Wed, October 19th, 2005 by Martin Taylor
Weblog Usability: The 10 Top Ten Design Mistakes: here's a great article that is written with text based blogs in mind but is just as applicable to photoblogs. It's worth reading and then examining your photoblog structure and templates. I think we sometimes forget that there are many people out there who have yet to visit a photoblog. If yours is the first one they hit will it be a good experience or will they be turned off by not knowing accepted photoblog structures?
While you're visiting check out the following other useful articles:
October 19th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Oops.
October 19th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
LOL Matt. Isn't Jacob Neilsen is your nemesis?
October 20th, 2005 at 7:30 am
i knew it was nielsen the moment i saw the title of this post. from what i've heard, he'd stir a controversy among the usability people where i work... let's just say that some people think that usability, the way he puts it, equals boring;)
October 20th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Jakob Nielsom is s stodgy old curmudgeon who has lost touch with the living and breathing web.
Some of his stuff is correct, but he misses bigger points so often that what he's correct about loses its meaning because it's so clear he just doesn't get certain things.
Fredrik is right. When he talks about links that don't say where they go, he doesn't realize that a lot of us who read weblogs aren't online to buy something or execute some transaction. We're there to explore. And links that don't say where they go are... interesting! Sometimes a little mystery is good.
That all said, one thing I am certain of is that photoblogs are an entirely different animal than a standard blog. For instance, I've found the standard blogger.com and movable type templates--designed for text blogs--make for a singularly bad user experience when in a photoblog setting. I'll leave it at that.
October 20th, 2005 at 8:41 am
In my opinion you're making a big mistake by dismissing his 'guidelines' simply because you believe they only apply to commerce. Do yourself a favour and see how the majority of people actually use the web or computers -- for photoblogs, or not -- it's an incredibly eye-opening and humbling experience.
I've been one of the harshest critics of users, thinking 'those stupid users -- can't they see how obvious it is?'. But at the same time I still see and hear people who don't click on an (obvious to me) link because, while it was blue, it wasn't underlined.
The point is -- for the majority of people using computers and the web -- none of these things we take for granted are obvious. And really, simplicity does not equal boring. Would you make the same generalization about photography? The truth is, to make something simple and interesting and usable is difficult but that's no reason to throw off what are mostly a fairly good set of guidelines. And that's what they are -- guidelines -- not rules and not the ten commandments.
October 20th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Neilsen has always been controversial. In a nutshell, what he says generally makes sense, but as Tom points out, he does miss the point sometimes. For example, he never considers things like "playfulness."
His basic thesis is that you should not assume that the people reading your web page is as web-savvy as you are. In many cases he's right. Particularly in the case of web sites that are designed specifically to provide information. (Corporate sites, govenment sites, academic sites, etc.) Usability glitches should not interfere with a person's ability to find the information they need.
But blogs, photoblogs, and other personal web sites are not just in the business of providing information. There's an aspect of personality, playfullness, etc. to them that allows for a bit more flexibility.
Personally, I thought it was useful to read his weblog usability problems piece. I agree with most of it, even though I break some of the rules myself. (For example, I have a typepad address, but that's primarily because I've been too lazy to learn how to set up Wordpad or a similar self-hosted system).
I also agree that a standard typepad template makes for a lame experience with photoblogs, but that's what I use anyway, primarily because I started my photoblog as a short-term project and didn't expect it to run for so long (almost two years now). Also, I only post one image a week. But still, I'd like to have it so you can just click on the image and jump to the previous one. Maybe someday...
October 20th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
I agree with Kendall, Neilsen has some excellent points and they shouldn't be dismissed without consideration.
The problem with neilsen is that he's a media whore, he knows that he'll get his name out there by making statements that are designed to annoy designers and make headlines, such as "flash 99% bad". He knows that by doing this he's the first name the media will turn to when they're doing a story about usability and he'll take the fee and plug his book.
There are so many other usability 'gurus' out there who produce great concepts and ideas which have a practical application to developers and genuinely assist users, without deliberately trying to generate 'shock and awe' so they get their names in the media, and the blogsphere these days. I'm talking about people like Jeffery Veen and Steve Krug.
Every time people talk about neilsen he's laughing all the way to the bank, just ignore him. All the worthwhile advice he gives can be found on any basic summation of usability.
October 20th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I see many of you have strong opinions about Neilsen. Instead of cutting him down why not do something possitive and build/write something with photobloggers in mind? The wiki is a great resource for this and to this end I outlined something at http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Photoblog_Usability
Of course, being a wiki, you can tear this apprt, re-write it, add or remove anything you see fit. It would be a great opportunity for those here who know something about web design to help photobloggers with less knowledge and experience.
Regards - Martin
October 20th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
http://www.de3l.com/08/jkrewneilson.swf
October 20th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
First, note to self: don't post before your first cup of coffee in the morning. "Stodgy old curmudgeon" was over the line.
With regard to Kendall: I've spent too many hours watching my UI designs being tested by real users. That's not something I'm unfamiliar with. And I think that's why I have no patience with Nielson and not the slightest problem cutting him down. While I had never thought about it in the terms Miles uses, he's right. The thing that bothers me most about Nielson is the kind of sweeping generalizations he makes, usually in the voice of the staunchest kind of web conservatism. His insights seem to be most valuable to the people who have no business actually doing web design and usability: journalists, managers and the like.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Tom -- I'm glad to hear you're one of the few people who actually do watch users experience interfaces. As far as I'm concerned, Nielsen's guidelines are a great starting point but are by no means 'the law' (and I'm not going to disagree about him making contentious absolute statements -- but hey, that causes debate which can be useful). Actual usability testing is the final say when it comes to making decisions about what works and doesn't. I've just found (as a broad stroke) that most of the people that rail against his guidelines have never, ever actually done a usability test. :/
October 21st, 2005 at 12:39 pm
i'm not taking anyone's opinion on web design seriously when the present it in sucha god awfully designed web site.
