Posts
Techcrunch has provided A Peak Inside Google’s Gmail Usability Lab.
It's an interesting look at how one of the most web-savvy companies in the world conducts usability testing.
It is not much more sophisticated than Centrelink's usability lab in Adelaide or Immigration's lab in Canberra.
Showing posts with label usability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label usability. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Usability testing - doing it like Google | Tweet |
Monday, June 23, 2008
Do all your egovernment tools meet accessibility standards? | Tweet |
In Australia website usability is important, but accessibility is law.
While most government agencies are extremely diligent about meeting accessibility requirements it is also important to look at the accessibility of any online tools they use that affect their customers or clients.
For example, my agency uses a third-party email marketing system, Vision6 for electronic newsletters to customers and a US-based survey tool, SurveyMonkey for customer and stakeholder surveys.
Vision6 is an Australian company and has met all applicable accessibility requirements for a long time. We also make a point of offering plain text versions of all HTML emails we distribute through this tool to further ensure we're providing an email version that customers can readily access.
SurveyMonkey, being a US system, isn't required by law to meet Australian accessibility standards - although it meets the applicable W3C guidelines on which this was based.
Previously we used this service as no other web survey platform I had identified met the agency's requirements and was fully Australian standards compliant.
However they have just been certified as compliant with the US's Section 508 Accessibility requirements, which, according to SurveyMonkey, makes them the only online survey application that is Section 508 certified, as explained in their website, Your survey designs are now 508 compliant!
This isn't an Australian standard, however it is a very long way towards meeting it.
If you're unsure what the Australian requirements are, AGIMO's Accessibility section provides a concise and clear explanation.
If you're not sure how to test for accessibility, WebAIM has a good list of accessibility testing tools and when/how to use them.
Incidentally, the W3C is getting much closer to the second version of their accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.0) - after 5 years of work.
Webcredibility have a review of the new version in their site at WCAG 2.0: The new W3C accessibility guidelines evaluated.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
User experience design made simple | Tweet |
Ruth Ellison gave a fantastic talk at BarCamp Canberra looking at user experience design from the perspective of chef Gordon Ramsay's TV show, Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares.
Her presentation gave me a new way to look at the topic and a simple way to explain what it is and how it works for people unfamiliar with the approach.
Ruth blogged about the talk, but I've only found it today, Gordon Ramsay - a guerrilla UX consultant?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
When good websites turn bad | Tweet |
I've had a keen interest in the Attorney General's Department for a number of years now.
That's not because they may - or may not - be the government department most likely to have James Bond, Triple X or the Men In Black working for them.
It's because they do a lot of important things across a range of areas, but rarely seem to get much credit for it.
For example, while their name suggests a dry, boring legal portfolio - and indeed they do have a large role in the intersection between Australia's legal system and government - they are also responsible for developing emergency management systems and supporting emergency management services, which become pretty important to people when there is an earthquake, flood or other disaster.
They also look after the Family Relationship Centres, which play an enormous role in supporting families around the country and manage Comlaw, THE source for legislative information in Australia and Australian Law Online, equally the source for legal and justice related information.
That's not to mention counter-terrorism, or engagement with the justice systems across the Pacific.
These are all important and useful activities and would make the AG's Department a very interesting place to work.
But what have they done to their website?
The other day I visited the main AG's website for the first time in awhile and was surprised at what I found.
I have my views on attractive and usable web design and they don't match what the AG's Department has done to their site.
The URL icon in the web address bar is cute - a scale of justice, much clearer than using a Commonwealth crest which suffers at a 16x16 pixel size. Unfortunately this was also the high point for me.
The site is coloured a very bright orange, fading through to blue with black highlights. The crest is nicely positioned at a good size at top left, but doesn't blend well with the page - it sits on a solid dark background and has harsh lines separating it from the rest of the design.
The website homepage has more than 70 visible links, organised into topic area throughout the left half two-thirds of the website - basically exposing much of the site navigation, using up most of the visible area to do it rather than neat dropdown menus.
