ( 2512 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:51AM (#1240113)

    What is the next "big thing" in interfaces?

    Surely "windowing" can't be the end-all-be-all of interfaces. Is there some paradigm shift around the corner which we can't conceive of right now? Perhaps the same "leap" which occurred going from command line/text to windows.

    kuro5hin.org [kuro5hin.org]
  • Because of PHB who don't understand the technology or the content who are put in charge of building websites?
  • (now I remember what I wanted to ask)

    Data is still relatively static and barely cross-referenced and very very rarely cross-referenced in any dynamic manner. When the data changes the user rarely knows until they requery. This however is beginning to change as bandwith and processing power open up new possiblities.

    What do you see as the major differences and problems in designing for active data as opposed to passive data ? And do you forsee a standard (XML? + ?) for passing information between sources, and more importantly allowing the sources to be informed of changes.

  • by Doppleganger ( 66109 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:55AM (#1240118) Journal
    In the article The Internet Desktop [useit.com], Nielsen states:

    "Fundamentally, it is pretty silly to have a special browser for certain information objects simply because they happen to come from a specific storage location. There is no reason to treat information differently because it comes from the Internet instead of coming from your harddisk."

    I've always been curious about this mindset. Generally, information on the internet is in the form of HTML or text files, and any other files need to be copied to a local location before being usable (Causing a long wait time, breaking any illusions of transparency). Internet files are also generally organized by someone who has an eye towards both navigation and graphical prettiness. The majority of the information is contained in the connections between various files, allowing for quick movements to different spots (in well-designed sites, of course)

    Local files, on the other hand, are created using many different types of programs, and require a seperate application to view more often than web information does. Local information is being created by a single user for specialized use, with little view towards the overall structure of the filesystem. Information is usually contained within single files, with little relation to other files other than basic categories in directories.

    Why, then, is there this idea that the same tool should be used for both types of information? I typically use a web browser for viewing HTML files: it lets me click the links that someone else has set up to ease my movement, applies the format the web author created, and gives me an interface for the time-consuming file download. Why should this be integrated with the program I use to navigate a directory tree of files that do not have links, lack an html format, and do not need to be downloaded from an incredibly slow resource to be used? And, what kind of justification is there for NOT splitting up access of a resource with millisecond responses from one with responses that can range all the way to hours?
  • by earache ( 110979 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:55AM (#1240120) Homepage
    Do you think, in the long term, increased focus on usability and simplifying the web experience for users will result in a loss of technical innovation? By dumbing down the web, do you think technology will be dumbed down in the process?

    Secondly, how do you feel regarding the failures of HTML as an interface delivery mechanism? The notion that the web has gone from pure information (93 and before) to presenting specific chunks of information in a taped-together layout that is built outside of the best use functionality of HTML. Do you agree that trying to put together an application interface with Microsoft Word is a ridiculous idea, so why are we trying to put together functional GUIs with a markup specific to text formatting?

    Can you envision another non document-centric mechanism for bringing the web interface back in line with application UIs?

  • It's certianly not an 'accepted convention' that example.com == www.example.com.

    It's perfectly acceptable for example.com & www.example.com to point to two totally different websites, for example here [perl.com] & here [perl.com]. It's also very common for there to be no hostname associated with a domainname, simply because there is no 'obvious' host to associate with the domain. While the http protocol is very pervasive, there may well be a better candidate in the default telnet server or some other protocol.

    Don't be lazy, a URL contains a protocol, a full hostname and a file reference. Enter all of them at all times.

  • by e4 ( 102617 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @09:58AM (#1240122)
    What are some of the biggest user interface blunders you've come across? I'm thinking of things like:
    1. Adobe Acrobat using page-up/page-down for scrolling and up-arrow/down-arrow for paging.
    2. Windows requiring the user to click "Start" in order to shut down.
  • Newbies? I get confused when I go to a site and can't clearly see where the links are.
  • Besides the frequent complaints about X and the GUI situation on Linux, the next most frequent usability complaint is the lack of documentation, and/or it's poor quality. Do you have any thoughts or comments on the role of documentation in a complete system? Should there even need to be docs for a well-designed GUI?
    ~luge
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @10:16AM (#1240129)
    I've been really impressed by some of the user interfaces that came before the Macintosh. I'd like to know what you think of them and whether you think that any of them have a chance of succeeding in some modern form.

