it's all their fault

By the way, this will be my last blogger blog. No fooling. Going grey. Sorry Ev, I love your product and I love what you've done, but I need more power and control... and I'm not afraid to chmod if I have to.

3/31/2001 06:42:45 PM | link

the rules

1. "3 goals of a site have to be identified to determine the direction and voice for the site"

2. "There should only be a maximum of seven links on each page, more than that and we lose the user. It's just too many choices."

3. "Users won't click on items they believe are advertisements. Banner ads only work if they appear on the right side of the page."

4. "Users are trained to respond to "blue" or underlined items on a site to get somewhere else.

5. "There is no need for a button and a text click through (to the same page) on the same page."

Each of these "rules" is derived from a larger, smarter principal that someone has apparently determined is too complex for the idiots building websites.

Let's take a look:

1. "3 goals of a site have to be identified to determine the direction and voice for the site"
Let's translate this one: determine the goals of the site before you start building it. Goals need to come form multiple sources:

What are the business goals? (customer loyalty? investor excitement?)
What are the engineering goals? (easy to maintain? extensible?)
What are the sales goals? (more banner space? Customized pages for cobranding opportunities?)
What are the marketing goals? (reinforced branding?)
What are the user's goals?(I want to learn? find? buy? I need it to load fast? Work on my 3.0 browser?)

It's called requirements gathering, and no site should be built without it.

New rule: Do requirements gathering before you start designing a site

2. "There should only be a maximum of seven links on each page, more than that and we lose the user. It's just too many choices."

A better way to look at this would be "not everything can be the most important thing on a page" A page has to have a visual hierarchy and organization to make sense. Which means somebody gets to have their stuff in the top left corner of the homepage, and someone gets be below the fold. It is important to understand user tolerance of information but people can take a lot more than one might suppose if it is designed well. And sites with only seven links often look empty (I've seen this in user testing) belying the wealth of content that lies below.

New rule: Prioritize your page elements. Design a clear page hiearchy.

3. "Users won't click on items they believe are advertisements. Banner ads only work if they appear on the right side of the page."

It doesn't matter where you put the ads, if people think they are worthless they won't click it. I found the eyetracking study very interesting-- it showed people's eyes were looking at banners. yet Neilsen's banner blindness study showed people have no memory of seeing ads. To me that suggests that some lovely tiny bit of people's brains is quickly taking everything in, deciding what is valuable and trashing what isn't.

What is quite more valuable is designing ads that show the value of whatever is being offered and place them where they have meaning. So ads for a credit card don't make much sense on a greeting card site, but ads for flowers, chocolate, etc do. especially when placed at that important "susceptible moment"-- you've just sent a card.. don't you want to send a present too?

People don't want to be offered stuff they don't want. it's as simple as that.

New rule: Make ads contextual and meaningful whenever possible

4. "Users are trained to respond to "blue" or underlined items on a site to get somewhere else."

They were. and then every site on the web changed the rules (except maybe Jakob).

They key principal here is "make a link look clickable" make it a different color, make it a button, underline it-- do something to say "click me."

I've been in a lot of tests recently where people used "Braille" to find links-- they ran their mouse across the page and watched for the hand to show up. Kinda of a cruel thing to force users to do, no?
see earlier post on links

New rule: make links look clickable. Don't make non-links look like links

5. "There is no need for a button and a text click through (to the same page) on the same page."

I'm going with a flat "no" on this one: I think the real issue is "Should you have multiple ways to get to the same page on the same page." In a recent usability test of a large entertainment site, you could get to each piece of content by clicking on the thumbnail, the headline or the "click here" link that appeared after a short description. Some users used the image, some the title and some the "click here" link. None of them hesitated or were confused as to where to link-- I believe because each found a link they recognized would work for them.

I recently was shopping for a cd, and couldn't figure out how to purchase it. There was no "buy now" button. However the price was linked to the shopping cart. I didn't know that, and I started clicking randomly on things until I managed to hit the price link. Bah.