It does have a right-hand column with several news items, Ministerial links and a couple of publications.
However that left hand area with all those links! It doesn't make the site very attractive or usable, it's simply overwhelming!
I did go to the site for a specific purpose, but after one look at the homepage, I fled back to Google and searched for the content instead - finding it within seconds.
I think that many other users similarly overwhelmed with options would react in a similar way.
So what mistake has AG's made - the concept that if links are good, more links are better?
That a home page, being largely a navigation page, should simple be a list of links?
Certainly that was the peak of user design back in the mid-90s, when Yahoo launched with a groundbreaking list of lists, neatly categorised by type. But I do not see any of today's popular sites taking a similar approach - perhaps the world has moved on.
I'm sure the department had good intentions for this design and was aiming to making it easier for the many audiences that visit the AG's site, for many different reasons.
However I do not think the approach selected will maximise the utility of the site - and look out for that 'bounce' rate!
Bounce rate (From Google Analytics' definition)
Bounce Rate is the percentage of single-page visits (i.e. visits in which the person left your site from the entrance page). Bounce Rate is a measure of visit quality and a high Bounce Rate generally indicates that site entrance (landing) pages aren't relevant to your visitors.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Redesigning sites to put customers at the centre of the universe | Tweet |
From our latest usability review, my agency's customers are saying that our website is looking a bit old, tired and dated.
They say it is very "about us" focused, covered in agency news items screaming 'look at me!', rather than "about them" - the customers!
Certainly many of our news messages are important (to customers), but news isn't what draws our customers to the website, it is information they become aware of when they go there to use our tools.
In the current design news is positions front and centre - where people look for important content. However the tools and resources important to our customers are pushed to the fringes - the far right or the bottom of the site.
So we're listening to our customers and I've received a go-ahead to make some changes.
The scope is the homepage and overall site template - we're not touching the primary navigation or content throughout the site.
I have set four rules for my team:
- Put customer needs first
- Use less words
- Minimise disruption
- Lift the look
Use less words:
Our home page is currently text rich - we want to cut down the words to the essential information to help customers move deeper into the site.
Minimise disruption:
We don't want to make regular visitors work harder to find tools. Even if we make tools easier to reach, this can make it harder for regulars who are habitualised to finding specific tools in particular places. This particularly goes for our main navigation, search and secure site login - none of which we want to make harder to find.
We are prepared to cause some disruption - you cannot adjust an interface without affecting some people - but we want to keep it as minimal as possible while achieving the other goals of the work.
Progress so far....
So far our web designer has put a lot of time into understand how people use our site, using all our data sources, and even asking a few real people.
From his preliminary rough design, we've had a very productive collaboration session to develop a wireframe (pic below) of how the homepage should be structured, using input from our customer research and website stats.
I've also conducted some preliminary ad hoc user testing to verify that this is regarded as a better design (it is from my small sample).
We're now fleshing out the wireframe to develop an appropriate interface pallette based on our corporate colours and fit the words we have to have before getting the design into a formal review process.
All opinions welcome!
New homepage initial wireframe
Key features
- Crest at top left
- Top menu realigned to left
- Search untouched
- Left/bottom menus untouched
- Secure login unmoved but more visible
- Important tools centred, in logical groups
- Frequently used tools buttons at right
- News items below tools with less text
- Subscribe options besides news
Sunday, June 15, 2008
An intranet isn't an information management system, but it has a role to play | Tweet |
A dilemma we're dealing with in my agency is that many projects have placed their documentation within the intranet and, over time, this has become the authoritative source of the most current copy of some documents.
This means that the owners of the content are very sensitive towards any changes to the intranet's structure which might reduce access to their pages - despite having only small audiences - because if there's an ANAO audit the intranet is the repository of the master documents.
I discourage the use of the intranet in this manner as it does not (in its current version) meet the records management requirements of the National Archives. We don't have appropriate version control, documents cannot be locked, ownership is flexible and archiving, while appropriate for an intranet, isn't up to information management standards.