    I think that the original Macintosh team deserves a lot of credit for what they did, but they had to make a lot of compromises that probably don't make sense anymore

    In this Alan Kay video tape [uvc.com], he demonstrates a great gestural user interface called Grail. In this environment, users interacted with the system by using a tablet. For example the user could delete objects by scratching them out, instead of selecting them and activating a menu.

    The other system that really impressed me was Doug Engelbart's [bootstrap.org] NLS and AUGMENT systems. His system allowed the user to enter commands using a chord keyboard while operating the mouse. This seems somewhat harder to learn but much more efficient than the Mac and Mac clone system that are in common use today.

  • Your latest Alertbox [useit.com] made a lot of sense out of the Stanford Internet use study. The most interesting part to me was the section on the digital divide, and especially the conclusion that age and education are much more significant predictors of Internet use than income, race, or gender.

    Anyway, my question. Since the study showed -- and you seem to concur -- that older people and less-educated people are the least likely to be using the internet, these groups could be considered the biggest "growth markets" for e-commerce companies. However, it seems that the techniques necessary to appeal to these two groups would be significantly different. How do you see internet companies trying to appeal to these "new" demographics (if at all) to increase their market share in the next few years?

  • "When Bad Design Elements Become the Standard" [useit.com], on some de facto Web site design standards, is an excellent (and a useful) essay. However, it only touches on page design. Form fill-in is even more important, since forms are common and usually critical to a Web interaction.

    My question: do you see any emerging conventions for form fill-in? (Highlighting erroneous fields, allowing corrections, etc.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2000 @10:20AM (#1240133)
    Jakob,

    Your work is chock full of terrifying statistics about what happens when we create slow, hard-to-navigate sites. When I (an information architect) try to convince my project teams to heed those statistics, though, nobody seems to listen. People continue to clamor for images, frames, JavaScript, etc.

    If Ronald Reagan's speeches proved one thing to us, it's this: a well-chosen anecdote can drown out innumerable (and true) statistics. I was wondering whether you might have any good terrifying anecdotes that might scare people who are about to make an unusable web site into doing the right thing.
  • by count0 ( 28810 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @10:29AM (#1240138)
    Do you see any way of incorporating usability engineering into the Open Source development cycle, or is it too idealistic to get volunteer usability engineers working along with volunteer software engineers? See www.luigui.org [luigui.org] for one attempt to bring ui and usability to the OSS world.

    thanks.
  • Dude... Linux is a kernel.

    Fine. Then replace "Linux" with "Linux distributions" in his question.

  • You're right brennan - sans-serif fonts are easier to read on a monitor.
    see
    Bruce Tognazzini's explanation [asktog.com] (Tog being an original Macintosh UI guy among other things - he's up there with Jakob in the UI / Usability field).
    If you're really interested and want academic literature, start at the Human Computer Interaction Bibliography at www.hcibib.org [hcibib.org], search for serif for a couple references.

  • by crazyj ( 145672 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @10:47AM (#1240151)
    I'm interested in hearing Jakob's general thoughts about Mac OS X and the Aqua interface. I agree with Tog that there is a decline in usability from the current Mac OS interface and am worried the Aqua will alienate users old and new.

    Jakob mentions that sometimes things are implemented the wrong way. (Web navigation should be on the right near the scroll bar to minimize cursor movement) but because it has been done that way for so long, switching to the proper way decreases usability. (Right side web navigation is a little awkward because we've all been trained to look to the left.) Do you think that some of the radical changes in Aqua will cause a usability decline even if the change is to do something in the "scientifically" correct way?

    Also, with browsers refusing to implement standards properly do you endorse the use of tables to create page layout even though the specs say we should use CSS-P? I want to create pages to spec, but because of lousy browsers I'm forced to use tables if I want the output to be predictable across many browsers. (I don't want to have to write multiple versions and use browser detection.)

    _________________________________________

  • As time passes, more people grow up with on-screen interfaces as their primary education and entertainment media. How will this affect the science of usability, and affect our notions of complexity in user interfaces given more sophisticated (or at least tech-acclimated) users?
  • Local files, on the other hand, are created using many different types of programs, and require a seperate application to view more often than web information does.

