May 20th, 2008
Everyone keeps telling me that web applications are the future. The flexibility they afford, combined with the always connected nature of our digital lives certainly lend credence to this view. I, however, am not so certain. From a usability point of view, I keep on seeing hurdles, walls that application vendors are putting up that prevent me from truly loving these web apps.
The latest I’ve tried is Buzzword, a web-based word-processor from Adobe. At the moment this is a Flash application, but all signs point to it being ported to Adobe Air, the OS independent (in theory) development platform.
Buzzword is a perfect example to point out the problems I have with web applications. It manages to provide a fairly full featured word-processor in a web browser yet falls over when it comes to fundamental usability. The best place to start is the Log In form. When you load the page, a blinking indicator is flashing in the “email” field. These indicators usually indicate the current position of your cursor, an indication that if you start typing, it will appear there. Except in this case, it’s not always true. Depending on how you selected the window, and what else you’re doing in the browser at the time, you may not be able to immediately type in the field. You have to click in the field first. I wouldn’t normally complain about having to click in a field before typing, but when there’s an indicator in the field that should tell you that your cursor is already active in the field.
To make things worse, you can’t reliably tab through the fields. If you type in your email address and press the tab key, you’re taken to the “remember me” check box, not the password field. These aren’t the only problems. I can’t use my usual method of scrolling, which is my ***ALL TIME NUMBER ONE*** annoyance when it comes to flash, instead I have to click the little arrows. I also, for some strange reason, can’t use my delete key (well, technically it’s fn + backspace because I’m on a MacBook). It just inserts a hyphen instead of deleting anything. Very annoying.
Suffice to say, in terms of usability web applications have a long way to go. Considering it’s taken this long to begin to get people using the web effectively, to then go and break the conventions those people are becoming used to is a crime punishable by boiling one’s toes.
Bootnote: There are other, more fundamental usability issues with Buzzword that I haven’t covered here as they go beyond the “Breaking Established Conventions” theme of this article and into the “Are you sure you user tested this” theme of a future article.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Tags: Adobe, Flash, Web Apps
Posted in Bad Usability | No Comments »
May 17th, 2008
I was keen to download and try out the latest FireFox release today. I’ve been using the beta versions of Release 3 since the first release, and I’ve been pleased with the clear progress being made with each release. The “Release Candidate” typically means development is stablising, with a focus more on bug fixing rather than feature development. So in many ways this release is the closest we’ve seen yet to the final version.
One of the interesting new features in FireFox 3 is the site identity dialog. It’s a clever idea and should go a long way to boost people’s confidence when using the web. If it’s used. Essentially, it gives the user a quick way of getting further information about the website they are connected to. It’s an extension of the padlock principal, which has been used to indicate a secure connection for a number of years. As well as just showing the padlock, an extra section is added to the address bar that displays the name of the site. Or to be more specific, the owner of the secure certificate. Clicking on this new section produces a pop-up containing some site details.
There’s a problem. When you download FireFox 3 Release Candidate 1 and run it for the first time, you’re presented with a page that triumphantly proclaims
“Find out who you’re talking to by clicking on the website icon.”
Except this isn’t strictly true. In fact, even clicking the site icon (favicon to the rest of us) for that page doesn’t give you any information. This concerns me on two levels. Firstly, this new feature is meant to build confidence in the user. If you are thinking of giving personal information to a site, you can click its icon to get some additional information that will inform your decision. Except this isn’t really the case. Site information is only displayed for secure sites. And while this may help if you’re handing over your credit card number, it’s unlikely it will help you where a site requests some personal details, these are rarely secure and therefore won’t be displaying any useful information. The second thing that worries me is the implication cast upon sites that don’t supply information. It’s certainly implied that if you don’t supply information, you have something to hide.
I think some more robust language should be used within this pop-up. Something that makes it clear that in the vast majority of cases not supplying site information is perfectly fine. I’d love to see this feature become truly useful to users, and it wouldn’t take much work. All that needs to be done is a rewordoing of the dialog box, making its purpose and implementation completely clear in non-technical terms.
By the way. I’m assuming that the site information is only displayed for secure sites. There’s very little documentation on the Mozilla website regarding this feature. If what I’ve said above isn’t true, it’s more a damning indictment on the lack of documentation than anything else.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Tags: Browsers, FireFox
Posted in Bad Usability | 1 Comment »
May 11th, 2008
I’m a huge fan of Google Reader. Without it, I’d be drowning under the thousands of blog posts and news items I receive every day. However, there are some usability oddities. Take, for example, the screen below.
(Click the image to see full size)
It’s quite simple really. Google reader doesn’t seem to know how many unread items I have. The left hand column says 9, the top of the central column says 6 while the bottom of the central column says 30. Three different numbers, and confusion reigns supreme.
It’s easy to say that this is a one off, but it happens with alarming regularity. It seems as though when you refresh the view, only certain parts refresh. Perhaps the worrying thing about this is that there are operations available to the user that claim to be performed across all the available items. But if I mark all as read, how many items am I actually affecting?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Tags: Feedback, Google
Posted in Bad Usability | No Comments »
May 11th, 2008
Welcome to The Usability Blog. If you’re looking for example of excellent, and terrible usability, you’ve come to the right place. On my regular trawls through the internet, I often come across some startling usability failings. Unfortunately, some developers, and more importantly the people who hire them, aren’t aware of the importance of usability. The only way to improve things is to educate them, one problem at a time.
Of course, it’s not all bad news. There are also some examples of really excellent usability. Interfaces that excel at providing user experiences. These also need to be highlighted so that we can all learn from them.
This blog aims to document both excellent and terrible examples of usability while guiding developers, designers and owners on best practice.
I’ll start adding content immediately, but expect a new look for the blog in the next couple of weeks.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Posted in Miscellaneous | 1 Comment »
Everyone keeps telling me that web applications are the future. The flexibility they afford, combined with the always connected nature of our digital lives certainly lend credence to this view. I, however, am not so certain. From a usability point of view, I keep on seeing hurdles, walls that application vendors are putting up that prevent me from truly loving these web apps.
Buzzword is a perfect example to point out the problems I have with web applications. It manages to provide a fairly full featured word-processor in a web browser yet falls over when it comes to fundamental usability. The best place to start is the Log In form. When you load the page, a blinking indicator is flashing in the “email” field. These indicators usually indicate the current position of your cursor, an indication that if you start typing, it will appear there. Except in this case, it’s not always true. Depending on how you selected the window, and what else you’re doing in the browser at the time, you may not be able to immediately type in the field. You have to click in the field first. I wouldn’t normally complain about having to click in a field before typing, but when there’s an indicator in the field that should tell you that your cursor is already active in the field.
