Archive for the ‘UI/UX’ Category

File Under: UI/UX, Visual Design
Mar
19
2013

You Suck at Search

By

Image: Screenshot/Webmonkey

Even if you’re pretty good at searching, the majority of your website’s users are probably not. In fact, user experience expert Jakob Nielsen thinks most people are so bad at searching that site-specific search engines would do better to return navigation elements rather than actual search results.

Nielson’s research reveals that while more people reach for the search box to find what they’re after on a site, few of them “know how to use it.” The normally more prosaic Nielson writes:

It would certainly be nice if schools would get better at teaching kids how to search. But I don’t hold out much hope, because most people have the literary skills of an anteater (I was going to say, “a chimpanzee,” but these animals are too smart for my metaphor). Having new and varied vocabulary words spring from their foreheads wasn’t a survival skill for ice age hunters, so most people today can’t think up good queries without help.

Presumably Nielsen means literacy skills, not literary skills. That’s a pretty harsh critique, but if you’ve ever watched a less web-savvy friend or family member search for something you might be able to relate.

So how do you design your site’s search tool to help these “mediocre searchers” as Nielsen calls them?

Nielsen is critical of instant search suggestions, currently a popular way to help people using search tools. He claims that, while sometimes helpful, auto-complete tools can also be limiting because “users often view the drop-down as a mini-SERP and assume that it lists everything the site carries.”

The better way to do search according to Nielsen is to simply return product categories. The example in his report cites Costco, which, when searching for “television” will return all of its TV product categories rather than actual individual televisions. The product category links help users refine their choice and get to the televisions they actually want without having to wade through as many individual results.

It’s important to note that Nielsen is only advocating this sort of redirecting when the search term is “unambiguous and exactly matches the category.” As Nielsen notes, “until people begin to grasp the complexities of search and develop skills accordingly, businesses that take such extra steps to help users find what they need will improve customer success — and the bottom line.”

Tags:
File Under: Mobile, Responsive Design, UI/UX, Web Basics
Mar
8
2013

Mobile Browsers Help Users Avoid Bloated Webpages

By

Stop feeding your website donuts. Image: D. Sharon Pruitt/Flickr.

Websites are getting fatter, dramatically fatter, with the average page size of sites tracked by the HTTPArchive now nearly 1.3 MB. If the current rate of page size increase continues, that number will reach 2MB sometime early next year.

That’s bad for pretty much everyone, but doubly so for mobile users with constrained bandwidth.

Fortunately for mobile users, the network increasingly seems to see large page sizes as damage to route around.

Services like Instapaper, Pocket or Safari’s Reader have long offered an easy way to strip out extraneous content. Now mobile web browsers are increasingly taking it upon themselves to speed up the bloated web.

The recently unveiled WebKit-based Opera Mobile borrows Opera Mini’s proxy-based Turbo Mode, or “Off Road” mode as it’s known now. Once only deemed necessary for feature phones (Opera Mini’s primary market) proxy-based browsing will soon be available in all Opera browsers.

Google’s Chrome for Android browser is getting ready to follow suit.

The beta channel release of Chrome for Android recently introduced an experimental data compression feature which Google says will “yield substantial bandwidth savings.” Chrome’s compression is nowhere near the level of Opera’s, but it does roughly the same thing — puts a proxy server between the user and the bloated site in question and then applies various speed improvements like using the SPDY protocol and compressing images with WebP.

To turn on the compression head to chrome:flags and look for the “enable experimental data compression” option.

Here’s Google’s description of the various optimizations:

For an average web page, over 60% of the transferred bytes are images. The proxy optimizes and transcodes all images to the WebP format, which requires fewer bytes than other popular formats, such as JPEG and PNG. The proxy also performs intelligent compression and minification of HTML, JavaScript and CSS resources, which removes unnecessary whitespace, comments, and other metadata which are not essential to render the page. These optimizations, combined with mandatory gzip compression for all resources, can result in substantial bandwidth savings.