October 21st, 2005 at 4:38 pm
I have to second Sanslinqua. One of my biggest pet peeves in web or print design is text that spreads across the whole page. it hurts to read it even if your eyes can follow lines of text that long. I don't think I should be required to make my browser window smaller in order to have a painless reading experience.
October 21st, 2005 at 7:08 pm
This is for Ian:
http://skop.com/brucelee/index.htm
October 22nd, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Yawn
October 23rd, 2005 at 10:51 pm
You didn't like the ULTRA-INTERACTIVE KUNGFU-REMIXER IN 750PIXEL WIDE-SCREEN FORMAT?
Oh. Anyway, I have some thoughts on the whole usability thing, at least as it applies (or not) to me specifically.
What's-his-face is not my nemesis. I barely know who the guy is (which may seem kind of obvious when you think about it in context, but no). I don't know where most of the people who are reading this come from, but I am not really a computer guy. I am basically a glorified mechanic. I just read some books and stuff, you know?
But I can say that for the most part I don't do what I do out of ignorance. Obstinance, maybe, but not ignorance.
The absolute bottom line is that if you click on the picture you will get another picture. Period. I promise. There isn't - and there does not need to be - much more to it than that. There may be other stuff here and there, but none of it is of any consequence, really.
p.s. The "Q" key is your friend.
p.p.s. Sarah: Nice. Happy to have found it.
October 24th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
In my experience there's more baby than bath water with Nielsen, and he's worth attending to.
But I think it would be a mistake to conclude that he thinks all his recommendations for commercial sites should apply to photoblogs: he'd be the first to say that the usability and interface etc. should be appropriate to the task at hand.
But a lot is relevant, I think we'd agree: intuitive, consistent navigation, for instance. Images which are efficient (no reason to have a 300k photo gang!)...
October 25th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
To balance the list of 10 design "don'ts," I offer a list of three design "musts" that apply to pretty much any site from google to toiletplungers.com to my-bee-on-flower-fotos.com:
- Consider who you want your audience to be.
- Design a site that's welcoming to that person. One that encourages them to find--and makes it easy, fun and satisfying for them to find--what you want them to be able to find.
- "Playfulness" and "creativity" are important but shouldn't be used to justify doing something that's "confusing." In other words don't confuse an oblique or tricky design for one that shows "creativity" on your part. While the design may be creative, if it stops someone from seeing your work who you wanted to see your work, it's not creative, it's failing you.
now let's go make some pics!
bzzzz! click!
October 25th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Usability is over rated. I found reading Nielsen to be quite a good way to waste my free time. If you dive into his website for 30 minutes, you can come away with a good idea about his reason for being. It's hard for me to follow anyone who spews over and over about the same twelve sides of an eight-hundred sided tangerine. Who let him make a career out of it?
As for photoblogs, it can be a difficult balance to display the photo as the dominate element while still offering a reasonable arrangement of navigation. The seems-to-be-standard {previous | next} form of surfing a photoblog works well, once a user gets the concept, but I don't like it when I have to hunt for it or when there is nothing there except to click on the image itself. I do like value added links. Once I finish surfing the photos, it's nice to see the artist behind it or at least read a bio. Then click, click, click... A links area to other creative photoblogs is nice too (but not a popularity listing).
One last opinion, web standards will never exist as long as IE is dominating the traffic. If this is you, change. Thank you.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
scott,
you say "usability is overrated" but then you turn around and contradict yourself, saying: "I don't like it when I have to hunt for (the button)."
usability is actually not overrated--it's of paramount importance. think about it: usability is important in automobiles, footwear, and ipods. it's important in microwave ovens, toilets and oranges. (i mean, what a hassle when you get one of those stupid, user-unfriendly oranges that just don't peel right.)
and, yes, usability is important even in websites -- assuming your goal is to have people actually use your website, of course. but there's no single formula for usability. the genius is the one who can make the thing usable, while also maintaining grace, elegance, whimsy and style.
October 29th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
i think sanslinqua is right. some of the more substantial findings in how people read websites explicitly deal with the width of text columns. in that respect, nielsen's site sucks big time.
as for content, i found his last two adages - design mistakes and blog mistakes - rather outdated and beside the point. i'm also inclined to think he is sort of a has been and just keeps regurgitating stuff that you can find everywhere else - even on sites designed to make you feel like reading them.
October 30th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
You can't have a usablility discussion without bringing nielsen into it. I'd rather talk about design principles, phychology, GUI, color schemes or code scripting than talk about usablililty. To me, usablilililty describes accessibility for impared visitors or people of little internet experience who might not know what a link is unless it's blue and underlined. If you want to talk about design or the purposeful arrangement of objects in a field, don't call that usablility. Do you add "title" and "alt" tags to every link and photo? How about using CSS to change your site to a large text size with one click. That is usablililility.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:44 am
As for photoblogs, it can be a difficult balance to display the photo as the dominate element while still offering a reasonable arrangement of navigation. The seems-to-be-standard {previous | next} form of surfing a photoblog works well, once a user gets the concept, but I don't like it when I have to hunt for it or when there is nothing there except to click on the image itself. I do like value added links. Once I finish surfing the photos, it's nice to see the artist behind it or at least read a bio. Then click, click, click... A links area to other creative photoblogs is nice too (but not a popularity listing).