I am USER, hear me roar!

Posted on March 12, 2004

in IA/Usability

by Chris Heilmann (codepo8)

Rated 4.32 (Ratings: 18) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in IA/Usability
More articles by codepo8

Chris Heilmann

Member info | Full bio

User since: July 29, 2002

Last login: April 27, 2006

Articles written: 17

Hi there, you want me, I know you do. You got something to sell or you want to be heard, or you want to share. In any case - you need me. To make matters worse, you don't know anything about me.

I could be old, young, boy, girl, man, woman, handicapped or fully abled. I can choose from a great variety of means to use the internet and technology to control it, and you don't stand much chance to know what I use.

The things you do to get me

You try hard to get me, no doubt about that. After all, your income or - in sadder cases - your happiness, depends on it. And to ensure I hear you, you go far. Sometimes you get pushy, and that puts me off. Let me count the ways you can annoy me:

Don't throw things at me!

One thing you seem to think makes a lot of sense is throwing things at me.

Open new windows, cover my viewport in banners, make everything on the page jump at me when I touch it with my mouse or tab to it with my keyboard.

You know what? This is annoying. I didn't ask for it, why do you think I want it when you push harder? I counteract. To avoid wasting my time closing windows, I use popup blockers. To get rid of things that are unrelated to what I was looking for I use web filtering or browser extensions that turn off animation and images of a certain size. Isn't the mere existence of these products hint enough that I may not want to have things shoved in my face? If you need to use a new window for something, make me aware of it. Tell me which links open in a new window, and I know what will happen.

Don't think I am mainly interested in the technology of your site

We are all different. Things that make you go "ouhhhh" might make me go "ewwww" or "zzzzzz".

It is not as common any longer, but there was a time where a web site without a long and amazing flash tunnel was no web site. Thank god that this is over.

Still, there are things you use that are amusing or interesting for the first time, but really bug me when I come back (if you are lucky and I do come back). Don't make me wait for you, don't fade the page or the navigation in and out endlessly. I might not have your fancy and fast computer, which means I wait a lot longer than you, and I don't like waiting, not at all. Time is money. Yes, there are flat rates and I don't pay by the minute any longer, but I still consider my time precious. I am not likely to be impressed by the same thing over and over again. You can impress me for the first time, but please, give me a chance to get rid of that same thing when I come back. Put it somewhere, in a sitemap for example, so, if I'd be inclined to see it again, I can have another look at it. Also, I might not see your fancy thing at all! I might be security aware or paranoid, or my company is, and have all plug-ins and scripting and whatnot turned off. If you still want me, give me another way to reach you.

Don't patronize me

I appreciate that you want the best for me. That is nice. But please don't think that what is best for you, is also best for me. I know what is best for me, I installed my computer or bought my mobile or my TV set top box, and, if possible, chose my browser and the plug-ins I want to have. The plug-ins I might have gotten, because I wanted to reach some content, that was nicely offered to me. Don't think that making your web site look and behave like your operating system gives me the same homely feeling it gives you. I willingly came to see your site, I don't want to change my browser or operating system. Don't block me out, because I am not like you. You like your design; you think it is the best. I might disagree and use my own user style sheet to overwrite all that is out there. Can you still offer me your product or your content? If so, good for us, if not, bad for you.

Don't redecorate my house

I like my browser / surfing device. I chose it, or I got it chosen for me, or I don't have a chance to change it. Don't take it away from me, or I'll be miffed. I like to use the back button, when I think the page I surfed to is not what I wanted. I don't need your page in full screen, if I want that, I can do that myself. Don't take away my toolbars or my ability to right-click or shift click an element. You can't win.

You turn off my back button - I use a keyboard shortcut to go back to the previous document.
You change my browser history to always go back to your page - I disable Javascript
You use a "no right click" script - I disable Javascript

There is no need for us to fight an uneven battle like this. If you give an important document to someone, you don't re-arrange their desk first, do you? Why do you think I want you to change my browser? I like it the way it is, with all my shortcuts, toolbars, sidebars and tabs.

