Category: 'Usability'

Wayback: Back the Net Day? Hooey.

I’m taking a day off. Yes, really.

In lieu of the new and stunningly original piece of pith (I could have phrased that better, I’m certain) you were expecting to find in this space today, I offer this from the Bloggle Archives, circa April, 2001.

It’s a beaut if I do say so, myself.

Dear Netizen:

Your help is needed.

Fueled by a “viral lack of confidence,” the Internet economy has slipped into a recession. If this trend continues, you might soon lose access to your favorite online store, greeting card site, news source, music site or financial chat group. Imagine the Internet without Excite, Yahoo! or Amazon.com.

But you can help the Net regain its respect. We must band together and send the world a loud, clear message that the Net will not only survive, but thrive.

That’s why we’re asking you to demonstrate your dedication to the Internet. On April 3, join us in “Back the Net Day.”

Michael H. Tchong
Editor & CEO
ICONOCAST Inc.

Dear Mr. Tchong:

I can appreciate that you feel threatened by the current state of affairs on the Net… we’re in what’s probably an overly-corrective downturn, and the costs in terms of both human and financial capital have been severe. Just the same, it was precisely this kind of hollow media hype that led to the grossly inflated capitalization of the “Internet economy,” and the grossly inflated expectations of its investors. [Not to mention the grossly inflated egos of media hucksters, but you’re far more familiar with that than I.]

I find it highly unlikely that yet more hollow media hype — which is what your “Back the Net” campaign is — will serve any useful purpose. Especially hype that sows the seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt [FUD]. The Internet has been around a while now, long before it provided either you or I with our milk money. I’d wager the Internet itself isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Now, Net based companies with business plans that don’t translate into revenue… those are another matter, entirely.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Tchong. I back the Net every day. I’m probably the most determined supporter of the Internet I know. Day after day I teach, I consult — I’ve even been known to evangelize — on the Internet’s capacity to create intimacy between companies and consumers, for their mutual benefit. Certainly the Net has the intrinsic ability to do far more… but frankly, we’re still struggling with the basics of spatial navigation and information design, meaning and metaphor.

So, Mr. Tchong, if you don’t mind, I’ll just get back to work. I’ll try today, as I do every day, to make the Internet a more meaningful, more useful place — one site at a time.

Best regards,

-deCadmus

Wayback: The Web Is Not Walden Pond

From the Bloggle Archives, circa March, 2002. I wrote this as an antidote to what struck me as a surge in misplaced web design ideals; ideals that, in fact, turned out to be the beginning of ‘Web 2.0,’ for all that’s worth. I think it’s as relevant today as it was six years ago…

The Web is not Walden Pond… and attempts to make it so through increasingly stark simplicity are well-intentioned, but badly aimed.

Simplicity often belies the truth. The truth if the web is that it is the most mind-boggling array of unstructured information that has ever been. And it’s growing exponentially, and it will not stop. It is increasingly the de facto body of reference for all of us. It will inexorably be the sum total of explicit knowledge on our planet. How do you simplify that? By making it “…as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

As simple as possible…

Consider the works of Matisse and Picasso. Not your style? Try Keith Haring. Simplicity is alluring. A line-drawing can evoke far more than it actually reveals, by distilling the subject to its most essential form. It’s not coincidental that great art illustrates this… there is more than a little art to conveying the very essence of something.

…but not simpler.

Mere simplicity can dilute meaning. Consider Starbucks coffee stamps… at-a-glance labels that would tell you what the coffee in the bag is all about. Starbucks coffees are — very simply — Bold, Mild or Smooth. Does it really suffice to say that Sumatra, an earthy, dry-processed Indonesian coffee with loads of body and a caramelly finish is bold? Or smooth? It’s both, and then some, isn’t it?

On the other hand, consider Google. Google’s apparent simplicity belies the complexity that lurks behind its interface… it is arguably the web’s largest, most relevant and most capable search engine. Would Google be so effective if not for its extraordinary clarity of purpose?

Design — be it product design or interface design — can be simplified to the extent that it is no longer meaningful, or useful. Simple can be obscure. Simple doesn’t scale. Simplicity does not make a very good design goal. Instead, simplicity is most effective as a method to achieve a different design goal… clarity.

Maple-Bacon Goodness Spoiled by PayPal

When there is a confluence of links — when not one, but two sites I visit every day features links to the very same interesting new thing — I can’t resist. And so I learned of Lollyphile, and their Maple-Bacon Lollypop.

With the exception of Maple-Bacon Cupcakes (with Maple Frosting) this is perhaps the most wonderful food-related thing I’ve yet learned of. And since my lobbying efforts with my local professional cupcake-baker have heretofore fallen on deaf ears (c’mon Sharon… you know you really want to make them!) it might seem that placing an order for some Maple-Bacon Lollypops would be just the thing to sample the presumed salty, savory, sweet goodness that is a Maple-Bacon Lollypop. There’s just one problem… Lollyphile uses PayPal for their shopping cart.
(more…)

Worst, Worster, Worstest. Or, Blame it on Starbucks.

By most all accounts, Stanley Fish is a smart guy — well-read, thoughtful, erudite — an esteemed scholar and a critical thinker. So how, exactly, did Professor Fish come to write what Slate’s Ron Rosenbaum decries as, “The Worst Op-Ed Ever Written?”

