The Usability Blog

When Google’s Chrome was announced, I made some comments based on the information we had to hand at the time.  To summarise, I thought the layout of Chrome was badly considered when assessing it based on Fitts’s Law.  Now that Chrome is actually out (for Windows, at least), we can take a closer look at it, put it to the test as it were.  But unlike some other sources, who seem really caught up on whether Chrome is actually the fastest browser out there (Chrome on Windows XP through a VM doesn’t feel as fast as Safari on OSX, but that’s neither here nor there), I wanted to look at it from a user’s point of view.  After all, if Google wants to be a success in the Browser Wars II (this time it’s personal?), they’re going to have to win the hearts and minds of ordinary users, and that isn’t done by rendering a JavaScript heavy page x milliseconds faster than FireFox.  It’s done by being easy to use, and friendly.  So let’s look at Chrome from a Use Experience and Usability point of view.

Disclaimer

Before I get any further, I want to point two things out.  Firstly, Google Chrome is a very early beta product.  It’s not ready for your Gran to use yet, it may not be ready for you to use yet, depending on your disposition. So tread carefully.  And let’s take this as an IR beta, and not a Google beta.  I don’t expect it to be flawless, neither should you.

Secondly, I’m an OSX user (you’ll find that many people in the field of user experience favor Macs).  As such I’m testing Chrome on an iMac through Parallels Desktop which is running a Win XP Pro Virtual Machine.  Results are indicative of this setup.

Breaking Conventions

Google seem intent on breaking some well established conventions with Chrome.  We’ve seen with the iPhone that breaking established conventions can be a liberating thing, something that frees designers from the shackles of the past and allows them to come up with something truly great.  There is, of course, a downside. Unless your new interface is truly intuitive, which is very difficult to do in an IT system, there’s going to be a steeper learning curve than usual.  There’s also going to be mistakes and failures.  And when you knowingly introduce failures and mistakes, you run the risk of user abandonment.  Sometimes this will be abandonment of a task, but in cases like Chrome, and the iPhone, it will be abandonment of the tool.

Interface Differences between Chrome and FireFox 3

The image to the right highlights some of the differences you will notice between Chrome and a more conventional browser, in this case I’ve used FireFox version 3 on Windows XP in vanilla form.

I’ll be addressing each of these differences in turn.

Standard OS Interface Elements

Something that’s been a pet peeve of mine over the years has been where applications choose to change some interface elements that are intended to be common throughout the Operating System’s interface.

Unfortunately, this is something Google has chosen to do with Chrome.  You’ll notice in the top right hand corner of the Chrome window that it appears to be using Windows Vista interface elements, even though it was running on Windows XP. Is this important? Yes.  The problem here is not that it is using Vista’s icons, but more that it is not obeying any customisations made by the user.  For example, I know users who have poor eyesight, they tend to increase the size of these controls so they can easily minimise windows without accidentally closing them.

Window Controls in Chrome and FireFox

If you enlarge these controls through Windows XP, the controls on Chrome do not change.  It’s also worth noting that the buttons don’t have the characteristic coloration that controls on other windows do, this is also likely to confuse less experienced users.

To some users, the large red button that closes the window has now become the small blue button, but only for Google Chrome.  And that last point really is key.  Google Chrome performs differently to the rest of the OS.  It’s the one car in the showroom with the steering wheel on the roof.

State-Sensitive Objects

You’ll see on the screenshot earlier in this post that I’ve highlighted the status bar and the tab bar in Chrome.  The reason I’ve singled these two elements out is that they behave inconsistently.  The status bar only becomes visible when there’s something to display, and it works fairly well.  Essentially, it only shows up when you mouse over a link (to display the destination URL) or when the page is still loading.  It’s working on the principal that at all other times, there really is nothing interesting that needs to be fed back to the user, so there’s no need to eat up valuable screen space and display extra interface elements that may confuse users.

What’s more interesting is the approach to tabs.  Unlike FireFox, Google Chrome always displays the tab bar, regardless of how many tabs you have open.  FireFox hides the tab bar if only one tab is open.  In Chrome, the result is that you have a state-sensitive status bar (i.e. the status bar only displays when the browser is in a certain state) and a tab bar that is not state-sensitive.  This is likely down to the push by Google to emphasise the tabbed aspects of Chrome.  It’s a selling point, something they want to push, so I suspect the decision to keep the tab bar constantly visible was taken with more a marketing hat on, rather than a UI one.