    "More often" isn't necessarily sufficient justification. The desktop environment he discusses would presumably run whatever code was appropriate for the data, regardless of whether it came from the Web or not.

    Local information is being created by a single user for specialized use, with little view towards the overall structure of the filesystem. Information is usually contained within single files, with little relation to other files other than basic categories in directories.

    Is that because the location information is best structured that way, or because people aren't used to structuring it as hypertext (or hyperwhatever, as a node could well not be text...), or because the tools for structuring it in that fashion are inconvenient or unfamiliar?

    It may well be that structuring at least some of the stuff on your (electronic) desktop as hypertext might make it easier to keep track of.

    See, for example, something Nielsen says in "The Internet Desktop":

    The Internet Desktop will provide navigation as a universal support mechanism that cuts across the presentation applets. For example, the Desktop's history mechanism will allow users to return to previously seen information objects no matter what presentation applet was used to display them: the history list, bookmark list, etc. will include Internet objects, email messages, and corporate documents intermixed according to the individual user's information access behavior (each person has a single consciousness leading to a linear user experience that can structure the history of information use). There will also be some kind of universal search feature to allow users to find objects by content, though it currently not clear how to extend the search from local data to Internet data (most likely, the search will be scoped with billion-object searches reserved for exceptional cases).

    The latency issue is perhaps a more severe problem, although perhaps some form of caching is the right way to handle that.

  • So your sysadmin can create a standard build for your department, section, group or your personal sorry a... that fits your exact needs.

    Unfortunately, at this present time, your sysadmin has never heard of "usability". What opinions he may have are probably completely fallacious. With nearly 100% probability, that sysadmin will create a system that (s)he thinks is comfortable (for the sysadmin!), alienating the users who are neither computer experts nor reading the mind of the sysadmin.

    And there will be global standards. They are called "GNOME", "KDE", "Redhat", "SuSE", and a number of other things. Your 'normal' users will not significantly change the default parameters on the GNOME or KDE installation the distro ships with. (How many Windows desktops still have the sickenly-blue/cyan background on them? And that's an _easy_ setting to change now-a-days, both browsers will let you change it with a simple context menu!)

    Your sysadmin will always be able to create a customized system, but the standards created by KDE and GNOME should be usable standards. You want to destroy that usability, that's your choice, but there should be a focus on usability in those who are setting the de facto standards.

    Thinking that we should not standardize globally is... a lost cause. It will happen, de facto, and those who are doing it should consider these issues carefully, rather then ignoring them.

  • The point is, it wouldn't be "for just a website".

    You specify how you want to view web-space, and all websites would conform to the format you specified.

    I think a LOT of users would be willing to spend a few seconds, customising their view, in preference to spending hours searching for where some wannabe web author hid the button bar. And to be able to eliminate frames or tables, for some machines, that would be digital heaven.

  • Actually, it would be at +6, if it were open-ended. Besides, you're probably just jelous. Try posting relevent comments, or sensible questions, as opposed to trolls, flames, verbal abuse, or other tosh.
  • How do you feel about the slow-moving, but imminent trend of using scripting to make web pages work more like applications than documents?

    With W3C standards like DOM Level 2 and SVG coming down the pipes, developers will have more and more power to make the browser much more intelligent than it is today. This opens up a whole new world of user-interfaces where a website may not be seen as a hierarchy of "pages" but a single application with it's own functionality.

    When more browsers support these standards, do you advocate more developers use this "dynamic" paradigm, or do you prefer that the browser just download static pages which link to other pages?
  • by lucas_gonze ( 94721 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @12:25PM (#1240186) Homepage Journal
    Any thoughts on cell phone and other tiny device interfaces? As neat as these things are, is there a utility to those microscopic screens?
  • Commenting on the question from tbray, a number of these patents seem really silly to me (I must say that I didn't take the time to read 'em all), but the titles alone make me shiver:

    23. Nielsen, J.: Tooltips on webpages, U.S. Patent 5,937,417 (1999)

    11. Nielsen, J.: Password helper using a client-side master password which automatically presents the appropriate server-side password to a particular remote server, U.S. Patent 6,006,333 (1999) [don't Windows .PWL files do something similar?]