It was Aug. 5, and professor Stanley Fish, the famous postmodernist and “guest columnist” for the New York Times, had some breaking news to expound upon in an op-ed piece. He had discovered a new development in American culture that deserved the kind of exegesis only he could deliver: the appearance of a new kind of coffee place.

Have you heard about these new coffee places? Professor Fish’s column made it seem as though they had never been noticed or discussed before.

“Getting Coffee Is Hard To Do” was the title of his essay, which in its self-satisfied cluelessness may just qualify as the worst op-ed ever written.

The article in question is, naturally, on the far side of the New York Times’ “TimesSelect” paywall. And so instead of linking to the NYTimes I will link to the same article, available complete and free of charge on the web site of the International Herald Tribune, thus saving the NYTimes untold electrons and subsequent ad views.

Rosenbaum continues (at some length):

It turns out these new coffee places are incredibly difficult to navigate, even for a brilliant academic like professor Fish.

Here’s how he describes his harrowing experience: “As you walk in, everything is saying, ‘This is very sophisticated and you’d better be up to it.’ ”

Of course, we know that professor Fish is being ironic here. Some might say condescendingly so. From his tone, we know that the elements of what he mockingly describes as “sophistication”—”wood or concrete floors, lots of earth tones, soft, high-style lighting, open barrels of coffee beans, folk-rock and indie music, photographs of urban landscapes, and copies of The Onion”—aren’t true sophistication to a man of professor Fish’s discernment. They’re kitsch, faux-sophistication—and you can’t fool him. He can see right through it!

At which point we can very nearly see Mr. Rosenbaum — in a fit of ironic zeal — shaking his fist at the absurdity of it all. Before penning the line which shows his hand…

Although at this point you begin to wonder if his op-ed wasn’t meant to be a feature in the Onion (”Area professor befuddled by coffee place”), Fish is apparently serious about the profound difficulty this new cultural phenomenon presents.

As you, Mr. Rosenbaum, are apparently serious about your criticism of Professor Fish. And while you are each intent upon channeling the spirit of Andy Rooney it’s Professor Fish who wins the day. Because — unlike you, Mr. Rosenbaum — Professor Fish has a point.

Somewhere in Professor Fish’s editorial — beyond his curmudgeonly bluster and his longing for those bucolic diners of yesteryear and, perhaps, his effort to wring every red cent out of a paid-by-the-column-inch writing gig — lurks a simple truth: ordering coffee ain’t what it used to be. Moreover placing a coffee order is more difficult than it needs to be.

Today’s coffee bar — corporate juggernaut and indie, alike — is an embarrassment of excess, a superabundance of selection that requires more decisions to be This lovely cappuccino can be yours if you can follow the rules.made in mere moments than most will manage for the remainder of their day. More, those decisions are made amidst the cacophony of gushing steam wands, howling grinders and blenders, and the hipster coffee-house-music selection of the day that somebody’s dialed up to eleven.

Mind you, none of those decisions are even possible until the great, under-caffeinated masses pass their first test of the day by working out where to belly up and place an order (and where to pay for it, and where to collect their made-to-order coffee concoction.) And you know what? Despite the face that I’ve patronized hundreds and hundreds of coffee shops — and the fact that I do human factors engineering for a living, and that I’m intimately involved in the coffee trade — at fully half of the coffee shops I visit I get it wrong and have to be steered to my destination by the person behind the counter.

Oh, stop your arm-waving, you. Yes, I see you, coffee shop owners and managers. And I know what you’re going to say. “But, I have signs!” Yes, you have signs. Emphatically lettered, too… and with arrows. ORDER HERE! they say. PAY THERE! Allow me to get Dr. Phil on you for just a moment, and ask: “How’s that workin’ for ya?” Quite frequently the answer is, it’s not. And it doesn’t matter how big you make those signs, and it doesn’t matter how many arrows you add to them. The reason it won’t work is this: those aren’t the signs your customers are looking for.

Consider a simple scenario…

A customer walks in off the street… let’s call him Stanley. It’s his first time here.

  1. Stanley looks around to try to determine if he’s in the right place. Coffee shop? Check.
  2. He takes a slightly closer look at his surroundings to decide if this is someplace he wants to do business with. Clean? Well-lighted? Smells like coffee? Check.
  3. Stanley glances to see if there’s maybe something for sale in addition to coffee. He might like a cheese Danish. Check.
  4. Now Stanley checks out the menu above the bar. He’s looking for something tasty… a seasonal sort of specialty cappuccino. He’s looking. He’s looking. Still looking… Ah, there. Check.
  5. Just to be certain that he doesn’t lose it — what didja call that thing again? — Stanley steps forward to the counter with his eyes still on the menu and… finds that he’s someplace other than where you want him to be to place an order.

Stanley is now flustered, and perhaps a bit embarrassed. When you interrupted his order to direct him to where he’s supposed to be to place it he completely blanked on the name of the whatsit drink he was going to get, and — when he gets to the front of the line — he orders a small coffee. Black, two sugars.

So much for your signs.

You know that old saw about the customer always being right? It’s not true, of course. Customers make mistakes all the time. And, like the goof that Stanley just made, a whole lot of those mistakes aren’t their fault. It’s the fault of folks who do, in fact, make it hard to order a cup of coffee. So, mister coffee shop owner, maybe you owe Stanley an apology.

And you, Mr. Rosenbaum… maybe you owe Professor Fish an apology, too.