In other words, Google and Opera are doing what web developers ought to be doing but aren’t. Just like developers should have been making reader-friendly pages, but weren’t, so “reader” modes were born.

It works too. In the video embedded below Google’s Pete Le Page shows how Chrome’s new proxy options take a page from The Verge and reduce it from a husky 1.9MB to a still fat, but somewhat better 1.2MB.

Want to make sure the internet doesn’t see your site as damage it needs to route around? Check out developer Brad Frost’s article Prioritizing Performance in Responsive Design, which has a ton of great advice and links, including what I think is the most important thing developers can do: Treat Performance As Design. In other words, if your site isn’t svelte and fast, it’s not well designed no matter how pretty it might look.

[Note: It is not ironic to post about web page bloat on a page that is, arguably, pretty bloated.]

Tags: , , ,
File Under: CSS, HTML, UI/UX, Visual Design
Mar
7
2013

Simplify Responsive Design With ZURB’s ‘Foundation’ Web Toolkit

By

Foundation 4. Image: Screenshot/Webmonkey.

ZURB has released a major new version of its popular Foundation framework, a web development toolkit for quickly building responsive websites. The new Foundation v4 is a ground-up re-write that sees ZURB taking a mobile-first approach.

Like its erstwhile competitor Bootstrap, Foundation offers a set of HTML and CSS building blocks you can use to quickly develop basic site structure and design — layouts, typography, forms and other common design elements are all available.

There are three ways you can try out Foundation 4. You can download the straight compressed CSS and use that as a starting point for your own customizations. Alternately you can customize your build of Foundation, including only the elements you need; or you can install the SASS version of Foundation and customize it within your SASS code.

If you’re upgrading from Foundation 3 be sure to read through ZURB’s migration guide as the syntax for the grid and other elements has changed.

The real power of Foundation 4 doesn’t really come into play unless you go with the SASS option. Thanks to SASS’s “mixins” concept you can now use the grid tools in Foundation 4 without littering your HTML with the various (purely presentational) grid class names. Using Foundation 4 within your SASS project also makes it dead simple to use only the components you need, for example, you can include the grid mixins, but skip the typography if it’s not to your liking.

Be aware that the new mobile-first approach in Foundation 4 means browsers which don’t support media queries will only get very basic styling for the grid and other UI elements. Yes, that pretty much only affects IE 8. But, if your project needs more robust support for IE 8, there is a modified version of Foundation 4 with support for IE 8 (alternately, you could stick with Foundation 3).

It’s also worth noting that, because Foundation 4 is such a departure from the previous version, ZURB plans to continue supporting Foundation 3 for some time.

If you’ve got questions about Foundation 4, head on over to the official site and check out the documentation. You can also explore the code on GitHub — Foundation is one of the top 20 most-starred projects on the site.

Tags: ,
File Under: Responsive Design, UI/UX, Visual Design, Web Basics
Jan
15
2013

Turning Off Responsive Design

By

A handful of the many canvases your site will adorn. Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired.com

In the bad old days of just four years ago it was pretty common for mobile users to get shunted off to some half-baked, feature-deprived “mobile” version of the website they were trying to visit. This misguided practice was common (and annoying) enough that even today Chrome for Android and other mobile web browsers ship with a feature that allows users to “request desktop site.”

To make that feature work Chrome for Android changes its user agent string. Any site that uses user agent strings to redirect mobile users will no longer because to redirect them and the desktop version is displayed.

Responsive websites don’t rely on user agent strings though. Instead they adapt to screen size based on CSS media queries so even if a user has the option for desktop sites checked in Chrome they still won’t get the “desktop” site (of course with responsive sites there really is no desktop site, just a desktop layout).

