Slashdot Log In
Homepage Usability
from the nielsen-ratings dept.
| Homepage Usability | |
| author | Jakob Nielsen, Marie Tahir |
| pages | 315 |
| publisher | New Riders |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Danny Yee |
| ISBN | 0-7357-1102-X |
| summary | high-profile homepages deconstructed in colorful detail. |
You might want to read Homepage Usability just for the entertainment of watching web usability guru Jakob Nielsen deconstruct the homepages of fifty major sites. Or you could read it for some invaluable advice on web design -- I learned a lot from it, as I think even seasoned web designers will.
Homepage Usability begins with 113 tips on homepage design, some of them obvious and some not so obvious, and most of them applicable more broadly than homepages. Here are two of the shorter ones:
Nielsen and Tahir then look at some statistics on the fifty sites considered. These statistics are used to make recommendations, following Jakob's Law of the Internet User Experience, that "most users spend more of their time on other sites." Here's a sample:Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage. For example, use photos of identifiable people who have a connection to the content as opposed to models or generic stock photos. People are naturally drawn to photos, so gratuitous graphics can distract users from critical content.Don't use clever phrases and marketing lingo that make people work too hard to figure out what you're saying. For example, the "Dream, Plan, & Go" category on Travelcity might sound catchy to a marketing person, but it's not as straightforward as "Vacation Planning." Every time you make users ponder the meaning behind vague and cutesy phrases, your risk alienating or losing them altogether. Users quickly lose patience when they must click on a link just to figure out what it means. That isn't to say that homepage text should be bland, but it must be informative and should be unambiguous.
All this packs a remarkable amount of useful information into the first 50 pages, but the vast bulk of Homepage Usability, some 250 pages more, consists of analyses of the fifty chosen homepages. These follow a standard format. A full-page screen-shot faces a brief commentary, discussion of the page TITLE and tagline (if any), and a pictorial (overlay plus pie chart) breakdown of screen "real estate" into operating system and browser controls, welcome and site identity, navigation, content of interest, advertising and sponsorship, self promotion, and unused/filler. Then follow either two or four pages with detailed commentary: the screen-shots are repeated on the left-hand pages with elements numbered, and the right-hand pages have comments on them. Many of these are trivial and site-specificLink FormattingNext to the use of colored text, the underline is the second-most important cue to users that text is clickable, and 80% of the homepages underlined the links. We continue to recommend that links be underlined, except possibly in navigation bars that use a design that makes it more than commonly obvious where users can click.
Of the homepages in our sample, 60% used the traditional standard for link colors: blue. This is a fairly small majority, but still large enough that we continue to recommend blue as the color for unvisited links. If links are blue, users know what to do. End of story.
some of them amusingly so"ThisGo button's color isn't noticeable enough - there should be much more contrast with the background color."
Others are more general"In general, oil companies would best avoid photos that show large dark shadows in the water next to their rigs."
The sites covered are mostly those of corporates or media organisations - Ebay, ExxonMobil, ESPN, IBM, Victoria's Secret, and CNNfn, to name a few -- but some government departments are included and there's a good sprinkling of English-language sites outside the United States, such as those of the BBC and Australian supermarket chain Coles. The vast bulk of the analysis is, however, just as relevant for other kinds of organisations -- certainly for the university at which I work and the charity for which I do volunteer work, but also for my personal sites."Don't have a specialShop link when there is a product section. The natural thing for users is to find the product first and then decide to buy it."
Finally, a comment on the physical book. A large square volume, 25cm a side, with colour everywhere, Homepage Usability is really nicely laid out. I'm not generally a fan of books with a lot of graphics and screen-shots, but here they are used to good effect, demonstrating how some things can still be done much more effectively in print than online.
You can order this book from Fatbrain. Check out Danny's other Internet and publishing reviews. Want to see your review in this space? Check out our book review guidelines first :)
And what ... (Score:3, Funny)
Might I recommend webcriteria.com? (Score:3, Informative)
For a good service that provides what isn't, strictly speaking, usability data, try http://www.webcriteria.com. They do computerized testing of your web site that checks for "clutter" and fluff. It tells you how long an average user takes to read your page, how long it takes an average user to surf through your site to find a specific piece of information, or for commerce sites, it will even tell you how hard it is to place an order.
Yes, it's a blatant ad, and I don't even work there anymore, I just think it's a great service. (Plus, they have the coolest programmers on the planet, programming AI that does everything.)