However our Knowledge Management strategy does features the intranet as a major plank as it is an important tool for storing information, and a primary tool for people to communicate information.
I have seen attempts in the past to co-opt an organisation's intranet and turn it into an information management system. In these cases the intranet was developed according to the standards for digital record keeping.
This worked very well - as an information management tool. However it was lousy at communicating information to staff and lost significant credibility (and usage) - essentially nullifying one of the most important communication tools in the organisation.
The last I heard the organisation has hived off the information management parts and is seeking to regrow a conventional intranet.
I can understand why an organisation might attempt to turn an intranet into an information management system.
Good intranets are used frequently by the majority of staff, they store records (pages and files) and they are in many cases relatively easy to author and edit.
Whereas many information management systems are developed like old-style terminal systems, use strange processes to collect metadata, require enormous amounts of time to add records and are not very good at making information easy to find - unless you know precisely what you are looking for.
I've used several in the past and their usability, accessibility, design, search tool and general processes did not impress me alongside the intranet content management systems available at the time.
I can only think of one good reason why this difference exists - because information management systems have to meet lots of information storage standards - an intranet system can ignore them and make things easier for authors and users.
So should your intranet be an information management system?
My view is that it shouldn't - it should focus on what intranets do best, communicate information relevant to staff, facilitate collaboration and support staff in performing job-related tasks through being a central gateway / repository of tools and services.
If possible your intranet should also have a social aspect to help build (an appropriate) organisational culture and build staff loyalty and commitment by helping them feel like family - all work and no play makes Jack/Jill look elsewhere for an enjoyable work experience.
However intranets do have their part to play within an information management strategy.
An intranet is one of the mediums in which information is stored, and is a great tool for spreading information to those who need it within an organisation.
It is also a gateway to tools - such as an information management system - and tight integration between the two helps ensure that teams more effectively collaborate and manage their information.
I recommend that organisations consider their intranet as a 'primer' to help their staff get into the practice of information management.
First get enough of your staff using your intranet to create, store and share information through making the intranet easy to access, easier to author and full of appropriate content and tools.
Then once your staff have gotten the hang of putting content and files into an online system, introduce them to the 'real' information management system, which (in an ideal situation) integrates with the intranet and is almost as easy to use.
This way you'll not only ensure that your intranet is doing its job, but that your information management system is as well.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
12th Webby awards announced - beauty remains in the mind of the beholder | Tweet |
The Webby Awards are beginning to resemble the Oscars in their level of hype.
However as the most prestigious global award for digital media I can excuse them the need to make their mark alongside the older media awards.
The Government winner this year was the Peace Corps for their teen site.
It's an attractive marketing site, with a consistently strong theme and subtle interactivity.
The People's Voice Winner in the category was the Transport for London site.
While not as pretty, this is significantly more functional as a 'working' site designed to deliver services day in, day out.
The two sites are excellent examples of the pressures in the online world - stunning visual design (form) or clear consistent functionality.
Humans as a species react strongly to design - take our ongoing love affair with fashion or architecture for example.
This isn't limited to the physical world - beauty is in the eye and mind of the beholder. Our thoughts and, particularly, our feelings, colour how we respond to any digital product.
Of course design must also be useable - but isn't that one of the qualities of good design?
Government has some legislative considerations to ensure websites are usable and accessible, which often appear to bias us us towards focusing on function at the expense of form.
However as online communications we must keep in mind that form, the visual and interactive design, is equally important in winning the hearts, minds and ongoing use of citizens.
We have photogenic politicians, can we please have more attractive government websites?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Usability Rules - OK? | Tweet |
My Agency has just finished a nine-month long independent expert usability review of all of our online properties - website, intranet and secure online transaction service.
Needless to say most of the results matched what we already knew
Naturally there were some surprises - but if the people who manage the properties are already 70-80% right, why is it so important to call in the consultants?
The cynical response, and one I've floated out there from time to time, is that organisations don't trust the experience and expertise of their staff.
This is similar to the principle where for some products you sell more if you raise the price - as people believe if the price is higher so must be the quality.
