Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
blqberi: I agree, but just how low do you go? "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein. .. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty Occams razor says choose the simplist amongst possible solutions. Sounds like too simple is not a solution in this case. Thankfully your users are easy to identify =) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
blqberi wrote: I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or maybe these are less than ordinary users... I dunno. I think that in making it too simple it takes away the point of literacy for some... i.e. they don't attempt to learn. This is an extremely common reaction I receive when I complain about usability issues to individuals within companies about their website. "Oh, you must be a moron." I don't know why I persist in telling people the difficulties I experience in using their sites. If you receive an email from a user letting you know of their difficulties, be thankful and polite. Don't in any way indicate that they are a moron because that was a rare occasion, and most users will never tell you, they just won't shop with you again. Simply because you work with it, and you know it, doesn't mean that other people do. They have a different mental model than you do. They think differently. They perceive differently. Example in case: Take the current Adelaide Fringe Website. http://www.adelaidefringe.com.au/ticketing/Home.aspx Who is this website for? The organisers have a mixed mental model of themselves, the caterers, the volunteers and the performers. The actual audience is left last in their organising frame of mind. They perceived the audience as buying tickets. But the audience comes to the website to find out about performers and events, and their only chance of using this system is to click on the link labeled "Tickets and Merchandise." on the bottom left. I didn't perceive myself as wanting to buy a ticket (just yet). I perceived myself as wanting to find out information about who was performing, what events were on. I emailed them with the task I was attempting to accomplish and the difficulties I had with it, and I got the same reaction: "Oh, you must be a moron." I was fortunate enough to know from other sources that a particular performer was coming to Adelaide to perform, and found out the information that way. The Adelaide Fringe failed me totally. So it's not a matter of people being stupid. It's a matter of *you* understanding how *they* work. If they can't use your website, you aren't communicating successfully. You aren't selling your ideas across. The onus is on you. Kat ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
---"we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own choice." I agree, but just how low do you go?.. on my current job I maintain my dept's intranet site... things are so painfully simple a 2 year old could use the site with ease... unfortunately the adults using the site still have difficulty, or maybe these are less than ordinary users... I dunno. I think that in making it too simple it takes away the point of literacy for some... i.e. they don't attempt to learn.
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
> Back button? I'd like to bet > that >75% of users don't know what that is! > But I repeat, we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design > for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but > as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own > choice. After watching and being involved in countless usability studies, nearly every single user I have seen, from novice to the seasoned veteran, has used the back button during browsing. If you want to talk about lowest common denominators and designing for the ordinary user, you should consider that the back button is a standard feature on a web browser and is used extensively. This has been a very hot topic when dealing with Ajax methodologies. For a feature that isn't used by more than ">75%", there seems to be quite a bit of focus in trying to fix it. Google returns 93,000 results just about the problem with Ajax and issues relating to the back button. http://www.google.com/search?hs=bo5&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=ajax+%22back+button%22&btnG=Search Just for grins, Nielsen even says that changing that breaking the back button was one of the biggest web design mistakes that could be made. He then goes on to say that it is the second most used feature in a web browser. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html Cheers, Justin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
> Back button? I'd like to bet > that >75% of users don't know what that is! Then how comes, that researches constantly show that "Back" buttons is second most used navigational device, first being clicking a link? AFAIK first research on the subject was by Catledge and Pitkow in 1995[1] then confirmed by Tauscher and Geenberg in 1997 [2]. Results are still valid, "Back" is the second most used navigation method, you may check this research by Rogers and Chaparro in 2003 [3]: So be aware of anything that breaks the "Back" button: new windows and frames included. But frames have more problems to worry about. > Right-click to select > opening in a new window? No chance! Never heard of it! :-) We have tabs now... I hope admins don't mind this post, links to studies may be interesting for someone. [1] http://www.igd.fhg.de/archive/1995_www95/papers/80/userpatterns/UserPatterns.Paper4.formatted.html [2] http://ijhcs.open.ac.uk/tauscher/tauscher-nf.html [3] http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/breadcrumb.htm Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
> There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread - lot's of > valid points and lots of invalid points. However, cutting through the > maze of details etc leads me to emphasise that when dealing with > accessibility (for the able as well as the disabled) one should always > approach web design from the standpoint of the lowest common > denominator - the non-PC literate surfer. Back button? I'd like to bet > that >75% of users don't know what that is! Right-click to select > opening in a new window? No chance! Never heard of it! :-) Is it just me or is this thread dangerously close to a continuation of the last one under a different heading? If we get into any more endless debates about personal preferences, back buttons and popups I will hunt down any offending parties and ride over them with my Shetland pony! Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] occam's razor again - was [ TARGET in 4.01 Strict ]
There have been a lot of opinions expressed in this thread - lot's of valid points and lots of invalid points. However, cutting through the maze of details etc leads me to emphasise that when dealing with accessibility (for the able as well as the disabled) one should always approach web design from the standpoint of the lowest common denominator - the non-PC literate surfer. Back button? I'd like to bet that >75% of users don't know what that is! Right-click to select opening in a new window? No chance! Never heard of it! :-) This tends to be forgotten in consideration of what's usable and what's not. The trouble is, statements such as 'Users don't like popups' are not backed up by factual, scientific survey. The same actually goes for frames : we really don't know about the 'overall' response of users to frames. In my experience, they love them - your experience may be different. We don't really know. Until someone performs an impartial scientific study we are really in the dark. But I repeat, we MUST start at the lowest common denominator and design for the 'ordinary' user so that the site is easy to use on day one, but as he/she becomes more literate he/she can use the options of their own choice. Hey - no-one said it was easy! :-) Bob McClelland Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