Usability of slashdot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This not meant to be flamebait, but this site is over 4 years old, and the interface and usability has not gotten any better (it wasn't that good to begin with).
Re:Usability of slashdot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of people on slashdot who are very resistant to change and like it how it was "in the good ol' days".
So, as much as I would like slashdot to change, I feel the "look" of slashdot is as much a part of slashdot as the posts, the chronic mispellings and grammar problems, the errors made, the trolls, etc. It's not the best, but we have come to like it.
I like your idea though, and it would be cool to have an "optional" interface where you would get the same content, but you would choose your interface. Hell, people could even make their own slashdot "skins" that would plugin to slashcode and view slashdot however they want.
Here's to old school.
What, specifically, is the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay...lets try to use some of Jacob's principles on Slashdot. Look at the homepage. First of all, you got the Slashdot logo and text in the upperleft-hand corner. Its obvious where you are. This is a news site so the news should be the most obvious part of the page. It is. In fact the news takes what looks like 75% of the width of the page, probably more.
Next, Slashdot makes great use of what Jakob calls scanning. Jakob has noted that visitors don't often read all the text on the page but that they rather they scan for the information they want. So the important information should be underlined, italicized, bolded, or put in a different color. This happens on the Slashdot homepage. The headings are the most obvious in that they are white with a green background which contrasts with the text which is black on white. Then at the bottom of the news entries you have "Read More" (which is an active verb, BTW). And its highlighted.
Another principle that Jakob explains is that visiters like to have an idea of where they are going before they get there. At this, Slashdot seems to excel at. For instance, before the main body of the homepage loads, you already get an idea of what topics today's news covers by the icons in the upper right hand corner. Today I get an icon for The Internet, Linux, Microsoft, News, and Privacy. While it would be a little better for these icons to have titles the tooltips serve well for if you don't know what the icon is for. Also, these icons correspond directly to the icons next to the news items. In addition, each link in the news stories have relevant text underlined so you have an idea on where that link will take you.
Slashdot is also fast and for me takes under a second to load. It has little use of graphics and these graphics are cached to improve load time for other visits.
People who feel comfortable coming to this website have good reason, from Jakob's principles. To an online friend of mine I showed a post I made. Next thing I know, he replied to it. He told me he never used this website before.
So if there's a usability problem with this website, I would be interested in knowing what it is. Because I'm not finding anything.
(before posting this I notice a bold heading below the comment window that says "Important Stuff:" that says what comments should be like. These kinds of things make slashdot such a usable site)
Re:Usability of slashdot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm.. the only usability peeves I can think of, off the top of my head are:
- The "Reply" is a button to top-level comments, but "Reply to this" is a link for replies to other comments. Inconsistent. Need to get rid of that button so that I'll have the usual options of opening my reply in another tab/window, etc.
- Somewhere in archives stories (either the story or the comments, I don't remember) the dates don't show the year, so sometimes I don't know how old something is
Probably a few others, but if I have to think hard to remember 'em, then they must not be very serious.This is one of the most-usable discussion sites I've seen on the whole 'Net. I give Slashdot a thumbs-up when it comes to UI.
Slashdot specifics (Score:5, Informative)
- "Sections" and "Topics" are confusing. I have yet to find a good reason why both subgroupings need to exist. Also, the fact that some Sections and Topics have different page colors than the homepage while others don't is annoying and confusing. Color should be used consistently the same or consistently different.
And let you think I have nothing positive to say:Take Jakob with a grain of salt (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Take Jakob with a grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)
Example you say?
Google.
Re:Take Jakob with a grain of salt (Score:5, Interesting)
And just what do you think the web is? Some kind of place where people pay good money to see your blinking flashy popup crap? No. People use the web to find information. Anything else is secondary. If people can easily find what they want, they will buy it, and that's where the money comes from. They won't buy it because your ad blinks more than the next guy's.
I'm sorry non-information-delivery doesn't pay bills for you, but really, good riddance.
Kudos to Jakob for emphasizing function over form. The web is a functional medium. Now if you're running an on-line art-gallery...that's a different story.
--Bob
I Love Usability! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always been a fan of usability. I kept a copy of Psychology of Everyday Things on my bedside table. However, I've noticed some unpleasant patterns over the past couple of decades:
Alas, all the evidence is that, even if usability is on the list of criteria for purchasing (which it seldom is at all), it is way low on the list. It may even be a de facto negative.
