Usability: good book + how important is it?

Has anyone else read "Don't Make Me Think" by Steve Krug? A great book on usability I think. Rather than review it myself, I'll leave that to the equally impressive David Walker - find out more at http://www.shorewalker.com/pages/think_review-1.html

You can also read Chapter 2 of Steve's book online for free at http://www.circle.com/krugbook/chaptertwo.html

So we all now realise how important usability is. But what happens if you force yourself to weight the importance of various elements of site design and development? Where would you place your votes if forced? For example, imagine you had a total of 100 points to award. How would you allocate your points to the following (the more points, the more important you think it is):

1. The speed of the site (imagine you're choosing between fast or slow i.e. a noticeable difference)
2. The interface design (usability elements - easy to use, navigation etc.)
3. The content
4. The graphic design (look, fonts, colours, logos, animation etc.)
5. Functionality (tools, search, personalisation etc.)

I know there are other elements and I know that the answer is always "it depends" and that all are equally important etc. etc. but if you had a gun to your head...?

My first thoughts:

1. 20 points
2. 40 points
3. 25 points
4. 5 points
5. 10 points

So what does that say to me? It tells me that to be a good web designer you have to know about usability and interface design; you have to appreciate what impact a particular design will have on site speed and you have to understand what content the actual site users are interested in.

Is this fair?

In response to ashley's point system:
>1. The speed of the site (imagine you're choosing between
>fast or slow i.e. a noticeable difference)
>2. The interface design (usability elements - easy to use,
>navigation etc.)
>3. The content
>4. The graphic design (look, fonts, colours, logos,
>animation etc.)
>5. Functionality (tools, search, personalisation etc.)

1. 15 points
2. 25 points
3. 25 points
4. 10 points
5. 25 points

My reasoning is that content and functionality are probably the most key areas in both obtaining and retaining customers. Interface design, to be easy to use etc. should encompass elements of graphic design and be aesthetically pleaseing anyway. Excessive amounts of time allocated to graphic design is probably not economical in the sense of allocating a budget for website design.

However, although I have given an opinion in regards to the point system, I have some problems with this approach or question:
1. Is this points system based on the end result, or the amount of time and resource allocated ? This may sound strange, but in regards to the speed of the site, this I believe is simply a *must* for all websites. The time that should be allocated to this (using the 100 points system) should be in the region of 2 due to experience and planning. But in regards to importance, this should flare in the region of 20.
2. Surely each person in the team would have differing opinions on this, and rightly so. Each member of a team is responsible for the different areas of the site, and will probably feel more passionate about their areas i.e. a designer will surely believe that the design of the website ranks in the region of 25 points, whereas a programmer will rank design in the region of 10 points, and functionality in the region of 35 points. It is these differing opinions that allow site development to flourish in all areas. If a team were to agree on a points system, I believe it could potentially hinder/demotivate people. In contrast to this though, potentially for each person to define their goals by using this points system at the outset of each project, could help a project manager to understand where each person's focus will lie. This could be extremely useful.

In what context do other people feel the points system is applicable, and where do you think the pros/cons lie in the system ?

matt

I'm glad to see my scoring system has encouraged some debate on this topic. I wouldn't ever propose using such a scoring system as part of a project development methodology but I would propose that it represents some of the tough choices facing e-commerce directors every day - I have a certain budget and certain targets and I have people telling me X is important, Y needs budget - who do I believe, where do I focus spend to maximise return on investment?

2 more statements which I feel come out of this thread to further the debate:

1. No one site element is more important than another

Maybe not what the e-commerce director wants to hear but the unfortunate truth is that everything has to be right for the customer to be satisfied. I remember as a teenager taking advice on how to build the ultimate stereo system - best of breed components parts where the overall effect was only as good as the weakest link was the advice I got.

Of course site speed should be a given. *Perception* of site speed as Francois correctly points out. But how many sites actually consistently measure the speed of the site by any form of metric? How many sites actively measure site uptime? An e-commerce site being down is like having the shop closed. Increasingly we are beginning to see e-commerce managers' performance bonuses being tied to things like site uptime and rightly so.

