I have one thing to say: I am soooo sick and tired of people writing "The web is all about X" It's a medium, people. it's like saying paper is all about writing term papers, and pictures just waste ink. Even weblications have a wide user base and have wide user needs-- power users can take a page full of data, some people are more uncertain, and prefer wizards: one-task/one-page.
Cooper's article was full of oversimplification to a Nielsen-esque level and I was disappointed in him. The articles that have been coming in the newsletters have mostly been outstanding, and this issue was rather poor, I thought.
Then again, he's getting Nielsen-esque attention for it.
, from oldest to newest:
Short response:
I agree with Christina.
Long response:
The article is fine, in my opinion. But, it isn't really interesting and it dosen't give us any hard data. I write articles for WebWord like this all of the time. In many ways, it is just an opinion piece -- an editorial. I ask, where is the data? Where is the innovation?
If you are a "big name" you should live up to it. If you are going to write something, without much data, then write something like Don Norman's BCCS & Products article.
There is lot of good material on WebWord that I honestly think is more important than this article. For example, I wrote an article on the usability of email subject lines which was based on a (now free) 10 page report on the subject. Did that get much attention? Nope. Did it provide interesting data? Yes. Was is useful and novel? Yes.
Alan Cooper is a big name, so he gets big press. He's done a lot of really great work. He's a smart dude, and I respect a lot of his work. But, let's face it, his article isn't innovative and there isn't data to think about.
It pains me to write an article like Donation Gravity where I provide people with data and an interesting analysis. But, I don't get much press, while folks like Cooper and Nielsen produce opinion pieces and people spend days debating.
Christina, you really hit a nerve. I am very discouraged about the field of usability because it seems to degrading into folk science and lame marketing. I was originally attracted to usability because it applied science and psychology to real world design problems. It doesn't quite seem that way these days.
I'm sorry that I sound sour, but where are the innovative usability techniques? Where are the great ideas? Where is the real spice? Where is the data?
I'll give myself some advice: Do something about it and stop complaining. Write a book. Take the bull by the horns and make it happen.
Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 10/13/2001 03:41 PM pst
~~~
I agree that the article over-simplified the subject. I like navigation within a site for the same reason I look at the map at the mall - If I know where I want to go, I want to just get there. If I don't know where I want to go, I want to know what's available...and _then_ I (again) just want to get there.
I don't make a distinction between business sites and personal sites in my browsing. If I'm casually perusing, I still have some particular interest that I'm exploring - not exploring just for the sake of exploration.
Posted by Lori @ 10/13/2001 08:40 PM pst
~~~
Wow, John, i guess I did hit a nerve... and it's something I've been mulling over for some time. jakob invented scare tactics: your site sucks! no one will buy your product1 you will fail and die alone unloved! mark hurst refined them by adding (more) numbers.... You're product will fail and 90% of your customers won't love you!
It is all a bunch of jumping up and down and howling. And it works..tog mentioned the more provocative their statements are, the more hits they gets. Even when jakob writes an fairly sensible article, he's sure to give it a rabble-rousing title (of which "Flash 99% bad" will always be the best example)
Flat statements get attention. So, I understand your pain, John, but what can we learn from these folks? Maybe your donation gravity atticle could have been titled "Shame the cheapskates and get more money!" or something like that. or your email subject line could be called "Why Spam is good."
Okay, I hate lazy articles -- but then, we also have to look at promoting ourselves-- if we don't get hired, how can we make products better (and that's why we do this, right?)So how can we still write good, informative articles that get the attention and the audience they need?
Posted by christina @ 10/14/2001 08:54 AM pst
~~~
In Defense of Alan
These days, when Alan Cooper writes an article, his audience isn't us. When I say us, I mean designers. In this article he's speaking to the people he wants to hire his company. In fact, his entire last book was directed at those people - though it struck a chord and was quite relevant to a lot of us.
I don't think we should expect research data from a newsletter article - unless we are the audience. Aren't we the ones who are always saying we need to speak the customer's language? Research data is not their language.
What I think we should be asking is, "Where is the data that backs up the Cooper design philosophy?" and "Where is Reimann's or Fore's or Goodwin's Practitioner's Guide to Interaction Design?"
Frankly, I don't care who writes it. Based on the Cooper Newsletter articles so far, I'd really like to hear more from Jonathan Korman. He wrote Putting people together to make good products. Damn, that was a good article! Maybe that's just my bent for organizational behavior talking...but I digress.
All I'm saying is, maybe we've overacted a bit?
Posted by brad @ 10/16/2001 01:40 AM pst
~~~