Vincent Flanders asserts that web pages are different: that if people don't like it, they're gone. Well, maybe, but is there any evidence that usable commercial web pages sell better than less usable ones? Has anyone done a study? I thought the value of usability in commercial products was self-evident, too, until the evidence built up that I was flat-out wrong.
Common Sense (Score:1)
There are many websites owners who should definately give this book a try I'd say. But than again, it they don't have the good common sense to use the nice default 'a href' tags but instead try to make thing look fancy with abusing stylesheets and Flash (!), you might think that this is exactly something they don't have...
we know all these "tips" (Score:1)
is there anyone among us here who does not follow these hints because of ignorance? i'd wager not; i think the only people who don't know this stuff are the ones too lazy/careless to absorb it from a book either.
No, you don't (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the author's credits, Nielsen is widely acknowledged to be a guru in the field. Check out his website, UseIt [useit.com], for lots of more usability-related stuff.
though the suggestions might be usefull... (Score:3, Interesting)
I will say the suggestions mentioned here however are not bad.
And....??? (Score:1)
Okay, maybe we need to sometimes be reminded about these, but I think that (and granted, I haven't read this yet so I can't be TOO judgemental) this book isn't for anyone other than relative web-design newbies.
What about Flash? (Score:1)
Personally (specially if there is no link to a non-Flash version of the site), I go elsewhere for the information that I was looking for.
Kent
This book really is good (Score:2, Interesting)
"Homepage"? (Score:1)
neisen should validate (Score:1)
with the w3 [w3.org]
also, bobby seems a bit bothered [cast.org]
Fatbrain... (Score:4, Informative)
Good for dev ppl to read (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this book, or something similar, should be standard issue when you reg a domain name. Whether or not you follow the advice given, it is good for ppl to know when they are straying off the path of what an average webuser (note: not a slashdotter) would grasp. They may still choose to do this, but at least they will then know that they could be alienating general users.
One example is that Slashdot does not follow much of these guidelines. Thats okay, cause they know their target audience is tech, but most sites aren't.
I really think a lot of sites put too much time into making something neat, and not enough into making it easy to use. This book could really help. I plan on buying it.
Same as it ever was... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Over the years, I've slowly developed an active dislike for the man. Should we really keep from using current technology in order to be backwards compatible with the 2.3% of all users who are incapable of upgrading their browser? How can innovation occur if we confine ourselves to Nielson's 256 color, 1995 view of the web? Can you really trust someone who includes the string "discount usability engineering" in the meta keywords on his site to give you good advice on web design?
Certainly there are applications for which the most minimal distillation of information is preferable (yes, I use lynx from time to time as well - put your flame thrower down), but come on - let's move forward.
Re:Same as it ever was... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you are just designing a site to be cool and impress your friends. Then do what ever you want.
Sure there may only be the lowest 2.3% of people that will be left out if you use newer stuff, but if you are designing a commerical site, do you really want to piss away more then 1 out of 50 visitors? And for the color thing, being very color blind, I get irritated when someone gets cute and uses unusual colors so I can't read the text on the screen, so there isn't any problem with the basic 256 for me.
Besides, look at the sites here people use. Google, Yahoo, Slashdot... all of them use innovation, but it is all on the backend. The pages themselves are still pretty simple HTML.
Re:Same as it ever was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we really another book from him telling us not build sites using any post-1996 technology? ... Should we
really keep from using current
technology in order to be backwards
compatible with the 2.3% of all users
who are incapable of upgrading their
browser? How can innovation occur if we
confine ourselves to Nielson's 256
color, 1995 view of the web?
Jakob is primarily addressing web sites that sell products. Not entertainment sites. Not personal sites. Sites whose goal is to maximize sales. This is not about Art or Beauty. It's about business. Maximizing the number of users who can access your site will increase the number of users who can buy products from you.
Furthermore, Jakob isn't suggesting that you should stick with the state of the web in 1996. He suggests that you lag the current state of the web by several years. He suggests you create sites that degrade gracefully. He suggests you focus on content and usuability. All of his suggestions stem from the goal of creating sites that satisfy your customer's needs and desires. He research shows that focusing in these areas increases completed sales. Sounds like good business practice to me.
Can you really trust someone who includes the string "discount usability engineering" in the meta keywords on his site to give you good advice on web design?