    50. Nielsen, J.: System and method for temporally varying pointer icons, U.S. Patent 5,784,056 (1998)

    A whole number of them are from 1999, which means that you're frantically inventing great new things and spend tens of thousands of $$$ just patenting the things... There are about 30 patents listed in 1999, which means 2 patents every three weeks, for an amount of at least 500$K patenting costs and patent attorney fees to get them patented...

    This all seems very Amazon-like, and either I've missed something really important, or is something else going on?


    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

  • I don't
    need an integrated web browser for any of the other file types

    Who said anything about an "integrated web browser"? Nielsen said

    A key element of the Internet Desktop will be to
    get rid of Web browsers as a separate application category.

    which is not necessarily equivalent to providing an "integrated Web browser". He goes on to say:

    The Internet Desktop will provide a framework for presentation applets that are optimized for each of the various data types accessed by the user. HTML will obviously be one such data type, and an HTML viewer will definitely be available.

    (although I'm not certain that they'd all be "applets"; I'd like to see a "lines of code" or "bytes of generated code" value, with public flogging for anybody referring to anything above that value as an "applet").

    A "Web browser" could (to a first order of approximation) be viewed as a combination of:

    • an HTML presentation widget;
    • code to fetch stuff via HTTP, FTP, etc.;

    with the HTML presentation widget firing up the latter code if you click on a link.

    Making it fairly easy for arbitrary presentation (and editing) widgets to insert links into their display, at least when they're displaying something text-based (which might involve recognizing strings that look like URLs, as some mail programs do, for example), and to cause a new window to be popped up, and to fetch a document, when the link is activated, might be a way of providing this functionality. In some sense you could, I guess, think of this as an "integrated Web browser", but it's not a case of swallowing up a separate Web browser program into other applications, it's a case of providing Internet access capability to those applications, just as file access capability is provided by OS libraries (at least in the case of the second bullet item).

    (I have the impression that this may well be the way in which Internet Explorer is "integrated" into Windows - a bunch of library routines, or COM objects, exist that provide that functionality, and IE is one application that uses those routines/objects.)

    Of all of these, "browsing" my computer (in the WWW sense) assists me with only two types of files: graphics, and html.

    Well, I've read Word documents, graphics, source code, MP3 files, video files, etc. from links in a browser.

    And if you're saying that none of those documents have links in them, well, I could imagine somebody might put links in Word documents - or source code; I've put URLs into source code for references, and it might be nice to be able to click on them and have the reference document pop up in another window.

    and it would require extra work on my part to create an html document that would allow an integrated web browser to give me anything extra.

    You're not presuming here that only HTML documents can contain links, I hope....

    If I actually
    needed a program that could view html documents, it makes more sense (to me.. my own personal opinion, of course :) to open a program that is specifically designed to read and manipulate html.

    ...which would be the "presentation applet" for HTML.

    but I disagree that a web browser is used to look at the same information on remote computers as a local file browser. I do not use files on my local computer the way I use html files on a server, but rather more the way I use an
    FTP client

    Perhaps you use your browser as something like an FTP client, but that doesn't mean that everybody does. I think it would be an extremely interesting experiment to see whether one could organize a desktop around hypertext.

  • Personally, at least on a Linux box or SGI workstation, I find serif fonts much easier to read than san serif ones.

    It could just be the wretched quality of Unix san serif fonts in general, though. For some reason they lag dramatically behind those on a PC, let alone the class-leading Macintosh.

    D

    ----
  • A college near me (Georgia Tech) is offering a master's degree in Human/Computer Interaction. Do you think formal programs in HCI (and this one in particular) are worth the money and effort, or do people get at least almost as much benefit from reading and doing on their own?
  • hmm, really? i was not aware of that. seemed nice the few times i used it. *shrug* i prefer emacs anyway :)
  • When the web was young, elements of presentational nature were few and far between. This of course gave focus to the content (no way to do table based designs without tables).

    Lately I've seen several sites which in my opinion try to give the visitor a richer experience by (re)creating a(/the) user interface for them (using a lot of CSS, DHTML, CSS-positioning, Java, etc) which shifts quite a bit of the focus from the content part to the presentational part. It looks really nice, but suffers slightly on the content side.

