The User's Charter

"Developers must provide..."?

Submitted by mcmonkey on February 21, 2001 - 15:33.

I don't buy it. I agree the design aspects of these 'rights' and 'freedoms' are things we should take into consideration when building a web site and are generally accepted as good ideas, eg friendly interface, clear navigation, good privacy policy.

However raising these aspects to the level of rights and freedoms is a bit much, especially when the onus of providing for and protecting these rights fall to the designer. I agree a web site visitor has the right to express an opinion and experience of that site. I disagree entirely it is the place of the designer, developer, or host to "provide a facility" for the exercise of that right.

Not every web site serves the same purpose; and most do not involve commerce or have customers in the traditional sense. For a site that is selling a product, taking payment in some form through the web, and providing the product either through electronic or postal transfer, the best practices represented here apply and I expect few would argue should not be followed.

But let's say bridges are my bag. I'm a big bridge fan and want to set up a web site with pictures and descriptions of all types and sorts of bridges. Such a site cannot provide equal treatment to all visitors. I can provide thumbnail pictures, but they won't have the same information as the larger, more detailed pictures. And as complete as the descriptions provided are, reading them or hearing them read just won't be the same as seeing the pictures. So does my bridge site violate someone's rights? Or should I just pay for and maintain a BridgesSuck.com sister-site as a facility for the users' freedom of expression?

Again, I think all of the design aspects of these rights and freedoms should be considered, and most can be integrated into the design of most sites. However elevating a 'good idea' to the level of a 'right' is not the answer. Some people can't see pictures, some people can't hear sounds, some people can't handle mature concepts in a mature manner--does this mean we should have a text-only internet of children stories?

IMHO, of course =)

login or register to post comments

not the concepts, but the language

Submitted by erika on February 21, 2001 - 15:52.

How about this one:

Web architects have the right to define audience and purpose.
Usability experts must refrain from making 'one-size-fits-all' commandments.

I think the key message of the article is good, it 's just that it gets a bit lost in the way it is presented: in absolutist, Jakobian terms.

Usability and accessibility are Good Things. Good web developers know this, and build their sites accordingly .

login or register to post comments

It's not *that* absolute, or hard to do either

Submitted by aardvark on February 22, 2001 - 00:34.

I think stating that this article outlines an absolute is incorrect. "Should take all reasonable measures..." leaves it pretty open. If you feel something is unreasonable, you're not going to do it, so what's the big deal. I think people are using their Nielsen-knee-jerk to respond to this.

But what here is so outrageous? Or obtuse? Or even that hard to implement?

• Equality: Haven't we seen a lot of people arguing for standards (ALA) and accessibility (evolt.org)? What about this is so odd? The first point is easy enough to achieve, and most people should already have made a decision about how their site will support it.
• Autonomy:The second one is also pretty simple. Code to standards and be accessible, and guess what, you've enabled the user to make some decisions about the experience — font sizes, window sizes, etc. What's wrong with letting the user keep the chrome, or use the back button without bizarre errors or refreshes?
• Inform: Documentation is key. Why would you expect someone to know what a form on the site does without telling him or her? What is each section for? What will you do with his/her information?
• Expression: Why wouldn't you include a mailto link or a form on the site? You don't want to hear back from the user?
• Privacy:Didn't a recent dot-com failure get in trouble for trying to sell its database of customer info? Isn't that the same thing? Wouldn't you like to know what's going to happen with the information you provide, and know that the site will comply with those statements?
• Frustration: I wish more sites made an effort not to frustrate me with Java applets, 400k Flash movies, broken JavaScript, marquee tags, etc. Seems like a simple enough request.

Based on the number of ratings as of this writing, and the number of people who rated, somebody rated it pretty low, which surprises me. If you don't think it applies to your own site, do you think it wouldn't apply to you as a web surfer? Or your mother, perhaps?

As for a bridge site, sorry, the analogy doesn't quite work. He specifically said web applications. Blogs and sites about peoples' cats aren't really customer- or business-oriented. They can be a mess for all I care, they're just bandwidth I never access (primarily because they don't comply with the above points).

login or register to post comments

Reasonableness and Reciprocity

Submitted by gainef on February 23, 2001 - 05:07.

Thank you for your feedback all. Just one or two points here.

As Aardvark noted, developers should take all reasonable measures to provide for the above rights. Reasonableness here depends on the circumstances of each situation: traffic and type of visitor expected through a site, nature of site, resources of the developer, revenues from the site and so on. However, more often than not, provision for these rights does not take all that much extra investment and good usability means good user satisfaction. It is not difficult to include a mailto: link on your webpages and instructive alt tags will go along way to providing for web accessibility. Good user satisfaction is desirable no matter the extent and subject matter of your web presence.