Most certainly. Part of his work is trying to convince people that you can do effective usability engineering without spending a great deal of money. Too many people skip usability testing because it's perceived as being expensive to do. More sites need to do usability engineering, and some simple, "discount" usability engineering is significantly better than no usability engineering.
Re:Same as it ever was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even after five years of widespread web use, there are still many who just don't get it, who think that the way to pull users to a site is to hide the useful information and clog it with graphics and effects that were passe in 1997. (Possibly these sites are a little reduced in number after the dotcom crash, but not gone altogether. And there's always the worry that existing sites will forget their purpose and go downhill (eg Altavista).)
So I say that Nielsen should keep on plugging away with the same message. You may have heard it all before but not everyone has.
Critical? (Score:2)
Phsaw. Like most homepages have "critical content."
Let the backgrounds be black! (Score:1)
White backgrounds may seem "obvious" to people, perhaps by comparison to a sheet of paper: black ink on white paper = black text on white background. The problem with this analogy is simply that paper doesn't glow, but a computer monitor does. If you turn the background white (or any bright color) then you are making every pixel on the screen light up and your user will find herself or himself staring into a light bulb.
Have you ever stared into a light bulb? It hurts your eyes doesn't it? Every night when I go home from work, my eyes are burning, even though I do as much as I can to minimize the effects: black desktop background image, change the colors in NTEmacs, etc. Unfortunately it isn't possible to do enough since most programs and web sites assume you have a light colored, if not actually white background. Change the background color and you may find yourself looking at black text on black background.
Which brings up another point: if you specify any one color on a web page, then you need to specify *all* of them, otherwise the user may see the black on black phenomenon and decide that your page is too difficult to bother with.
Whew!
Rant mode off.
My recommendations (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, make it so you, the user can resize the font. NOt sure how it works, but I've seen my share of pages where moving the font size up and down doesn't work at all. People with poor eyesight will be thankful.
Also, do not have links open up in a new browser window unless absolutely necessary. If I want to click on a link to open in a new window, I'll do shift-click. You don't have to do it for me. I guess people assume they want their website to be on everyone's browser at all times, so links away from the website open up yet ANOTHER window(or in any case of a site on cjb.net, you'll get about 20 pop up windows in addition).
And don't try to jam links to everything on the index.html page. Spread it out a bit, in a logical manner. Every gaming site(which all look the same) love to do this.
Don't have excessive amounts of porn banners just to make a few bucks you won't see in referrals. You'll lose out on the audience of people who surf at work.
Who has actually read the book? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have any of you actually read the book?
Come one, people.
The 10 Best Intranet Designs of 2001 (Score:1)
The 10 Best Intranet Designs of 2001
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011125.html
Not really focused for techies (Score:5, Informative)
As for this book...it's pretty, but it's not aimed for developers and professionals. It is, as many have pointed out, very common-sense. This however makes it perfect for Marketing people who make a big deal out of lots of pretty pictures and gratuitous animation. Internet common sense is often lacking in those who grew up designing for paper and print. For better guides for techies, try Neilen's other books: Designing Web Usability and Usability Engineering (a very technical guide to designing interfaces). Both of those show that while he's an extremist, he knows what he's talking about. Additonally, the book Don't Make Me Think! is an excellent reference for designing usable web sites and applications (and it's a damn amusing read).
On the other end of the spectrum is the book Fresh Styles for Web Designers which is basically some guy collecting a bunch of pretty websites and telling you that they're cool and don't sacrifice usability (he's lying - 90% of them are almost totally unnavigable). Pretty pictures, though.
Reality is somewhere in the middle.
It's a tough field right now. On one hand you've got Joe Corporate-User who believes that if he's got MS Word's "Save as HTML" feature, he's as good a web developer as you are. You've got software engineers who would, given the chance, make every web interface beveled and battleship grey. You've got web designers who are still stuck in the 1996 mode of "if the website looks cool that will be enough to bring in users." The real challenge in web development is juggling these people and producing something that satisfies users and manages not to be mind-bogglingly dull.
I have the best beta testers out there (Score:2)
the most common sense thing to do is run it by people who will give constructive critisism
Visionary or Luddite? (Score:2, Informative)
One of Nielsen's famous complaints is that every web site should be compatible with the "Back" button - this is absurd, not even Slashdot is compatible with the Back button. Try posting a comment, hitting Preview, and then hitting back - Slashdot erases the contents of your comment window.