Provided your responsive designs are good, this isn’t a problem (and if they aren’t then you have bigger problems). However, Opera web standards evangelist Bruce Lawson raises an interesting edge case: what about users that have never seen the mobile layout and are disoriented when they do? If you were expecting, say, the desktop layout of the BostonGlobe.com and instead saw the mobile layout for the first time you might be understandably confused. Here’s what Lawson has to say:

My reason for wondering [about turning off responsive design] is watching my dad use his Xmas Android phone and seeing his puzzlement that some sites look completely different on that device. Non-RWD sites loaded the layout he was familiar with — the desktop layout — which meant he could verify he was on the right site, he knew where in the layout the content he wanted was, and then scroll and zoom to it. When a site looked radically different, he’d check the URL bar to ensure that he’d typed in the right address. In short, he found RWD to be confusing and it meant he didn’t trust the site – no way would he buy anything from these sites.

The first thing to note is that this isn’t a problem unique to responsive sites. The same thing would crop up with a separate mobile experience. The difference is the inability to opt out of the responsive layout. An edge case? Sure, but Lawson isn’t alone in wondering about turning off responsive designs. CSS guru Chris Coyier tackled that very question last year, writing:

Why don’t we see opt-out responsive design? My guess is two-fold:

  1. It’s a bit technically challenging to implement and there aren’t a lot of precedents.
  2. It’s admitting you didn’t do a very good job on the responsive design.

The latter likely being the bigger factor. Like: why are we creating this responsive design at all if we aren’t sure it’s a better experience?

I would agree with both points, but clearly there are at least a few edge cases where offering an option to turn off responsive design might be a good idea. Of course it may not be worth worrying about the edge case of unfamiliar visitors — that’s the sort of decision you can only really make by looking at your own visitors and doing your own testing.

If you actually want to try it, Coyier has some ideas on how to go about creating an option to opt out of a responsive design.

Tags:
File Under: Identity, UI/UX
Oct
18
2012

Twitter Creator Believes You’re More Than Just a ‘User’

By

The UserLand Software logo. Image: Dave Winer

What’s in a word? A lot according to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of mobile-payments company Square. Dorsey, who also help create Twitter, believes that the technology industry needs to reconsider the word user and find something less “derogatory” to refer to people that use its products and services.

As he points out, the word user in the context of software has mainly negative origins, often being used to refer to “a person who wasn’t technical or creative, someone who just used resources.”

That’s hardly how most of see ourselves when we log in to Twitter, Gmail or Facebook.

“It’s time for our industry and discipline to reconsider the word ‘user,’” writes Dorsey on his Tumblr blog. “We speak about ‘user-centric design,’ ‘user benefit,’ ‘user experience,’ ‘active users,’ and even ‘usernames’…. While the intent is to consider people first, the result is a massive abstraction away from real problems people feel on a daily basis.”

It’s easy to sympathize with Dorsey’s argument; after all, who wants to be referred to by a word otherwise mainly associated with drug use? Indeed I try to keep the word user out of Webmonkey articles for just that reason, but sometimes writing around user is more awkward than just, er, using it. That combined with the fact that the best alternative Dorsey can come up with the is the word customer, which is better but can still be equally dehumanizing in some contexts.

As with most debates about word choice and language it comes down to the intent the word is being used to convey. As RSS founder and longtime software developer Dave Winer points out:

Every decade or so this question comes up. Why do we use that awful U-word to describe our users? It’s hard to even formulate the question without sounding stupid. And every time the discussion comes up, it lasts a while before everyone gives up because there really aren’t any better words, and this is the word everyone uses so what are you going to do.

What Dorsey is doing is eliminating the word from Square’s vocabulary, telling employees that customer will replace user. He goes on to add that “we have two types of customers: sellers and buyers. So when we need to be more specific, we’ll use one of those two words.”

Dorsey also says he’ll pay out $140 if he ever uses the word again.

Winer believes in a different approach: embracing the word user. Winer even went so far as to name his second company UserLand Software.

In the end what matters is not so much what you call your users, but how you treat them. “The answer” writes Winer, “is to love those users so much that they don’t mind being called users. That’s an art a lot of tech companies have yet to master.”

« OLDER POSTS