Gill, Kathy writes:
> > From: Steven J. Owens[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > The one thing I always wanted to do but could never get a clear
> > consensus on from upper management was to push all of the concrete
> > parts of the web site to the main page. [...]
> > Most of the time the "design" of the site - the layout of each
> > page and the architecture of all of the pages - simply can't
> > anticipate what the user's desires are(*).
> >
> > (* This results in large part because of a combination of three things.
> > 1) lack of design skill on management's part,
> > 2) lack of concrete, measurable, usable user data and demographics, and
> > 3) lack of willingness to spend anything on getting the above.)
> >
> >
>
> I agree with you that many large sites suffer -- I'd like to add a
> point or two. <smile>
> Classic usability focuses on TASKS -- which is what you are doing
I'm not sure how you're defining "classic" usability. My first
real introduction to it was Nielsen's "Usability Engineering", which
of course focused on repeatable engineering processes for attaining
usability.
> with your list above. This is one of the hardest parts when building a
> site -- IDing the tasks
Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be in my post. proper
usability identifies the users and their tasks and prioritizes
accordingly. Since most corporations don't want to invest in
proper usability, I was suggesting examing your site for what concrete
tasks are possible (i.e. what substantive forms can be filled out, etc)
and pushing links to them to the top of the site.
Of course odds are you can't put links *directly* to the forms.
For one thing often such forms have a legal requirement to put the
user through a few hoops first (forcing them to read the fine print).
Hence a terse summary that is enough to steer the first-time user
to the beginning points, enough to refresh the memory of the user who
laboriously clicked through the whole thing the first time, and won't
get in the way of the savy user who knows exactly where he or she
wants to go if only the site architecture would get out of the way
and let them go there.
> and then convincing management that a task-oriented focus will
> provide value to the end-user. And yes, every audience doesn't have
This is certainly the hardest part, and also the "right"
strategic choice (win the war, not the battle), BUT... I don't have
any magic solutions for it, so I'm suggesting an alternative that will
at least help the site.
> the same task list -- that's where audience ID and priority needs to
> take place.
>
> My pet peeve is national sites, like United Airlines or NW Airlines,
> that don't have their bloody 1.800 reservations number on the top page
> -- or Outpost.Com, whose 1.800 number is in a bloody GIF that has no
> ALT tags! Grrrrr. People DO sometimes want to talk to a person at the
> corporation!
Yes and no... I think it's a good idea to have the 1-800 number
easily accessible. But you have to balance that with the tendency to
drive users towards using the phone instead of the web page. This is
less of a problem now than two years ago, as the general population is
getting more web savvy. Still, for example almost every corporate
home page has an "About Us" or "Contact Us" link to a second page.
That seems the best place for mailing addressess, general phone
numbers, etc.
> > Think in terms of a FAQ. The reason FAQs work so well is because
> > they are quite simple and task-oriented, and because they
> > traditionally evolve over time; the structure of the FAQ is based on
> > recurring user questions. This is the brute force approach to
> > usability engineering. It works, but you don't have that sort of
> > time, nor the infrastructure to support it(*). Instead, it's simpler
> > to list the things that the user can really do, with links to a
> > "shortcut" page for each thing.
>
> I've found you can often get to some of these questions by bypassing
> the standard corporate chain and going straight to the person who
> takes phone calls -- often this is an admin. asst. in corporate PR.
This is a good resource to tackle. Depending on the size and
nature of the corporation - in this case I'm assuming a good sized
bank with a large consumer base - you'll often find that the
corporation has established a help desk (or "call center" in the
industry nomenclature) staffed by several people.
I started write a section in my post about using the coporate
call center, and establishing an email equivalent in the call center,
and "mining" the call center people for information on what needs
improvement. I think I clipped it out and just briefly mentioned in
the last paragraph:
> > (* You should be talking to your bank's consumer help desk about
> > setting up infrastructure to respond to email requests; make sure
> > you also set up procedures for the web team to learn from the
> > requests and improve the site.
> > The ultimate would be real-time
> > chat response for lost & confused users, where the chat service
> > would have knowledgable "tellers" who know and understand all the
> > material and are responsible for helping formulate site refinements
> > to cut down on future questions. It'll never happen, but it's nice
> > to dream...).
>
> THIS is cool! Wow -- great idea -- how is this different from 1.800
> phone lines?
I'm not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek or not.
When I wrote "chat" above, I was thinking of text-chat, not
voice-over-internet chat, btw, though that would also be an
interesting approach to pursue. Actually, a hybrid might be the most
feasible at this point, since more people have realaudio and speakers
than have microphones. However, for the following, assume I'm talking
about either email or some sort of browser-based chat client,
preferably one where the chat takes place in part of the window while
the remainder can display the web site.
First, using the medium to respond, but using it to respond in a
very timely manner, is a great way to raise your net presence,
particularly if you have knowledgable people manning those keyboards.
Second, if you start this early on and let it grow slowly, as the
site grows, you can probably balance the growth in traffic with the
development of "boilerplate" answers. The trick is to then apply
those answers without making it too obviously a form reply.
Third, it would help you zero in quickly on areas of the site
that are navigationally difficult to use. If coupled with a good
design response time it would in effect become a "feedback loop" to
the site architecture.
Fourth, it couples the real human response closely with the
internet channel, which enables the call center to effectively convey
forms, supplemental information, etc, to the user, and to encourage
the user to use the web site resources, hence ultimately cutting down
on the number of call center calls ("weaning" the users from human
voice to using the Internet).
Corporations seem to zig zag wildly in their approach to getting
information to the customer via web vs. phone. At first they offered
hardly any data on the web and put the phone number there for the
customer to call. Then they bounced to the opposite extreme, plunking
tons of "repurposed" brochureware on their site. Instead of making
the web a more effective medium than the call center to _encourage_
users to use the web, they then tried to hobble the call center to
_discourage_ users from using the phone.
I'm a firm believer that the best way to get people to do
something is to create a path of least resistance that leads that way,
not by making the alternatives more difficult.
Steven J. Owens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