We have done a lot of research into e-tail and the number one bug-bear with customers? Speed of the site. Speed is the number one reason for abandonment, not security as some might think.

But what good is speed without a decent interface and good content?

2. The web presents a great opportunity to damage your brand

There has been a lot of talk about the web's ability to enhance or help re-position a brand. This is certainly true, but perhaps the more unspoken truth is that there is actually a much greater relative opportunity to damage your brand than there is to enhance it?

Francois' comment "failing in which aspect would damage the site least?" may be closer to home than we think. Customers expect and want everything to be the absolute best - nowhere more so on the web where attention spans are short and irritation levels low. I can think of plenty of examples of sites which have caused me to think less of a brand (the absolutely appaulling online banking interface my high street bank offers for one) but very few where I have come away thinking better, or that differently, about a brand. Why is this? Probably because my expectations are just so high.

Customer expectations will continue to rise in line with the best that is available so in many ways we are fighting a losing battle in trying to really delight and surprise them. But we must constantly fight that good fight.

Does this analysis hold any messages for the beleaguered e-commerce director? Perhaps the following:

- The web project team should be made up of members who have specialist skills and who champion their cause but they absolutely must understand and appreciate all the other elements that are necessary to create a great web experience and how what they do fits in

- Whatever you deliver to customers, it must be the absolute best that you can offer. Focus on improving what you already have. Reduce the scope of a project in favour of quality. It is much better to concentrate on doing a few things really well and then build from there than try and impress by doing too much and failing on all counts (dotcom style).

- Concentrate on serving the customers needs. The customers are the final judges of whatever is produced. Don't spend too much time agonising internally over shades of a particular colour or placement of a logo on a page. Ask the customers, measure the *actual* results of what you do (both qual and quant) and then iterate what you have

- Increasingly performance optimisation is the name of the game: tightening up the margins round the edges to squeeze out every last drop of performance. And things like site speed, however you decide to measure it, are very important.

Does this fairly summarise some of the points in this thread? Any thoughts?

There is one specific, vital, yet immeasurable element that hasnÕt been mentioned (and often isnÕt)Éideas.

It seems that this thread has been rating Ôthe sum of the partsÕ and forgetting the ÔwholeÕ and thatÕs where creativity (not ÔdesignÕ) comes into itÕs own. So in the interests of fairness IÕd like to do a bit of evangelising from the creative side.

This thread appears to consider design as Ôlook and feelÕ and there are those whose sole aim is to ÔdoÕ which we could refer to as ÔdesignÕ or Ôlook & feelÕ and probably rates the 5-10% importance that has been referred to previously. Really though, itÕs about creativity and the ability to ÔthinkÕ, the percentage impact of good ideas is incalculable.

Creativity drives ideas, innovation and by default success, take a look aroundÉ.

I wonder what percentage of importance Steve Jobs would attach to Jonathan Ives? Where was the PC before Xerox Parc invented ÔwindowsÕ? Check TognazziniÕs essay on Magic influencing GUI design at http://www.asktog.com/papers/magic.html, DidnÕt Da Vinci ÔinventÕ helicopters before they were ever technically possible? Look at Fast Company (http://learning.fastcompany.com/uni_innovation.html ) for any number of articles where big businesses employ creatives to teach ÔthinkingÕ.

Time and time again youÕll find the importance of the idea before the application and the fact is, in the long-run it doesnÕt matter how much effort is put into HCI, technical consultancy, content creation, etc if you are unable to convert it into creative ideas and innovation. If you only ÔdoÕ things well you are likely to be usurped by those who ÔdoÕ well but also ÔthinkÕ. Indeed, in the future it will be unthinkable not to ÔdoÕ things well Ð download speeds, usability and basic functionality should not be an issue, users will expect a certain standard Ð so then competitive advantage is driven by ideasÉand who is best positioned to build, own and direct ideas? Those who are trained to Ôthink out of the boxÕ (excuse the clichŽ), encourage play, cajole, inspire, evangelise, build ideas: the creative leaders.

And it is becoming even more important in the digital world: the Ônew business paradigmÕ polarises the situation Ð we now move too fast for first-user advantage to be a realistic selling point unless it can be patented - process and organisation become givens and the focus shines on ideas. The whole is now MUCH greater than the sum of itÕs parts and creatives are best positioned and most experienced to guide the ÔpartsÕ towards ideas, innovation and the bottom line: return on investment.