Staff are a sunk cost, so there's no apparent further investment to justify the quality of an outcome.
This works well for consultants, who can build their credibility and reputation by simply charging more - though they do have to deliver in the end.
However I've never really liked it as a reason - both because I'd like to think that employers recognise the skills of their employees (or wouldn't have hired them), and because it only addresses the issue of trust, not the issue of whether the work needs to be done.
After years of thinking on this topic, involving many research projects and other consultant-led activities, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason for bringing in the external experts is simply that 'we don't know what we don't know'.
It's great to sit back in an organisation and say that a piece of research taught us nothing that we didn't already know - but is that really the case.
Even if you are 80% correct on what your customers wanted (after the fact), the other 20% may be the most vital piece of the puzzle. As we become close to our work and acculturalised to the organisation it becomes impossible to take off those rose-coloured glasses and see our online properties (or other products and services) in the same way as our customers.
Of course I have had other reasons for using independent experts over the years - to train staff, to substitute money for time we didn't have, and to ensure that politically and legally we had something signed to point at "but the consultant said that..."
But my main reason in almost every case has been that most powerful reason of all - I don't know what I don't know, and I'm unable to take off my glasses to find out.
Needless to say most of the results matched what we already knew
- our website needs more of a customer-focus and is due for a facelift,
- our intranet needs reorganisation to match how our staff need to access information and tools, and
- our customers cannot tell the difference between our website and our secure transaction service - nor should they need to.
Naturally there were some surprises - but if the people who manage the properties are already 70-80% right, why is it so important to call in the consultants?
The cynical response, and one I've floated out there from time to time, is that organisations don't trust the experience and expertise of their staff.
This is similar to the principle where for some products you sell more if you raise the price - as people believe if the price is higher so must be the quality.
Staff are a sunk cost, so there's no apparent further investment to justify the quality of an outcome.
This works well for consultants, who can build their credibility and reputation by simply charging more - though they do have to deliver in the end.
However I've never really liked it as a reason - both because I'd like to think that employers recognise the skills of their employees (or wouldn't have hired them), and because it only addresses the issue of trust, not the issue of whether the work needs to be done.
After years of thinking on this topic, involving many research projects and other consultant-led activities, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason for bringing in the external experts is simply that 'we don't know what we don't know'.
It's great to sit back in an organisation and say that a piece of research taught us nothing that we didn't already know - but is that really the case.
Even if you are 80% correct on what your customers wanted (after the fact), the other 20% may be the most vital piece of the puzzle. As we become close to our work and acculturalised to the organisation it becomes impossible to take off those rose-coloured glasses and see our online properties (or other products and services) in the same way as our customers.
Of course I have had other reasons for using independent experts over the years - to train staff, to substitute money for time we didn't have, and to ensure that politically and legally we had something signed to point at "but the consultant said that..."
But my main reason in almost every case has been that most powerful reason of all - I don't know what I don't know, and I'm unable to take off my glasses to find out.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
NZ government website assessment - when did Australia last do this? | Tweet |
New Zealand is holding its 2008 web site assessment, looking at 500+ websites in the government domain, testing them against ten simple accessibility principles.
When was the last time Australia did a similar review?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Getting (web) content right! | Tweet |
Here's a great presentation from Donna Spencer (formerly Donna Maurer) discussing how to get content right.
http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2008/web-directions-ux-getting-content-right
The key things she picks on are:
- The reader is important - you're not
- Really think about what the reader wants to know
- Write as you speak - with a real voice
- Use images as well as words - more people are visual than verbal
It's scary, it's difficult to get approved at times and it involves change.
But our customers would find out what they needed faster and with less confusion and frustration.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Reading (online) is for Neanderthals | Tweet |
Words - the stuff with which dreams are written.
One of the core elements of modern society is our ability to say and write down our feelings, opinions and gripes. To create meaning where none exists, or shine a light on that which does.
Those who are good at crafting words even get paid, by the word - although it costs none of us to use the self-same words whenever we wish.