Secondly, let us not forget that if one identifiable group on the web has rights (users) so do other identifiable groups i.e. site developers. For example, developers have the right to freedom of expression also (within the law of course) and this should be respected. So if you want to set up webpages selling PCs, outlining your penchant for bridges or critising political philosophies, then that's alright. One key to civil and democratic society (and possibly a workable web) has always been the tenure of rights and the equal respect for the rights of others. A balance has to be found here and as developers are the one's who dictate content on the web, it is important that the rights of user's should be impressed on them. Afterall, anything that developers do not want users to see can be protected by user ID and password.

login or register to post comments

The user has no rights

Submitted by headlemur on February 23, 2001 - 21:48.

"A balance has to be found here and as developers are the one's who dictate content on the web" No it doesn't. The user is a mythological creature created by people who need to sell things. Stuff, opinion, information, angst. In the last two years alone, technology and hardware has accelerated in power while falling in price. This has opened up an even wider field for expression and experimentation. Another interesting observation is that the early adopters used to be the desirable marketing demographic, white, educated, $50,000 per year. This has changed dramatically. More women, more students, more elderly. Plug and play machines, minimal cost for access, simple browsing tools. Assuming that users have rights is to fall into the trap of the 'internet is free' crowd. Nothing could be further from the truth currently and in the future this will be even less so. The internet is allowing freedom in terms of presentation of stuff, opinion, information, angst. From the sublime to the revolting, it is here in billions of pages, on thousands of computers, in hundreds of languages. Developers do and will continue to dictate the content of what is seen or not on the web. Whether the 'developer' is one person hammering out code and pictures, or a cast of thousands, creating what shows up on your screen, the user is a mutable creature tailored by the designer. The developer has the ability to present what shows up on the screen or out of the speakers as they please. This is true now and will remain so to the heat death of the universe or until the electricity runs out. Text to Flash, gif to png, it is the developers right to make it happen. As the true democratic nature of the internet becomes clear in terms of audience, developers rise to the occasion and respond accordingly. The only restraint on the development of the internet is simple self interest, dictated by ability, economics, ethics, ego or what little legislation is actually applicable to the internet. The user is a rapidly evolving creature being defined by possibility. The only rights the 'user' has is to vote with their mouse.

login or register to post comments

draconian? nah....

Submitted by aardvark on February 24, 2001 - 08:52.

Headlemur, I agree. Users have no rights, just as in the natural world, people would have no rights. But as humans created societies and moved into something other than a hunter-gatherer world, rights started to pop up. Kings created the right to tax citizens, Samurai were given the right to behead people on the street, the French Inquisition took the right to torture. But as time went on, we started to create rights geared more toward the masses, as opposed to the ones with the power and money who could determine rights. Some argue if we've gone far enough, or too far.

Rights are a social construct. And at the risk of getting way too philosphical, what is wrong with trotting out a list of rights we should try to follow for users? Clearly, "rights" might not be the best word, given the connotation of absolute and moral good, but it's still a succinct way to describe how developers should accomodate the very people who make their jobs and livelihood possible.

So, you've expounded on how users have no rights, but can you tell us why they shouldn't? If you see these as a problem, why not try to adopt your own "bill of rights" for sites you develop? Or do you think users don't need them? I doubt you think that users are just something that makes your job harder, and based on some of your previous writings, I know you go to great lengths for your users. So was that just social commentary on the current situation?

login or register to post comments

Caught in curmudgeon mode!

Submitted by headlemur on February 24, 2001 - 16:57.

Commentary and observation. You caught me with my curmudgeon tags showing.

I see the orginal comment as a backlash to the current WaSP Browser Upgrade Initiative. We have gotten here without any real constraints. The vast majority of sites are accessible, informative and even amusing in some cases. As I said previously, users will vote with their mice. This alone is the biggest right that anyone has, user, designer or developer.

I want everybody to have access. I do not want arbitrary rules regulations or laws however kindly coached to be applied to everybody's access or freedom of expression.

An example of this over-reaction is the Child Online Protection Act.
Breast.
Are we talking about pairs in your choice of size and color or are we talking about cancer? It doesn't matter, breasts have been deemed naughty/obscene, despite the fact that everybody on the planet is born with them. Tits are also birds. same deal . This is a User Initiative. Insuring that somebody's child is not exposed to an image of a breast is also denying them the ability to become educated on the danger of breast cancer.