Why did I put up with this frustration? Honestly, it was the cheapest price on this particular cd. If it wasn't, I would have just bought it from Amazon.

New rule: support different people's ways of doing things (support different mental models)

Hungry for more? IBM has a terrific article that goes after "the rules" of software design: Debunking the myths of UI design.

3/26/2001 08:21:28 AM | link

lemon tree in the neighbor's garden

3/25/2001 10:34:20 AM | link

walk like a librarian

3/25/2001 07:13:05 AM | link

what makes a link a link?

Because almost all major commercial sites flaunt the blue underlined rule, anything underlined or in a different color in a body of black text will be suspected to be a link. There are other conventions that have slowly arisen, mostly due to website designers tendency to copy anything successful (before you write me to tell me I'm a jerk for saying this: a. yes, I know it's your boss who makes you do it and b. good artists borrow, great artists steal.)

Some of these successful new conventions include:
(based on observations made during usability testing of a number of different sites)

• using a different color or underlining links
  
• Yahoo! style hierarchal menus. You don't have to color or underline these to get them to be clicked
  
• lists in the left hand area of the page (cnet style) if that area is not also used for content.
  
• Amazon-type tabs (thanks tom!)
  
• using buttons that look clickable
  
  
  thanks, Steve! visit his site and read his book, Don't Make Me Think.
  

Links Want To Be Links is an article that is both insightful and bizarre. It pushes the idea that links should be typically blue and always underlined, and image borders must be left on

(I've never seen anyone who used the web post-lynx who cared if images had borders or not. In fact, a typical surfer clicks all images, so you might as well link them all).

The article gets truely weird when the author suggests that different kinds of links should be in different typefaces. I started to consider buying the The Non-Designer's Design Book for the author of the article, Jukka Korpela. He uses so many colors, font sizes and font faces throughout the article, I found it extremely difficult to read, and even though I knew his philosophy was underlines=links, I couldn't help but run my mouse over the green and blue words he colored for emphasis. (Is the bold tag broken? or if he's that old school, how about the em tag...)

I felt like I was reading a 5th grade girl's letter, full of i's topped with hearts, items underlined three times and six exclaimation points at the end of each sentence. Really!!!!!

3/25/2001 07:06:45 AM | link

R E S P E C T

We were discussing this at the IA Cocktail hour. Turns out an IA had written to her and discovered the author had had a bad experience with a certain "east coast firm" that left her with a bad taste of IA in her mouth. I've heard other stories about these people who have terrorized clients and designers with their auteur behavior. They are giving IA's a bad name as bullies who push others around with their jargon and attitude. I'm sorry to say we occasionally see this in certain west coast firms also...

You know who you are.

Cut it out.

1. The client knows their business. Really. You didn't go to business school. You didn't spend x years studying hardware or book auctions or teen clothes buying habits. You may have spent a week in discovery doing so, but your client probably still knows more. Listen to them closely. Respect their opinions. If you disagree, instead of fighting try listening and asking questions.

2. The designers know their business. They went to design school. They came to the company and have probably lived through a few redesigns. Again, listen to what they are saying. They may know why you "just can't use a dropdown menu there". Collaborate. If designers understand how choices were made in your architecture, they will reflect that in their designs. If they don't, they'll do as they see fit-- as they should.

3. You know your business. You have no need to show off by using a web of complex words. If a client doesn't know what a heuristic is, go ahead and call it an expert review. Don't say, "we're going to do a cognitive walk through" say "we're going to walk through each part of your site and write down any problems we think visitors to your site will have." Same for wireframes, taxonomy, conceptual model...

4. Educate, don't dictate. Never say "that's how it has to be," take the time to explain how you came to your decision. If you dictate, what happens when you leave the project? The client is left with a bunch of mysterious documents they never really understood. I've heard a lot of IA's pondering why client x never used their solution for this or that... there are probably a lot of reasons for that, but I'll bet one is they never really understood why the solution the architect came up was a good one.