Words are also the bane of modern existence - too many words, thrown at us from all quarters, overwhelming us with details.
Few of us have time to listen and read all the words presented to us each day. Many of us deliberately go out of our way to avoid words, seeking synopses, précis, executive summaries, briefs, briefings and elevator pitches.
Having satisfied my own word bug, let's get to the point.
Government websites are full of unnecessary words, frequently using jargon, bureaucratic terms and marketing speak.
If we want our audiences to absorb what we say, we need to use fewer, shorter and common use words.
This was reinforced by a recent Alertbox (from usability guru Jakob Neilsen).
Here's the summary and link - I'll leave it up to you whether you want to encounter more of Jakob's own words.
Summary:
On the average Web page, users have time to read
at most 28% of the words during an average visit; 20% is more likely.
Full article: How Little Do Users Read?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
BarCamp Canberra | Tweet |
FYI See the presentation I gave - Game Design (from the school of hard knocks)
A colleague alerted me to the upcoming Canberra BarCamp at the ANU the other week and it was fortunately on an otherwise free weekend.
While I wasn't quite sure what to expect, and my colleague fell sick at the last minute, I found it a thoroughly enjoyable day.
The event, in the style of other BarCamps around the world, was a spontaneously organised conference of online professionals using digital technologies to bring people together.
There are no pre-set speakers or timetables, talks are organised on a whiteboard during the day.
All talks are limited to 15 minutes and people flow freely between rooms to listen to those of interest to them, as you can see in the photos of the event.
In this spirit around half of the 60 or so people who attended took the opportunity to present on a topic as narrow or broad as they liked, generally to an audience of 10-30 people at a time.
I attended some interesting presentations ranging from web design principles to building a free wi-fi network to usability research techniques to open source and while the speaking skills varied, the passion and experience was always high.
WHile I had not come prepared to speak myself, given there was some demand for a presentation on game design from a couple of people I met at the event, I quickly whipped up a presentation based on my game design experience and attracted an audience of about 15 people looking to break into the industry.
While I'm not entirely satisfied with the depth of the presentation, given that it was pulled together in about 10 minutes, the responses were positive and I've loaded it to Slideshow entitled Game Design (from the school of hard knocks).
BarCamp Canberra was sponsored by Microsoft, Acidlabs (who helped organise the event) and Michael McGoogan of AussieHQ (who shouted drinks and dinner).
I've known of Michael for around three years, from when I was looking at the business case for ActewAGL entering the web hosting area. At the time I suggested that ActewAGL consider purchasing his business, which was growing rapidly. This suggestion wasn't pursued and Michael has used the last three years to grow his business enormously. He's one of the lesser known Canberra IT success stories, though, at the age of 21, he has plenty of time for people to become aware of his success.
One of the most interesting parts of the BarCamp experience for me was observing how people flowed natively between physical and online social interactions. At all times during the day, thanks to the free wi-fi network at the venue, people were interacting both with others in the room and with people around the world via Facebook, Linkedin, blogs, Twitter and other online tools.
At least three-quarters of the attendees had laptops with them, including a number of mini-laptops, and others had iPhones (at least five at the event) and other handheld internet connected devices.
I personally used the network to message friends who could not attend, to grab material for my presentation, and to ensure it was up on Slideshare before I gave it - so others could access it as needed. In fact I gave my presentation from Slideshare rather than using the copy on my harddrive.
The ability to participate both physically and digitally at the same time showed me an interesting and positive vision of where we're heading in our social and professional interactions.
Currently strict boundaries exist in many workplaces and conferences between physical and online socialisation. However the capacity with which people were able to multitask and engage in simultaneous social interactions across mediums demonstrated that the enforced boundaries can (and hopefully will) be deconstructed.
Given the widespread adoption and use of mobile phones and increasing penetration of small internet-connected devices, this is already beginning to occur.
As with many other changes, I expect this one will take more time and pain than already digitally connected people would like. Society's norms are hard to shift, particularly whilst power remains in the hands of a pre-digital generation.
But, as they say, the future is a new country...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