Regulation is already coming to the internet. If we want to Nielsonize the web, that is certainly an option. We can all get AOL accounts and just write for that browser and market. After all, there a lot of folks who like to follow the leader. The danger here is that the standards, technologies, display, bandwidth, understanding, ethics, and regulations are also moving targets. To cap development of the web from the user rights meme is extremely dangerous. It has the added peril of denying choice to those who will follow us. I certainly believe in standards and as aardvark pointed out I also write about them. My life depends on this. I do this full time. I take great pains to make the sites that I build to be available whatever the connection. But if we are constrained by somebody's sense of 'frustration', we have spent way to much money on equipment and training. because amber letters on a black screen are legible.

It is not user rights, it is developer responsibility

We have an enormous amount of power to determine the direction of the web. We have the ability of making sites that can be seen by anybody who can access a URL, to sites that require 15 plug-ins and a T-1 connection. The responsibility for insuring user rights rests on the shoulders of everyone who publishes. It is up to the developers to define where the line on the screen is. Whether that line is drawn by economics, ability or ethics, the choice has to be made by you. You, me and the person who stumbled in here and is reading this and will become a developer tommorrow.

login or register to post comments

Responsibility to whom?

Submitted by MartinB on February 25, 2001 - 04:48.

Of course all this comes down to the developer. But to whom is the developer responsible? In the case of a professional, working for a commercial client, the responsibility is to the client, to ensure a positive return on their investment. After all, that's the only reason why they're paying you.

For a commercial client, there is no a priori reason why a page should download quickly, and be accessible. The only justification is that it enables factors like an increase in potential customers, thus sales, thus return on investment. The same goes for 'attractiveness'. If having a site look nice reduces the sales figures, then a (sensible) client's first reaction is to pick up the phone and demand ugliness.

Of course, there are plenty of know-nothing clients out there, who view all this as a fantastic opportunity to be self-indulgent with someone else's (often investors') money, and they can be 'funky' [sic] and have fun spending money with a plethora of creative agencies.

But a responsible developer will wave flags at this, and remind them that 'funky' doesn't in itself have a contribution to bottom-line. Because if you don't, and the site bombs, who are they going to blame (and possibly sue)? You, because "You should have told us".

So yes, user 'rights' are a social construct, which are within the gift of those developing the site. But the point is that in many cases, they must be granted for the vast majority of commercial sites for those sites to provide positive ROI to the client.

login or register to post comments

Vote with your mice

Submitted by gainef on March 6, 2001 - 04:48.

People do indeed vote with their mice each and every day, often this vote will be cast only once and a site may not get a second chance. Users will elect not to return when they cannot find desired information on a site or if the whole thing simply takes too long to load. No matter how wonderfully amazing the designer's creation is, it is effectively useless in the REAL WORLD as it will deter traffic and fail to bring in revenue. Point in case, boo.com.

I also think that the distinction between the content published and the way in which it is presented must be kept in mind. I do not proport to restrain the nature of content that appears on the web - that is in part the wonder and entertainment of the medium. I do think, however, that there standards should exist in relation to the way it is presented as in other media. For example on television, the title and cast of a mainstream television programme usually appears at the start, interrupted by scheduled breaks followed by credits which are usually accompanied by a musical theme. There is character development, a plot and usually a conclusion. This is a commercially successful formula informed by decades of user requirements gathering and user testing. Web Usability tries to impart onto delevopers a sucessful formula for web presentations by illustrating what users will appreciate and use. Headlemur, if designers want to create sites which other designers will marvel and awe at, well then go right ahead but don't expect revenue or traffic from very much any one else.

Some commentators have been disturbed by the use of the word 'rights' in this context. If nothing else, this has been a good way in directing developer's attention to the standards of usable web design.

As for comments like "The vast majority of sites are accessible" well I don't know where to start - maybe another time.

login or register to post comments

Accessible

Submitted by headlemur on March 7, 2001 - 09:26.

Yep! I hang my head in shame. I meant viewable, renderable, something shows up. Certainly not Accessible.

login or register to post comments

The Right Honourable Gentleman for Usershire South

Submitted by gainef on June 19, 2001 - 03:35.

Here's an interesting extract on representing the user in the development of a user experience through user testing. This is from a report by the Communication Research Institute of Australia (CRIA), a non-profit research group that helps organizations improve the user experience.

The paper goes on to explain that usability testing is a form of *politics* -- and that much of improving the user experience comes down to the transfer of political power:

"When you go out [for a usability test] and consult people about something that they're going to have to put up with in the future, and these people have never been asked for their opinion or their advice before, you are engaging in politics. When you bring their opinions back into the decision-making process, what you're actually doing is bringing in a formerly unrepresented constituency to be represented around the table in the decision-making process.

That is not an act of usability testing or research, it's a political act, because you are saying, "Those who have exercised power in this area for some time must now give some of that power to someone else." And of course these things do not happen easily. Power is not something that is relinquished easily. Control is not something that people like to abandon" Thoughts ?

login or register to post comments