Admittedly, some of his ideas are very good. We DO need a way to deliver rich web content to dialup users, and right now a 100K web page is the wrong way to do that. Some of his other ideas - banning Flash for example - make less sense.
And why the obsession with this "any browser" business. Let's face the facts: some versions of Netscape 4 don't render Style Sheets at ALL. Their miserable failure of an attempt to implement CSS was noble but it just didn't work out. If I publish a browser with the ability to read nothing but the letter "Q", do you need to rewrite slashdot to be compatible with me? Of course, this is an absurd argument, but it cuts directly to the point: it's OK for web sites to prefer browsers that are more standards compliant. Slashdot, for instance, gets over 85% of its' hits from Internet Explorer - for good reason.
Anyway, Nielsen is certainly a vast improvement over "HTML for Dummies" and let's hope he gets past his own reactionism and continues to provide a valuable resource to the Web Design community.
well, two things... (Score:2, Interesting)
2. make it an ebook - what is it with all these people - negroponte leading the charge - extolling electronic/cyber/wired life and grinding trees to pass out their gospels? dymitri or no dymitri, people pay for ebooks.
typical jakob (Score:2, Informative)
Usability experts and designers like Donald Norman, Alan Cooper, and Bruce Tognazzini seem to me to be a lot more realistic in their mixing of user goals and business goals. If the business goals don't get met there is no company to meet the users goals. I wish Jakob would stop issuing these outdated proclamations ("If links are blue, users know what to do. End of story.") and start taking a more realistic view of what it takes to get a site to achieve both the users and the businesses goals.
Common Sense Isn't (Score:1)
So Much Rubbish (Score:1)
If the links are blue... (Score:1)
Since half of the Internet at any one time are newbies - who probably don't know HOW to change the traditional link colour - does this mean that only 10% of homepages still use blue? ;)
I'm proud to say that I'm one of that sixty (or was it ten?) percent... check out my homepage, http://www.jonnydigital.com [jonnydigital.com] to see why I stick to good old blue unvisited links. (Site also here [pyoko.org] if the first page won't work.)
Of course, my visited links aren't purple... they're blue, too - but a darker blue. Purple wouldn't fit into my colour scheme...
It's just like I always say - "If links are blue, users know what to do!" ;)
My own personal Crticism. (Score:1)
;-)
Revise "your own" home page (Score:2)
"Your company's home page" might make sense as a target for this, but 99% of the people reading this (including me, I admit) don't have anything to say on their OWN home page that's that crucial.
Usability? (Score:2)
I don't know if this improves usability but... (Score:1)
I mainly only see webpages with these "features" on servers w/ free homepages so I don't run into this kind of stuff very often. When I see this on company webpages I usually find someone else that sells the same or similar product.
-Jeff
An early web snapshot for historical records? (Score:1)
At least a book like this, from the sounds of it, might give the future anthopologists some insight on what we were getting at.
Get a copy and surprise your grandchildren? Some of my earliest inspirational moments came at my grandparents' attic.
Homeland useability? (Score:2)
(/me imagines John Ashcroft pronouncing <blink> to be a terrorist act)
Could we see the list of website sins? (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd sure be nice to see a summary of the list of flaws from the beginning of the book? I wanted to see if my pet peeves were in there:
Load Time
I hope Nielsen made prominent comments about load time. If I were the guy approving the design of the company's external web site, I'd do the final review offsite where one would have to use a dial-up connection to view the site. That would go a lo-o-o-ng way to reduce the amount of gratuitous graphics that most corporate web sites shove onto their homepages.
Not Testing with Popular Browsers
Not testing with all the popular browsers should be a misdemeanor, at least. (IE dominance aside, would it kill 'em to at least try out the top three or four?) True story: Compaq's home page used to have a link to text-only version of the same page. Unfortunately, all the links on the ``text-only'' page pointed to pages that were lousy with graphics and tons of Java/Javascript that crashed the browser that they shipped with their UNIX workstations. So much for text-only. The day after I called their office to point out that I was unable to view their web site using the software they shipped with their OS, the text-only link disappeared from their home page. I can only imagine the conversation between the manager and web page maintainer:
Boss: ``Hey! People that follow the text-only link from the home page have their browsers crash. Fix it.''
Maintainer: ``Sure, boss. Just take a few seconds.... Done!''
