PREVIOUS PAGE • SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER • CLIENT LOGIN
Top Ten New Mistakes of Web Design
Guest contributor: Jakob Nielsen, author of Alertbox, on the Web
at http://www.useit.com/. Used with
permission. Dr. Nielsen speaks common sense. Those who avoid his recommendations
do so at their peril.
The "top ten" design mistakes I identified in 1996 are still
bad for Web usability and are still found on many websites. So in that
sense, not much has changed over the last three years.
But unfortunately new Web technology and new applications for the Web
have introduced an entirely new class of mistakes. Here are the ten worst.
1. Breaking or Slowing "Back"
The Back button is the lifeline of the Web user and the second-most used
navigation feature (after following hypertext links). Users happily know
that they can try anything on the Web and always be saved by a click or
two on Back to return them to familiar territory.
Except, of course, for those sites that break Back by committing one
of these design sins:
Opening a new window (see mistake #2).
Using an immediate redirect: every time the user clicks Back, the browser
returns to a page that bounces the user forward to the undesired location.
Prevents caching such that the Back navigation requires a fresh trip
to the server; all hypertext navigation should be sub-second and this
goes double for backtracking.
2. Opening New Browser Windows
Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person
who starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't
pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since current
operating systems have miserable window management). If I want a new window,
I will open it myself!
Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users
on their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied
in taking over the user's machine, the strategy is self-defeating since
it disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to previous
sites. Users often don't notice that a new window has opened, especially
if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to fill
up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be confused
by a grayed out Back button.
3. Non-Standard Use of GUI Widgets
Consistency is one of the most powerful usability principles: when things
always behave the same, users don't have to worry about what will happen.
Instead, they know what will happen based on earlier experience. Every
time you release an apple over Sir Isaac Newton, it will drop on his head.
That's good.
The more users' expectations prove right, the more they will feel in
control of the system and the more they will like it. And the more the
system breaks users' expectations, the more they will feel insecure. Oops,
maybe if I let go of this apple, it will turn into a tomato and jump a
mile into the sky.
Interaction consistency is an additional reason it's wrong to open new
browser windows: the standard result of clicking a link is that the destination
page replaces the origination page in the same browser window. Anything
else is a violation of the users' expectations and makes them feel insecure
in their mastery of the Web.
Currently, the worst consistency violations on the Web are found in the
use of GUI widgets such as radio buttons and checkboxes. The appropriate
behavior of these design elements is defined in the Windows UI standard,
the Macintosh UI standard, and the Java UI standard. Which of these standards
to follow depends on the platform used by the majority of your users (good
bet: Windows), but it hardly matters for the most basic widgets since
all the standards have close-to-identical rules.
For example, the rules for radio buttons state that they are used to
select one among a set of options but that the choice of options does
not take effect until the user has confirmed the choice by clicking an
OK button. Unfortunately, I have seen many websites where radio buttons
are used as action buttons that have an immediate result when clicked.
Such wanton deviations from accepted interface standards make the Web
harder to use.
4. Lack of Biographies
My first Web studies in 1994 showed that users want to know the people
behind information on the Web. In particular, biographies and photographs
of the authors help make the Web a less impersonal place and increase
trust. Personality and point-of-view often wins over anonymous bits coming
over the wire.
Yet many sites still don't use columnists and avoid by-lines on their
articles. Even sites with by-lines often forget the link to the author's
biography and a way for the user to find other articles by the same author.
It is particularly bad when a by-line is made into a mailto: link instead
of a link to the author's biography. Two reasons:
It is much more common for a reader to want to know more about an author
(including finding the writer's other articles) than it is for the reader
to want to contact the author - sure, contact info is often a good part
of the biography, but it should not be the primary or only piece of
data about the author.
It breaks the conventions of the Web when clicking on blue underlined
text spawns an email message instead of activating a hypertext link
to a new page; such inconsistency reduces usability by making the Web
less predictable.
5. Lack of Archives
Old information is often good information and can be useful to readers.
Even when new information is more valuable than old information, there
is almost always some value to the old stuff, and it is very cheap to
keep it online. I estimate that having archives may add about 10% to the
cost of running a site but increase its usefulness by about 50%.
Archives are also necessary as the only way to eliminate linkrot and
thus encourage other sites to link to you.
6. Moving Pages to New URLs
Anytime a page moves, you break any incoming links from other sites.
Why hurt the people who send you free customer referrals?
7. Nonsense Headlines
Headlines and other microcontent must be written very differently for
the Web than for old media: they are actionable items that serve as UI
elements and should help users navigate.
Headlines are often removed from the context of the full page and used
in tables of content (e.g., home pages or category pages) and in search
engine results. In either case the writing needs to be very plain and
meet two goals:
Tell users what's at the other end of the link with no guesswork required.
Protect users from following the link if they would not be interested
in the destination page (so no teasers - they may work once or twice
to drive up traffic, but in the long run they will make users abandon
the site and reduce its credibility).
8. Jumping at the Latest Buzzword
The web is awash in money and people who proclaim to have found the way
to salvation for all the sites that continue to lose money.
Push, community, chat, free email, 3D sitemaps, auctions - you know the
drill.
But there is no magic bullet. Most Internet buzzwords have some substance
and might bring small benefits to those few websites that can use them
appropriately. Most of the time, most websites will be hurt by implementing
the latest buzzword. The opportunity cost is high from focusing attention
on a fad instead of spending the time, money, and management bandwidth
on improving basic customer service and usability.
There will be a new buzzword next month. Count on it. But don't jump
at it just because Jupiter writes a report about it.
9. Slow Server Response Times
Slow response times are the worst offender against Web usability: in
my survey of the original "top-ten" mistakes, major sites had
a truly horrifying 84% violation score on response time.
Bloated graphic design was the original offender here. Some sites still
have too many graphics or too big graphics; or they use applets where
plain or Dynamic HTML would have done the trick. I am not giving up my
crusade to minimize download times.
The growth in web-based applications, e-commerce, and personalization
often means that each page view must be computed on the fly. As a result,
the experienced delay in loading the page is determined not simply by
the download delay (bad as it is) but also by the server performance.
Sometimes building a page also involves connections to back-end mainframes
or database servers, slowing down the process even further.
Users don't care why response times are slow. All they know is that the
site doesn't offer good service: slow response times often translate directly
into a reduced level of trust and they always cause a loss of traffic
as users take their business elsewhere. So invest in a fast server and
get a performance expert to review your system architecture and code quality
to optimize response times.
10. Anything That Looks Like an Ad
Selective attention is very powerful, and Web users have learned to stop
paying attention to any ads that get in the way of their goal-driven navigation.
That's why click-through rates are being cut in half every year and why
Web advertisements don't work.
Unfortunately, users also ignore legitimate design elements that look
like prevalent forms of advertising. After all, when you ignore something,
you don't study it in detail to find out what it is.
Therefore, it is best to avoid any designs that look like advertisements.
The exact implications of this guideline will vary with new forms of ads;
currently follow these rules:
Banner blindness means that users never fixate their eyes on anything
that looks like a banner ad due to shape or position on the page.
Animation avoidance makes users ignore areas with blinking or flashing
text.
Pop-up purges mean that users close pop-up windoids before they have
even fully rendered; sometimes with great viciousness. I don't want
to ban pop-ups completely since they can sometimes be a productive part
of an interface, but I advise making sure that there is an alternative
for users who never see the pop-ups.
|