    Do sites like these represent a step in the wrong direction regarding usability? Is it wrong by them to explore the boundaries of the medium like they do?

  • As a follow-up. Where is the cutting edge UI being done?

    I like unix systems for the for the control that they give, but I love my mac for the way it stays out of my way. My rule... If the computer has work to do use unix, if I have work to do use a mac.

    My first few peeks at OSX scare me. (see http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-dp 3/macos-x-dp3-1.html and the preceding articles).

    NT is amazingly inelegant.

    I don't know UI design, I am completely incapable of designing an environment where I can function as smoothly as I do with MacOS.

    What platform should I be looking for as my next working OS? The one I use to browse the web and generally muck about?

    Any chance of a desktop environment designed to make my life better?

    Would you care to comment on the direction that the various UI's are going? Windows, Mac, KDE, GNOME. What is right? What is wrong?
  • I don't want to flame you but I find the layout of your website is hard to read. I was wondering if you could explain to me why:
    • Why you refuse to use any graphics. I find that sometimes they point me to the right direction. Many languages like chinese use symbols which can help someone recognise an idea. As another example, the penguin and the tv at the top of this article make me instantly know that there is linux and tv sections. I don't have to read t-e-l-e-v-s-i-o-n, it is instant (and it wouldn't have to be translated if it was available in more than one language). I would rather wait 5 seconds for a page to load some small graphics. It also makes me want to come back more.
    • why you don't highlight differnet sections. you titles are smaller than the text in them so it took me longer to find what I would want if I was searching. (it took me awhile to notice that there were titles anyways).
    • if you have more than like 5 sections, why don't you use a contents at the top and and ^top^ button after every section


    sorry if i sound like i am cutting you down, i just want to have your expert advise on these things.
  • by otomo_1001 ( 22925 ) on Monday February 28, 2000 @05:07PM (#1240245)
    After perusing your website, I have only one question. What do you see as the next generation of user input outside of mice and keyboards?

    Personally I would prefer touch screens and voice recognition ala star trek, but even these would seem to be similar to the windowing systems we currently use.

    A alternative solution (to me at least) would be a 3D holographic display that would let you truly navigate the web or hard drive by just pointing/touching in the general area you are interested in and having the display change accordingly. But all this goes back to my original question, what interface (or combination of interfaces) would be the most intuitive in your opinion?
  • '...useit.com [useit.com] is an informative site - it features the forgotten side of software development, usability...'

    Hi Jakob,
    • Q1. How well in your opinion does slashdot rate as a study of usability and site design?
      Q2. What are the areas that need attention?

      I ask this because the code for the slashdot site, (slashcode) [slashcode.com] is open sourced and many (new) developers use slashdot as a guide for developing their own sites.

  • but really, now; do you _want_ to be unable to discern where that love note to your amor at work... or your HIV test results are; whether that file is on your zip disk, your hard drive, your office fileserver... or just 'out there on the web somewhere'?

    So look at the URL when you need to know that. I do not necessarily want to have to think about where something is every time I look at it.

  • Not on the archived stories, they are stored statically as flat, not dynamically generated like normal stories. I really wish they were at least nested.
    --
  • First Bjarne, now Jakob...

    Looks like a pattern to me... :-)

  • by Pseudonymus Bosch ( 3479 ) on Tuesday February 29, 2000 @01:00AM (#1240281) Homepage
    I remember using some of the latest Mosaic versions. It had a feature that I liked but I have not found elsewhere.

    The links used one color for visited links (say blue) and another for not visited (say red), as usual now. But the color was continous. If I have visited the URL, one day ago it was a bit redder than the one just visited. And so on. A link visited one month ago would be as red as one never visited.

    Do you think this feature added in usability?
    I find it better than the current discrete model.
    --
  • I have read your column "URL as UI [useit.com]" and Tim Berners-Lee's about Cool URIs [w3.org].

    What do you think about Berners-Lee's recommendation to keep extensions off URL (I see you site uses .html)? And the rest of the T B-L's comments?