And Compaq people who I have to deal with wonder why I laugh when they suggest ``you know, this information is available on the web site''. The thing that pissed me off the most about this incident was that the pages wouldn't load using a browser that they were shipping on the OS CDs. Web pages on the CDs had links to pages on the corporate site that would crash your browser. Pathetic.
Teeny, Tiny Fonts
Then there are the web sites whose designers have 20/5 vision (or better) and force you to view the site with the smallest possible font that your browser is capable of displaying. Guess visitors will actually be able decide for themselves what font size is best for the viewer sometime before the heat death of the universe. If we want the ability to choose in our lifetimes, though, I'm betting that it'll only happen after someone shoots all these arrogant designers (``Listen! I'm an artiste! What school of design did you attend?'') and pry their pet style sheets from their cold, dead fingers. (BTW, the line forms behind me.)
Why do I mention these? Because it appears that 99% of the companies with these broken web pages couldn't care less whether users have an easy time accessing their sites. If they actually gave a damn, they'd stop creating web sites that didn't appear to purposely antagonize their visitors.
Gotta wonder: Who was it that posted the web page ``Why Web Sucks''? Hopefully it's still around. IMHO, it's still relevant.
Something not often mentioned (Score:1)
Basically it points to a page, which is just a redirector page. Now this sort of traps the user because if you hit back once, it just ends up sending the visitor back to the page. I find this annoying, but to the average surfer, I suppose it could get frustrating. I think this is really sleazy...
Web "development" (Score:5, Insightful)
Software engineering in a nutshell:
1) Analysis. What are your project requirements? Who is your market? What are their needs? If it's not addressed here it shouldn't be in the final website. If your site is going to adhere to web standards, req them here. If it's going to support specific browsers instead, req it here and say why.
2) Design. Before you write one byte of HTML or PHP you need to get the design down on paper. Document all pages, modules, classes, databases, interfaces, etc., before you move on to the next step.
3) Coding. This is more than just knowing your language. Code review. Unit testing. Etc.
4) Verification and Validation. No go an test your website. Does it meet all requirements? Does it work for the Konqueror, Mozilla and Opera? Does it work on a monochrome monitor, or for Lynx? If not you had better have that in the requirements. Without looking at any of the design or code, a tester should be able to formally validate the website.
5) Maintenance. You may actually get bug reports! Fix them when you do and don't just tell the reporter to get a bigger monitor, switch to a different OS, or to use a different browser.
6) Repeat. Websites are dynamic beasties. Much more so than applications. Go all the way back to step one.
What? (Score:1)
This is a *book*? (Score:2, Funny)
You mean an actual *book* with pages and all?
How retro...
How oxymoronic...
t_t_b
Yale Style Manual (Score:1)
This discussion wouldn't be complete without a link to the online Yale Style Manual [yale.edu]. For anyone interested in web design principles, I highly recommend it.
For those of you who have never heard of it, the Yale Style Manual basically came out of the Yale medical school as they started studying what to do with their own website. Some of their stuff is out-dated (they still recommend 640x480), but most of the book is quite informative.
I bought the book... (Score:2)
The Homepage Usability book has many guidelines that would make the web a much better place. About half of them are "Don't" guidelines, like:
A portion of the book is about what they call the site's "Tag Line". They claim that all homepages should have the company/organization name or logo near the top of the page, with a breif description of exactly the company/site actually does. They say that people who've never been to the site need to be able to quickly look at the top and see what company/organization this is, and what they can expect to get from the site. I hadn't really thought about this much, but it seems to make a lot of sense, particularly for a smaller site like mine where nobody would be familiar with the name. Robin and I talked about it for about an hour over Thansgiving and we came up with "PJRC: Electronic Projects, Resources and Open-Source Code, With Components Available For Worldwide Delivery". I've shown the site to some people over the years, and usually they initially ask some questions about what it is. I showed it to someone just the other day, and this tag line at the top made the site's purpose immediately obvious.
Another really insightful part of the book is about what to put into the title. They say you must begin with the most important word, and never something like "Welcome" or "The".
They claim that all sites should have search on the homepage, and they give some suggestions about how to make it appear. They don't go into detail much about the search, probably because Neilson's company sells a report about search usability.
They have some other really insightful suggestions... here is a short list of some:
I train people in this stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
It may seem like common sense, but good page design is hard to implement. In our classes, we make sure that we always have representatives from at least two firms registered for any class. The students then do a usability analysis on pages that they did not create.
