Web Development

Ask something
Discussion Locked

A spin on Web design standards

0 helpful
5 replies

by maryweilage

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

In this week's Design and Usability Tactics newsletter, author Michael Meadhra suggests a somewhat different interpretation of Jakob Nielsen's basic observations about why numerous details of Web page design should be standardized.

What is your take on Web design standards? Do you lean more towards agreeing with Nielsen's case for standardization, or are you in agreement with Meadhra's suggested spin on standardization? Please share your views on this topic.

If you aren't subscribed to the free Design and Usability Tactics newsletter, click the following link to automatically sign up:
http://nl.com.com/MiniFormHandler?brand=builder&subs_channel=bldr_front_door&list_id=e614&tag=fb

5 replies

by pfbg

I believe Mr. Meadhra analogy of the internet being a huge mall
is perfect. Some differences on web site design are crucial to
sustain individual identities for each company. Just in the same
way that magazines (think of Wired), TV shows, news ads,
movies and everything else have (somewhat the same and yet)
different visual conceptions. Otherwise the world would be a lot
boring!

Although Mr. Nielsen is undoubtedly a compass for us all on
design elements I think this time he threw the ball in the wrong
direction.

regards,

PFBG

by mkidd

I think the mall analogy fits, and the web, if you think about it, really marches in step. We have e-commerce consumer sites (Amazon.com) that most of us expect to run a certain way. It's to an e-commerce site's advantage to "look like everyone else," because users don't want to have to search around for their shopping cart, item categories, account status, etc. The same goes for a lot of B2B sites where customers interact with the company via the internet. It's got to look the same so users don't have a hard time doing business with the company, or they won't come back.

But I'm a long-time user of the internet, and I want some specialty stores. I want some cool sites that don't look like anyone else; the designer boutique, like BeatPort. And I want some out-there blogs that are designed in interesting ways. We've got to push the envelope. And I think anytime you try to standardize too far, you awaken the rebel in all of us, that wants to do the thing someone just told us not to do.

by smeeds

In asking people what they expect, there is a correlation between how much experience the user has on the Internet. Those with limited experience expect things to be simple and continuous, and wonder why they cannot be. The more experience the user has, the more variation they expect and value.

by gargarney

Nielsen has always been a busybody. His success is a combination of timing and stating the extremely obvious. Now he's run out of obvious things to say and has fallen into the "how-do-I-now-justify-my-existence" trap.

My biggest beef with Neilsen has always been that he views a "user" as some sort of brain-damaged toddler, unable to learn anything, impatient with everything. I think he's dead wrong about that.

No doubt we designers all pay attention to usability, tweaking our lives away. But, unlike Neilsen, I don't believe "usable" is all that a website is meant to be.

Where would the automobile industry be with that attitude? The appliance makers? Publishers? For some reason, Jakob Neilsen has always had a deep resentment toward anything outside his self-designated expertise. He is either incapable of anything creative or artistic, therefore he fears/hates it; or he is very, very clever by finding a lucrative niche in this world and hanging on for dear life.

by dave lathrop

All the industries mentioned have learned that while usability and style are both important, usability is what matters most. If you have an unusable product that has style, reliability, low cost, etc., then you have the equivalent of a car with great curb appeal that always seems to be parked at the curb with a "For Sale" sign in the window. If you have a usable product without these other qualities, people will buy and use it unless there is a competing product that is equally usable but gives better value.

This is like the much maligned book "Dress for Success"--It doesn't say that dressing right will make you a success, only that dressing wrong may well prevent you from getting the chance to succeed because you've blown your first impression. But the author freely admits that for more than casual interactions, the second impression is more important and long lasting and is not about your clothing. If you look good on first glance but can't deliver over the long term, you're toast.

A product needs to offer two things: value to the customer, and differentiation from competitors. Usability is often the most important factor in both--without it you have zero value and the wrong image.

Also, usability is not about brain-damaged users. A lot has to do with having to concentrate on the product, instead of the product helping you concentrate on what you're trying to do. A bad automobile design will cause you to crash because you're trying to figure out how to operate the vehicle (e.g., adjust the radio), instead of concentrating on navigating through traffic to your destination safely. This means you shouldn't need to devote much grey matter to using the product.

This discussion is closed to new replies.