    --
  • What's your recommendation for the people that for religious (patent) questions want to use a free format like PNG instead of a patented like GIF?
    --
  • What do you think about the Java Swing user interface?
    What do you think about the dilemma "1 interface, many platforms" / "1 platform, many interfaces"?
    --
  • Hi Jakob,
    What web site testing method would you recommend for usability testing? Is there a guerilla version of that method for when I'm in a hurry?
  • Some questions for the mighty guru Jakob:

    1. Do you think its likely that the open source community could develop a truely usable product, from non-tech-person point of view? As Donald Norman and Alan Cooper have said in their books, programmers tend to "design" software for like-minded people (in other words, other tech-people) even though the needs of the end-user are often very different. Also, open source projects tend to suffer from major feature-creep, which results in software too complex for real people to use. Programmers want control and complexity, users want simplicity. Even when the various Linux magazines have articles on Linux GUIs, the authors' own words show a level of disdain for non-tech-oriented people who just want to use computers to get some work done.

    2. Assuming the open-source community could develop a truely usable product, do you think its worth the effort to try to improve Linux, or should we start a new OS from scratch (or at least based on a Linux/BSD kernel) built from the ground up targetted specifically at average people, not techies? Most Linux distros try to put on a pretty face during installation or on boot-up, but the tech-orientation of Linux still shows through. Users still have to drop to the command line to execute cryptic commands, edit arcane config files and manually compile apps. (I'm a programmer and even I don't want to be bothered by this stuff!)

    3. If some people got together and decided to build a new OS from the ground up, targetted at real people, would you be willing to offer some guidance and suggestions to the project on a continuing basis?
  • by oneirine ( 4191 ) on Tuesday February 29, 2000 @06:31AM (#1240289)
    Currently, most software seems to be aimed either at novice users or at expert users. A good example is Microsoft Publisher vs. Quark XPress. Publisher is almost impossible for an expert to use; Quark XPress is almost impossible for a novice to use.

    Do you think there is any way, in the same interface, to accomodate the needs of both expert and novice users?

    Adobe Photoshop gives the user three different interfaces for a similar task: the brightness/contrast dialog, the levels dialog, and the curves dialog. All three make global changes to the amount of detail in an image, with the curves dialog being the most powerful and the least intuitive, and the brightness/contrast being the least powerful and the most intuitive.

    Microsoft Office 2000 hides menu items that it thinks you don't need, and hides toolbars until you tell the program to display them or until you start on a task that uses one of those toolbars.

    Do you think either approach makes sense? Do you think that the needs of novice and expert users are so fundamentally different that it's best that the two groups use different pieces of software?
  • by jd ( 1658 )
    Cos in England, the title of the degree is irrelevent to the subject you're studying. (I believe Oxford and Cambridge still do Arts degrees only. You can do sciences there, such as quantum physics, but you'll still get an arts degree, at the end.)

    The Masters degrees, though, come in three flavours. MPhil (Master of Philosophy), which is pure research, MSc (Master of Science), which is about 50% research, 50% exams, and MRes (Master of Research), which has no real research at all and is pure exams.

  • Or maybe "GNU/Linux-distributions-incorporating XWindows-with-Netscape-and-StarOffice-and-don't-fo rget-about-all-those-gnifty-gnon-gnu-too ls-too-oh-and-what-about..."
  • And indeed, you don't. No matter _where_ it is, you can use your current browser to view it. True, launching the appropriate editor against it isn't quite that easy, but that's an implementation detail.

    Precisely.

    So what exactly was your objection to the "desktop has no edges" notion? Are you saying one should only have this transparency when using one's "current browser"?

  • Well you don't need multiple columns onscreen you know. You can just keep scrolling down and down and down...

    besides, aspect ratio aside, reading narrow columns is still easier. a tabloid is much wider than a monitor but you don't use a 1 column layout.
  • Wouldn't be entirly too scared. Accually talk to a friend latly who is a mac god. I can't understand why anyone can get anything done on a mac, but he proves me otherwise. Anyways, somehow he got his hands on pretty much a full running demo version of OSX, and states that not only in it wonderful, but a complete redesign of the entire idea of GUI. It no longer uses the old tired desktop thinking, but something new entirly, more of morphing to accomidate what you are currently doing kinda thing. I don't know, I havn't seen it myself. But personally I'll only be able to comment once I see it, so I'm going to take that article and my friends comments each with a grain of salt. And suggest everyone else does too.

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...