himalia.net | community blogs

I kept thinking about the Jared's point of view about another security -vs- user experience trade off.

 

In this case, Jared stands that you can't require the same security for a "Magic tricks Forum" and for a "Bank website". I agree with that. I  really hated when Mingle asked me for an ultra secure password for a trial version I wanted to use in my network. Everyday I wanted to login into the system I had to try several password... Well, at least I was feeling lucky® they decided no to block my account in the process :)

 

However, I think you can't put everything in the same bag. He was using this argument to say that applications should specify what was wrong when the login has failed (was it the username or the password?). The usual behavior is a message similar to this one: "Either your username or password is wrong, try again! Did you forget your password? ".

 

This kind of messages goes against the UX because it's imprecise. If you are more precise you can help him (and others trying to log in) to solve the problem. But, it's also true what me and others argued about how we -as users- manage usernames and passwords everyday. To make it short, users have the same passwords and usernames all over web, in different sites. I do that and many people I know do also. Ok, my bank web site password is not the same that the blogger's one.. but I cannot be sure about other "not-critical" sites. I can't even remember all the sites I am registered in!!! Can you?

 

The point is: can you forget security issues if you are designing the "Magic tricks Forum" when you know it is the actual behavior of your users? Lets put it in another way. What happen if some of your user's account is hacked (sometimes all they need is the username because it's a valid email), and this information is used to steal more important data of him in other site? Ok, it's not totally your guilt, but, couldn't you avoid it? Can you just blame your user because of his uninformed behavior? I don't think so. How will your user feel about your site? Do you think he will just guilt himself or will your site also pay the penalty? The second one is more probable and for sure your team will look incompetent.

 

You know, sometimes UX is indirect. You can just try to improve it but you may end provoking a terrible headache for your user in name of it. Although in this case you may share the guilt with your user, if something happens, you can be sure you will pay for it because -as always- bad UX has more publicity. 

 

If I were you, I would stay defensive to avoid boomerangs.

Labels: Internet, Technology, Usability, UX

I downloaded Enso last week and now I can't live without it. I have to say that I loved it from the website description.

They guys from Humanized were bought by Mozilla and will be working in their Labs. It's highly probable that you start seeing these kind of things in the next version of the open source browser.

 

I am happy. They share my vision about how web/desktop software must inter-operate, putting users first. Will browsers start to be a little more semantic? I will take the bet.

----

If you are a good observer (see the right pane, stupid!), you may have discovered I am going to MIX'08 in Las Vegas. If you are going there, I will be glad to met you to talk about any topic, if you drop me a line. I can't believe I will see Guy Kawasaki and Steve Ballmer. I just bought two of his books last week. It was a signal :)

----

I know that the second part of the GMail review is pending. I have already written it (actually, I wrote it with the first part), but I am just waiting to post it with a little surprise ;)

----

I started a discussion in the Jared Spool's blog. This is a honor for me :)

He responded with another post. What do you think about usernames and the user experience? Can we really improve it?

Do you believe in the global/aggregated user experience concept? Who should care about it?

----

This is an atypical post.

Labels: Usability, UX

Google has launched a new version of GMail with some good new features.  However, what really surprised me were the very bad changes in the user interface of the contacts "subsystem". Google has a very deserved prestige in providing dead simple and very well designed user interfaces. However, I think they couldn't repeat themselves this time. Luckily I am not the only one this time; users care about usability and as always, problems have more repercussion.

 

I was not going to post about this, but then I thought it could be a very interesting example to show how the right models/tools can help to avoid this kind of errors. Last but not least, I strongly believe you have to fall into a lot of mistakes in the process of creating a great user interface, but if you use the right tools and you are describing things at the right abstraction level, they become evident, and you can quickly walk through the continuous prototyping process to achieve a successful design.

 

What's Wrong With The Contacts Design In The New Version Of GMail ?

The main problem is it has a bad layout. Layouts should be simple and Google knows it more than anybody. Not only simple, they have also to be familiar, recognizable (yes, copy them from other user interfaces). Layouts aren't an innovation area and simple layouts have been all already invented.

 

So, What's Wrong With The GMail Layout?