So creativity is the most important element but itÕs not a percentage part, itÕs the 'whole'.

I reckon ; )

On 15:33:51 27 April 2001 ashley wrote:
>Has anyone else read "Don't Make Me Think" by
>Steve Krug? A great book on usability I think. Rather than
>review it myself, I'll leave that to the equally
>impressive David Walker - find out more at
>http://www.shorewalker.com/pages/think_review-1.html
>
>You can also read Chapter 2 of Steve's book online for
>free at http://www.circle.com/krugbook/chaptertwo.html
>
>So we all now realise how important usability is. But what
>happens if you force yourself to weight the importance of
>various elements of site design and development? Where
>would you place your votes if forced? For example, imagine
>you had a total of 100 points to award. How would you
>allocate your points to the following (the more points,
>the more important you think it is):
>
>1. The speed of the site (imagine you're choosing between
>fast or slow i.e. a noticeable difference)
>2. The interface design (usability elements - easy to use,
>navigation etc.)
>3. The content
>4. The graphic design (look, fonts, colours, logos,
>animation etc.)
>5. Functionality (tools, search, personalisation etc.)
>
>I know there are other elements and I know that the answer
>is always "it depends" and that all are equally
>important etc. etc. but if you had a gun to your head...?
>
>My first thoughts:
>
>1. 20 points
>2. 40 points
>3. 25 points
>4. 5 points
>5. 10 points
>
>So what does that say to me? It tells me that to be a good
>web designer you have to know about usability and
>interface design; you have to appreciate what impact a
>particular design will have on site speed and you have to
>understand what content the actual site users are
>interested in.
>
>Is this fair?
>

Hi Martyn

“Steve Krug's book is not a good book”!? Yeah, I’ll argue with you ;)

It was interesting that you brought up a parallel with TV as I used to be a TV producer and also did a fair bit of camera work, scripting, editing, lighting, you name it. In my transition to the internet I have always been surprised how people see TV as ‘creative and innovative’ and the web as less so.

The reality is that all media have, over time, established certain ‘protocols’ (let’s be ambitious and call them ‘laws’) which guide how they appear, how they ‘work’ and what they contain. I say ‘guide’ because these are only parameters, frameworks, tools and techniques which are known to work with the audience – they are in fact laws that can be broken to great effect.

In TV, for example, you learn not to break ‘laws’ like ‘crossing the line’ when filming two people talking when doing a single camera shoot (if you get it ‘wrong’ your final edit will make it look like the two people are not looking at each other). There are all sorts of short hands for different camera positions and standard ways of shooting a scene. In magazines or newspapers there are unwritten ‘laws’ – headlines on the front, sports at the back etc. All of these laws are made to be broken, and with great effect, but you’ve got to know what you’re doing and the effect it will have. Equally the audience needs to have a sense of what is ‘normal’ to have a sense of what is unusual. In order to innovate you need first to have accepted norms.

This is why I think Krug’s book is a good book. It helps to simply explain and move us towards an understanding of what works on the web, what is ‘standard’, normal or natural for web users. He does not say that all Web sites *must* be done in a certain way but he does imply that if you choose not to do your site in a certain way then you must realise the consequences of making your users think. For 90% of sites, I would contend, you don’t want to be making your users think too hard. For the other 10%, fine, go ahead and challenge them.

I see nothing in the least bit un-creative in working towards web design/usability ‘laws’. Quite the contrary. The more protocols you have in place, the more you can experiment. Look at literature, music, the fine arts etc. They are often at their most creative, interesting and (r)evolutionary when defining and then breaking down ‘accepted’ standards and fashions.

To end on my own point of possible contention, I would say that assuming more standardised ‘laws’ governing web design and usability, content is infinitely more important than presentation (sorry designers) so buy Krug’s book, do what he says, and spend your time creating great content and functionality instead. In many other media content and design are inextricably linked. For the web, I think they work far better when they are quite consciously separated - not in the way they are conceived but in the way they are delivered.

Now, who wants to argue with me?

Ashley