My Search for Absolute Truths and Magic Bullets for the Web: Surely They Exist?
Written May 31st, 2007 by Delia KonizeskiI’ve been reading texts on visual and data objects, space perception and data displays. And, I keep hoping against hope to find a manual titled, “Here’s Exactly What You Need to Do to Create a Flawless Web Interface Suitable for Every Audience.”
I press on…
But once again, it becomes clear that there is no magic way to create perfect interface designs that meet the needs of all audiences. With every chapter I read and every discussion I have, it becomes clear that the rules of design are dynamic - they change depending on the audience, goal, etc., and that no master manual could exist. It’s personal validation to read that “a good deal of guru opinion on design is conflicting.”
Still I press on…
It seems science may have some answers. Scientific principles borne out of controlled studies offer some direction for web interface designers. But really, it’s practicality in action. Scientific studies may prove that items placed close together are perceptually grouped together. Duh. If I want to emphasize the relationship between two sections on my homepage, I should place them close to one another.
Again, I press on…
Surely if we build it they will come….Not! I think I will have to create my own “How To” manual and expect it to change and evolve. And, I’ll try not to be cynical in the process.
What’s in your “How To” manual? What “absolutes” and “truths” hold true for you now in your work, cynical or not?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:11 am
Hmmm … absolute truths:
- There are no absolutes (I think that’s your point)
- Content is King and Queen and it rules all else - if I arrive, for example, to a vendor site that says “OUr client’s goals are our focus so we create complete, multi-channel solutions to attain positive ROI,” I move on.
- Have a search utility that works; test it and audit it to see if it works, monitor the phrases people are looking for
- Don’t make people click too many times to find what they want
June 1st, 2007 at 11:04 am
The problem with absolute truths is that they tend to change over time. But there are some standards out there. I recommend paying attention to the eye-tracking studies that have been done, which show where the user’s eye typically goes on a web page (http://www.poynterextra.org/EYETRACK2004/viewing.htm). Similarly, there are compilations of research that outline best practices, such as: http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html.
I’m constantly arguing with our IS folks, for example, that they shouldn’t underline anything that isn’t a link. They claim that’s personal opinion and choice. I point them to the research that says otherwise.
But when it comes to the fine nuance of how you design a site for a specific audience, it truly is an art more than a science. If it was an easy checklist, anybody could do it. And we’ve seen plenty of bad sites to know that not everybody can do it.
The real challenge is when you’ve got a site that’s supposed to cater to patients, friends and family, employees, doctors, vendors, payors, etc. Each audience has very different needs and expectations. That’s where you earn your money!
June 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I’ve got to agree with Chris on this one. The most motivated site visitors use your internal search engine. Out of the 80,000 visitors we get each day, 10,000 use our site search. They have a specific goal in mind, and search is the best way to get what they want.
Here’s a perfect example - how many of you go to Amazon and click through their navigation structure? It’s possible to walk through a series of nav links and get to any book, dvd , or other product.
Nobody does that.
You go to Amazon, type in a title or name in the search box and boom! Amazon usually gives you a perfect search result.
The bottom line? Create a sensible, simple navigation structure, keep your internal customers happy, and then ignore it. It’s not how your most valuable users navigate.
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 am
I would have to disagree. When we did usability research with nine patients, only one of them used the search function to any extent at all to complete the tasks we set up for them. And our search function is fairly prominent on the site. During the debriefs, none of the “navigators” said they couldn’t find the search, but that they use it only as a last resort because typically they get such poor results from it. And that’s been my experience as well.
That said, the one patient who completed the tasks most expeditiously was the “searcher.” So we know our search function works just fine.
I guess my bottom line is that you can’t rely on one or the other. You need both solid navigation, and an effective search function.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I think the truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. Prior to coming to healthcare, I worked for an interactive agency and worked on some usability studies. One of the key take-aways I got from results that crossed differing industries was this: there are subsets of people who navigate in different ways. Some focused on left navigation. Some on top navigation. Very few on right navigation (but there are some). Some on inline text links (and, yes, Ed, only links should be underlined!). And others on search. And I think the eye-tracking studies bear that out.
What I’ve always wondered, though, is why that is? That might be as complex as asking why some people devote themselves to a life of crime and some do not, but anyway … I have some theories. I think a lot of it is what sites people grew up on. Yes, I’m arguing for a nurture vs. nature explanation of why people behave the way they do. If you accept that premise, then we are responsible for “training” the audience. And, just like a good parent, the key is to keep it consistent. Don’t go changing the rules.