Well, first of all it has too many areas. An area is the part of the screen where you will present a UI concept. Actually, you should have so many areas as concepts you want to present on screen at the same time. And you don't want to expose your user with dozen of concepts at the same time, so you don't want too many areas. In the new version of the contacts subsystem they have 5 areas (just in that part).

 

However, five areas wouldn't be a problem is they weren't so poorly orchestrated. Area orchestration, or Layout Behavior (as I lately redefined it) is the way you assign a hierarchy to the different areas on the screen. The main pattern you should know in this field is called Visual Framework. I will translate it in this way: "Try to keep the area hierarchy always, never mind which concepts are you presenting at each time in each area". 

 

The Layout Behavior can be defined using with transitions that are represented as arrows (this is a very natural representation). Each arrow means that the target will be refreshed when any action is fired in the source. Typically you expect that top menus refresh second layer menus, left or right bars refresh the content area and so on. This approach is very interesting because you don't need to think it in terms of events and other programming-related stuff. Just answer: when an action is fired in one specific area, which area(s) will be refreshed? If you can find a simple and recognizable orchestration for your areas, it will be good enough.

 

Back to GMail, have you seen this kind of orchestration in some other place?

 

   

Other problem with the chosen transitions are the transition jumps. The one from FirstTopArea to the RightArea is anti-natural because broke the logic sequence. The same happens with the transition from LeftArea to RightArea, but in this case you should add that it provokes a a little inconsistence because there is another transition from LeftArea to CenterArea.

 

Other good advice to take when possible is to define the transitions targeting contiguous areas, in order to facilitate the focus flow of your user. Why jumping to the other side of the screen?  Users don't want to guess where to look after clicking something. In this case, the user is forced to jump his focus from the left to the right in one jump. When you press something, the refreshed area should be the one the user is expecting to be, and users don't expect to move their heads all around like playing Simon in a big wall.

 

Also, there is a very ironic problem, the very strange behavior in the search box. When you search a contact, a new item is added in the left list (groups and other stuff list), while the results are added in the center list at the same time. Why? What's the purpose of the left list with two fixed items, all the groups and an intermittent search result item? Why adding that item there? Why just not showing the results as Google taught us in a dead simple way?

 

Finally, probably the most annoying error is the inconsistence. Consistence is THE fundamental behind all great designed user interfaces. When you press the "New contact" button you are directed to the RightArea, but when you press the "New Group" button (placed just at it side) a popup appears on the top left corner of the screen, while  other popup's appear centered on the screen. Added up, it provides a baffling experience for the user.

 

Random isn't a good friend of user interfaces. Actions presented in the same style and grouped together, are expected to produce the same kind of feedback in the user interface. If they are going to provide different experience they should be separated or presented with a different style (see examples below).

 

So, now you may be thinking: ok, user interface guru-wannabe, how would you improve this? But I will answer it the next post, because it is already quite long ;)

Labels: Himalia, Patterns, Prototyping, Usability, UX

 

Ingredients: An elastic eyes-cover and food aluminum paper.

It worked for 10 hours avoiding the cold air directly in my face ;) 

Labels: airplane, Travel, UX

Fisher-Price has launched the Easy Link Internet Launch Pad. The kid can interact with the computer safely by introducing different figurines in a USB hub. For each character a different website is loaded into the browser.

 

It is another case of reducing the power of a platform for a very focused niche, or the less is more principle.

Labels: HCI, Usability, UX

If you think the iPhone was the first multi-touch user interface phone, you are wrong.

Bill Buxton, the man behind Microsoft Surface explains the multi-touch history here (and his history with multi-touch user interfaces).

Please, don't forget to scroll down to see the Simon phone launched for IBM and Bell South in 1992!!!!

 

The reasons why nobody know it:

1. launched too early?
2. technology adoption curve is longer than people believe?
3. marketing is SO important?

What do you think?

Labels: Technology, UX

What do you see when you see Microsoft Surface? I tried to imagine me using it, in my daily tasks and not trying to create new activities... and I really think this new technology can help "software developers teams". I will write down the first two scenarios that came to my mind when I first saw this futuristic table.

DISCLAIMER: I will need this technology in table-format but in "picture-format" too (to put in a wall).