Personally, I’m ambivalent about this.  I feel it warrants being pointed out, but it’s not a huge issue.  Just a difference that people need to be made aware of.

Auto Feed Discovery

As highlighted in the image towards the top of this post, Google Chrome does not feature automatic feed discovery.  This seems like a strange choice given that Google runs one of the most popular Feed Reading services on the planet, Google Reader, as well as the hugely popular FeedBurner.  Whether this is a feature that’s yet to be implemented, or something that’s been intentionally omitted in the name of simplicity remains to be seen.  But it would appear that yet another common interface element is gone, at least for now.

Miscellany

There are a few other things that I just briefly wanted to mention that doesn’t fit in with the “breaking conventions” theme of this post.  So consider this a miscellaneous section.

Task Manager

Google Chrome Task Manager

I have a real issue with my browser requiring its own Task Manager and it seems strange that Google are pushing this as a feature.  Windows Mobile has been mocked repeatedly for it’s use of a Task Manager, in fact Apple referenced it in a keynote about the iPhone, that’s how laughable the feature is.  The reason it doesn’t work is that Windows Mobile runs on mobile devices.  People don’t want to manage their mobile devices, they just want them to work.

I think Web browsers are similar.  My browser is a gateway to services, in the same way a phone is a gateway to a service.  The best browser, much like the best phone, is the one that allows me to most easily access and make use of the service I am trying to connect to and utilise.  Making me consider things like memory and resource usage is not going to achieve that, I just don’t want to think about it.  I want my browser to just handle that back end stuff, and leave me get on with what I want to do.

Options

The Options available in Chrome

Another of my pet peeves is options.  Many applications have many different ways of structuring and organising options.  Currently there are very few options available in Chrome, which isn’t a bad thing.  I’d personally like to see more customisation opportunities, and it is required before it becomes mainstream, but at the moment it’s fine.

What’s not fine is the structure, grouping, wording and logic of the existing options.  I won’t go into any details, as I could spend an entire post on it, but it needs a complete overhaul.

Have you been using Chrome?  If so, what do you think?  If not, why not?

If you’ve been on the internet today, you’ve probably heard something about Google, and a new browser they’re working on called Chrome.  As someone who’s passionate about usability, something on page 18 of their comic caught my eye.  They are talking about moving the “tab” section of the browser to the top, above the location bar.  This strikes me as odd for two reasons.

Fitts’s Law

For those that aren’t familiar, Fitts’s Law states that the time taken to move to an object is a function of the object’s size and distance.  Google appear to be suggesting that the reason for moving the tabs to the top of the browser is that they “… are the primary piece of the user interface …”.  Personally, I can’t believe anything other than the view port being the primary part of the user interface, but either way, Google are sugesting that tabs are the most important which leaves the viewport as the second.

So if you consider Google to be correct, they are, at least according to Fitts’s Law, making their browser less usable.  They are effectively increasing the amount of time taken to perform certain tasks.  Now, it’s important to remember that we haven’t even seen any screen shots of Chrome yet, let alone used it, so it’s enirely possible that Google will do something clever to offset this (although, to offset this problem as far as Fitts’s law is concerned, they would have to icnrease the size of the tabs, which would cause its own problems).  But moving tabs to the top of the browser causes other problems…

Memory and Expectations

One factor at play here is the expectation that the URL, or location, bar sits at the top of the browser with the tabs below.  People are used to it, they expect it, and anything different will confuse them.  Sorry, it’s just a fact.  And not only are they moving the tabs, but they are also moving the other interface elements.  In order to move the tabs to the top of the window, they will also have to move the location bar away from the top.  This includes common, standard interface elements such as the back, forward, stop and refresh buttons.  Moving these elements up and down a few pixels may not seem like a big deal at first, but you have to consider the ramifications fully - and to do that you have to think about muscle memory.

For the longest time, moving your mouse to the top left of your browser and clicking would take you back a page - no longer.  Now, it’s going to bring the first tab into focus.  This may seem like an easy thing for a user to overcome, but why would they?

There are enough competitive browsers out there, if they try one and they fail at a few tasks there’s no need to continue with it.  They’ll just move in to FireFox, or Safari, or Opera, or …

In Summary

I don’t want to come across as if change and innovation are bad things.  But I’ve always felt that there should be a driver behind interface change where you are changing an established standard.  Here, I don’t see it.  This smells more of a “Unique Selling Point” rather than a genuine attempt to improve the interface.

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.