When the first student makes "dumb mistakes" on a page, the designer is sure that it's a fluke. When the third person makes the same "mistakes", it's funny to see the designer's jaw drop. Usability is not about being pretty, nor is it about what is expected.
Good usability incorporates page purpose, site purpose, and user expectations to make it easier to accomplish the purpose for the user. If I can't get to my desired item easily, return to it, and help other people find it, the site is not usable for me. End of story.
That thing about oil rigs and shadows in the water? It may seem trivial, but if a major purpose of the website is improved public relations with a potentially hostile audience, little things take on bigger meaning....
Web Navigation: Designing the user experience (Score:1)
This is also a great book on web usability and navigation. I actually like it a bit more than Nielsen's books because it's, well, written O'Reilly style. Very concise and concrete whereas Nielsen will break down into pretty abstract theoretical stuff and talk about his days at Sun. Nielsen is pretty good, but I end usually end up a little peeved at how much of a throwback the guy is at times.
http://www.useit.com/ [useit.com]
Case and point. Sometimes he breaks his own rules on his own front page, so I take his word with a grain of salt. He also seems to abhor graphics. I wish I could find the article, but there was a time when he came out and said that you should never use graphics as navigational elements. Rather, you should use "native" widgets like form buttons if you wanted to make a graphical link. Come on! Talk about code bloat. It takes significantly more code to generate a simple form than it does to link from a graphic. Code bloat affects the user experience and therefore usability.
Personally, I think studying information design á la Edward Tufte is a better approach than studying Nielsen.
Eye Candy (Score:1)
I like Jakob and generally think he's right on the money, but this specific recommendation makes me wonder if he'd sniffed too much toner the day he wrote that recommendation.
"Light decoration" I can agree with, but no decorative graphics? Does Jakob really expect that the masses will be happy without a few logos, borders, dingbats and other assorted eye candy? Jakob focuses a lot on the idea that content is king, and I couldn't agree more, but the reality of marketing on the web is that, in general, if your site doesn't look slick then people will think it's not quality.
A little eye candy, for all that the term is depracative, is an ok good thing. People simply want their content packaged up pretty.
Home Page vs Start Page (Score:2)
Here is a temporary link to my home page [galstar.com]. Some of the functions aren't working. My ISP got hosed.
The top section has the stuff that I want others to see and use. Nothing too special. The box on the right is filler material (that displays a funny movie when working correctly). The left hand side is all the different links I usually go to in an average week.
That's right. Instead of using bookmarks, this comes up as my home page, and I can easily select my favorite destinations that I use on a regular basis. (And, at the same time, endorse them for others to use.)
Bottom left is some articles I wrote (mostly on Segfault, which is currently down).
I think the idea though is that people should customize a page that they use, if not just for themselves, which contains all the links they commonly use. It really makes surfing through your favorites easier. (And marking something as a "real" favorite versus a bookmark, which could be anything.)
Annother usability hint (Score:2)
Others have commented on font - I'll just point to an example of how not to do it. Here is a story [aviationnow.com] from Aviation Week. Notice how, having used a minscule font, they then add to the effect by using mid-grey for the text on a white background.
Checkout also the interface hall of shame [iarchitect.com], although this is aimed more at applications than web pages.
What a load of rubbish (Score:1)
While I admit there are problems with some web pages, and some of his 10 heuristics are good (aka common sense... thus should not be mentioned), some of his suggestions are ludicrous.
I have been developing web pages commercially for 4 years, and have to say that frames can be used correctly, and images on web pages are ok. People are not using 9.6 kbps modems anymore.
Take a look at the source code of http://www.useit.com/. Uppercase HTML tags, unquoted attributes within tags, single HTML tags such as img, br and hr without closing forward slashes at the end. He doesn't know what he is talking about. And worst of all, he uses Verdana, an ugly, unreadable font that is not as suitable as Arial, Helvetica and sans-serif for viewing text on computer screens.
One reason new technologies are created is to enhance the education and entertainment that can be provided by online content systems. If content provided is dry and boring (eg: www.useit.com), viewers are going to learn less and be less satisfied with their experience.
Nielson should take a reality check and leave the publication of usability books and papers to people who are experts, not just claim to be.
Alternative, not so glowing review... (Score:2)
Anyway, you can read my review of Homepage Usability here. [weblogger.com]
Charles Miller
Ahh the joys of personal homepages... (Score:1)
Ahh New Riders (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How about... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another good book on design is (Score:1)