3/24/2001 06:54:22 AM | link

variations

So it isn't a surprise I delighted in finding exercises in style

3/21/2001 09:22:43 PM | link

brand and you

IA can be driven by brand. In early discovery sessions, the IA should be understanding the desired marketing message -- is it simple? sophisticated? easy? classy?-- and then designing systems that reinforce these brand qualities... reveal a million features to reinforce "powerful" or hide them to reinforce "simple" for example. Just as much as any graphic designer, the IA will help or hurt the brand.

This means IA's need to go talk to the VP of marketing (or CEO, or...), and the VP needs to talk to them. In the past the two groups may have eyed each other with suspicion, but it's time to put those differences aside and concentrating on crafting the next Saturn.

3/21/2001 10:21:38 AM | link

ha!

3/21/2001 09:10:11 AM | link

i saw the news today, oh boy

3/18/2001 10:07:23 AM | link

friday afternoon at IQHQ

Can you guess what Andi's decribing here?

• the size of a coworker's brain
• the size of an ex's mr. happy
• the size of her $1200 a month apartment
• the patience she has left with the whole dotcom thing

3/16/2001 07:42:15 PM | link

don't make me think

is this really such an incredibly beautiful design that they couldn't risk ruining it by adding more information so I'd know what was a link and where it might take me?

So where do I click to learn about possible plans? In the big gray box that tells me they provide health insurance?

• no, none of the stuff in the big gray box is linked. it does rotate, showing me a picture of a nice dog.
• no, there's nothing useful in the blue news box
• no, there is no help in the gray rectangle, even though that looks more like navigation than anything on the page it doesn't lead to anywhere I want to go
• nope, the banner ads don't look useful (I checked them out when I realized they were for Aetna)
• wait-- I see something under the big gray box. I'll try Aetna group insurance (we're a group). nope, that's wrong

This is a classic example of a page for investors and the CEO, as opposed to their actual customers. Is that a good idea?

compare that to Pacificare


click to see larger image

You can complain that it's ugly if you want, but I do have a pretty clear idea where to click.

3/15/2001 12:15:28 PM | link

i guess they don't insure cats

They do have a disturbing propensity toward poetry, not someting I'm looking for in a health care provider. Though this one's entertaining...

Your company isn't a bowl of oatmeal,
it's a kettle of mulligan stew.

You have couch potatoes and tri-athletes.
Night owls and early birds.

One size fits all won't work for you.
Would you like the name of a good tailor?

who's up for a nice steaming bowl of tri-athlete stew?

3/15/2001 11:09:39 AM | link

IQHQ

3/14/2001 10:45:25 PM | link

the golden fleece

Today Lou Rosenfeld and Peter Morville sent out a message stating that Argus is closing their doors.

I'm not even sure if I can write about this.

When I was a html hack in the old egreetings days, I came across their Web Review articles. I remember being delighted by the information within, and printing them all out and putting them in a blue binder (I can see it from here, sticking out of my bookshelf.) I have referred to that binder again and again throughout my career.

When I found the O'Reilly book on IA, I felt my chosen career was validated. Here was a whole book on what I did everyday! And it included a lot of what I did (and a whole lot of what I didn't). This is at a time when I had to do a lot of fighting every day to defend the value of good IA. I sat the book on a prominent place on my desk, as if to warn people: I do something real. Something important. Pay attention, there's an O'Reilly book on it!

Argus was IA to me. I remember being crushed when I heard that they only hired folks with a masters degree or higher, thinking that ended my chance of working for them.

When Egreetings needed a company to help rearchitect their catalog, I fought long and hard to bring them on. They hired them, but I had just quit, ready for a change. I nearly changed my mind in hopes of working with them. I didn't realize that chance wouldn't come again. I did have the pleasure of meeting Chris Farnum, a brilliant IA who was coming onto the project as I faded into the sunset.