#1. Discuss diagrams

I am a visual-man. I like to see diagrams and discuss about them. I prefer to "see" ideas. I see things clearer in models than in other ways. So, I would want to see diagrams in the surface to discuss it with the team. That includes: class diagrams, database diagrams, navigation models, user interface prototypes, etc.
With this new approach you can move the boxes around the table, zoom-in/out to focus in a particular part, change some thing while everyone is seeing it... but you can also make changes and it is reflected automatically in your software-modeling tool. You won't need to write the paper on the wall with a pencil and then change it again in the modeling tool, or re-printing it to keep it updated from time to time.

 

#2. Card lists

If you are using an agile process, you may be using Post-it! notes in a public wall. Despite the fact they are very useful behaving as Information Radiators, they have a very important problem: if you are also tracking your tasks (or user stories or whatever) in a management tool you will need to enter each task twice (as a PostIt! note, and as a new task in your tracking software). And you can't avoid it, at least you want to lose all your project information with the first strong wind.

 

 

But what about putting the tasks in your wall-surface? You could move your virtual notes in the wall by hand to the next iteration (and constrain the movement in the reverse way ;)). But the good thing is that you can share it with your PMO in the other part of the world. And also, you don't need to see all the day long the same thing, it can show semaphores, team productivity, etc.

 

In the meanwhile, we could show Mingle in a big TV. When will Mingle support touch?

 

---

A collateral effect is that we can save paper (and so, help to avoid the pulp mills ;))

 

Finally, if Microsoft want to achieve success with this new technology, they have to keep the developers of their side. Yes, you are right, I am asking Bill Gates to gift me this toy ;)

 

What do you think about it? Do you see it useful? Do you see any other use for software developers?

Labels: Developers, Table computing, UX, WPF

Google Analytics is now providing a new user interface.

 

 

Although it was unveiled yesterday, they will be turning it on for each account (yes, one by one) during the next two months. I loose that lottery so I have to wait to see it in action. I don't understand the reasons why are they making something like that, but I can imagine the guy behind scenes making some magic tricks by hand ;)

 

Once again, only those who have a lot of cash can afford a complete year just to remake a user interface, real world software developers should add some functionalities in the meanwhile too. The Office Team did the same for two years... Could you estimate the investment of that? 

 

But this throw light on one of the directions the industry is putting the focus: good user interfaces. It is our argument after all, software developers will need to remake their user interfaces in the following years and someone (guess who?) should provide an easy way to do that, and make their life simpler.

 

BTW, the demo looks great. I am wondering if they have a public API to interact at a data-level. I don't know nothing like this for the Desktop, and I think we could integrate it very easily... I will ask the guys from Urchin Software for that and keep you in track.

Labels: Internet, Usability, UX

I love this car. Although I haven't driven it, I love the concept: "electric cars that people wants to drive".

 

Despite the fact I am not sure if human being should drive cars (car crashes produce 1.2 million dead every year, are the first dead cause for young people in the rich countries, etc.), I must agree that it is the best way I know to start with environment-friendly technologies in the car market. I strongly believe that in this century we should move from driving CO2 cars to habiting ambient-friendly car-like transporters. Well, the Tesla way is a good first step in the right direction.

 

Tesla Motors is a Silicon Valley start-up company that shares the software start-up spirit, for example, you can find Jeffrey Skoll, Larry Page and Sergei Brin among their investors.

 

They are targeting the sport high-end market with this Tesla Roadster (these kind of people are the only who can buy 100,000usd toys). As a second step, they will learn about their technology and provide a family sport car in a wider but still high-end market. In the long term, they will provide the "usual" car-company offer. They are also changing the standard distribution channel for cars: they will provide specialized end-user Tesla Shops. They can make this because their actual customers aren't worried about the price/feature trade-off, they are just looking for a new toy. I think this can only be a short/middle term strategy in order to encourage the Tesla brand value. 

 

I really like their strategy, do you think it is a blue-ocean one? I think so.

 

Disclaimer: This post has nothing to do with user interfaces... are you sure? really? Ok, you are right ;)

Labels: Frinedly Cars, Technology, UX

Join the UXnet now!
I'm already there.

Labels: HCI, UX