But I was again elated when Lou Rosenfeld invited me to join a group of IA's for dinner in Boston at the first ASIS summit. I was so nervous, so sure I would say something foolish.... But somehow everything went smoothly, and I was so pleased that Lou was friendly and down-to-earth as well as smart and funny.

At the ACIA convention in La Jolla, I met Samantha Bailey-- another witty insightful nice argonaut. I also got to meet Keith Instone, whom I'd admired for his work on usableweb.com forever. I was nerveous and I thought he was teasing me a little, until he gave me a goofy grin that put me at ease. I was beginning to wonder what was in the Ann Arbor water-- not a mean Argonaut in the crowd. When I finally met Peter Morville at this year's ASIS summit in San Francisco, I knew someone was doing genetic experiments in Michigan.... too much goodness for one small town in the midwest.

When Lou asked to interview me for ACIA, it was the biggest thrill of my career. I knew I was doing something right-- Argus noticed me.

So yes, I'm very sad. Still, it's important to keep perspective. It's not the end of the world. No one died. We still have Peter and Lou and Sam and Keith and Chris and the rest of the argonauts. The quest for the golden fleece is ended, but the heros are still around. So while I am sad, I still have hope of working with these fine folks. I still look forward to the next book, the next Strange Connection, the next conference where Peter reminds us to slow down, Lou suggests we keep innovating...

Argus is still IA to me. But now I look forward to the next quest!

addendum: Peter Morville writes

...we found the golden fleece in the wonderful staff and clients and colleagues we've worked with over the years...and after a brief rest, I too am looking forward to the next quest.

3/13/2001 07:25:37 PM | link

and then tracy said

3/11/2001 07:13:37 PM | link

real bad

Of course their lowest trick is this one:

looking at this, you'd hit next, wouldn't you? Better scroll first...

Jesse and I have chattted about immoral IA before and couldn't come up with an obvious example-- until now.

it ain't right.

addendum: Marc writes

Living in Seattle, I had a brief vision of printing out your 'blog and physically standing in front of their headquarters downtown, shoving copies of your example in front of their employees as they walked into the building.

"Are you SURE you don't want this informative flyer? Are you SURE? Well, too bad, you have to take it, because I didn't GIVE YOU THE OPTION not to!"

Consider it a guerrilla strike for good IA. :)

3/9/2001 06:51:59 AM | link

the question that got cut

Lou: OK, to wrap up, you wanted me to ask you: what is the connection between IA, poetry, Deconstructionism and cooking? I’m dying to know the answer!

Christina: Attention. To do information architecture, to write good poetry or to read it, to engage in deconstructionist philosophy or cook anything tasty you must pay absolute attention to the thing you are working at, and consider with your entire mind. You must take it apart and reconstruct it with a certain understanding.

If you want to be a better IA, I recommend you study all these things. Take a good poetry class, preferably one that teaches modernism through the New York school. Frank O’hara’s Lunch Poems were poetry written at lunch, and perfect for reading at your lunch break. What could be more user-centered than to write a poem to perfectly match a moment in the reader’s day!

Study deconstructionism I do recommend Derrida’s essay on Différance, and Foucault’s The Order of Things (it may destroy your ability to take pleasure in writing for awhile, but it’s worth it.)

At least read some deconstructist-influenced fiction, such as If on a Winters Night a Traveler or The Mezzanine. These works reveal that the structure can be as important as the content it holds to effectively convey an idea.

Finally, cook difficult recipes from good cookbooks. You’ll definitely get an appreciation for the fine art of instructions. At the very least, you’ll eat better!

3/5/2001 07:13:24 AM | link

what does it take

We align your systems and business strategies to develop high performance, effective solutions that compliment your business plan.

3/5/2001 06:42:26 AM | link

hmm

3/5/2001 02:32:13 AM | link