Don't replicate what I already have - and badly at that

I use a browser, and that fabulous thing comes with everything I need: The ability to move around a document via tabbing, scrolling with my mouse wheel or my trackball or via the scrollbars, the ability to enter text and send it off to your server.

I like these controls - a lot! I got used to them, which might have been a long and painful process, so please don't confuse me by changing them to fit your design.

I don't need a DHTML scroller that I cannot use with a keyboard, or that shows no indicator how big the document is. I don't want to search for form fields and buttons and scrollbars - chances are that you are not able to style them properly for my browser anyway.

These are vital elements of my surfing experience, I don't want to think about them, they trigger automated processes in my brain. If you make me look for them, you take my attention away from your content, and that is what you don't want, right?

If I want to print out your page, I do so by pressing the cute printer icon of my browser, or I use my keyboard shortcut, I don't need a link, image or button sending me to that one, a gadget that only works with javascript anyway. If you add a "print this" feature, then please give me a proper print version of the document, with stripped backgrounds, no unnecessary navigation and the inline links as a list of URLs underneath so I can look them up next time I go online.

If I want to bookmark your site, I can do that, no need for you to give me an extra javascript link for that, thanks.

Popups I close almost immediately - no need to add a javascript close button.

And if there is a need for a back button, then your concept of navigation failed, and I am not likely to use it anyways, as my browser comes with a cool back button and keyboard shortcut to go back to the previous document.

So, how can you get me?

There are some things, that have been and are done successfully throughout the years of the internet. The biggest one is the big C - content.

Provide me with the content I want

A web site with the right content can look horrid and be a tad harder to use - I don't care, as I found what I was looking for. The easier to get to the content, the better.

Write plain text and cut it into easily digestible chunks rather than 2 pages of corporate mumbo jumbo before I find the one thing I want.

If it is a download I want, make the download links with version numbers and sizes available from the very beginning, I promise to read on while I download!

Provide me with a clean and fast navigation - give me a sitemap to access everything

Your navigation is what takes me by the hand and leads me through your web site.

Don't make me search for it, don't smother me in links I really don't need at the moment, just make it easy for me to see where I am in your site, and what else is in this section. Keep the navigation on the same spot and looking roughly the same and I feel secure and guided without being pushed. Use the right wording in your navigation, keep it short and simple, I don't need poetry and metaphors in navigation items.

There is normally no need to allow me to go to every page in the site within the main navigation - this'll only mean I need to navigate through a lot of links to find what I want - keep this to the sitemap.

Let me search

I love searching, and a good search feature is perfect if I don't have the time to navigate through your site - this time. Give me a search function that is easy to use and prominently available on each page and I promise to use it and stay a bit.

Make me feel comfortable

Use nice, clean language to help me overcome my original shyness and reluctance to stay long. Use good harmonious colour schemes and imagery to give me a good feeling about your site - don't forget to add alternative content for those, should I not be able to see.

Make sure to keep a nice and consistent look throughout the site.

When there are processes that need more than one step, provide me with an indicator how far I am in the process and allow me to go back any time.

Invite me to participate

Give me options to tweak your content to my desires, allow me to get rid of parts and add others that I am interested in. Tell me what I have looked at before and alert me when there was an update in that section. Offer me related articles or products and greet me when I come back to your page next time. Nothing is better for you and me than me coming back and be reminded of a good experience.

Stay fresh

The home page should not be a static "hello to yaddayaddayadda" page, it has to be a living and changing element of the site that tells me about changes and highlights special features and new content. Only that way I can find the goodies immediately.

Don't cry, I didn't take your toys away

I am aware that your web presence is your baby, and you are proud of it, and you want to make it interesting for you and for me. That is how you ended up using cool technological tricks and web design ideas that are the talk of town at the moment in the first place.

I don't want you to create boring text sites, you can add cool stuff, just make sure to do so in moderation.

Make sure that only those who can access the cool enhancements get them, and that they fall back to a usable HTML construct for everybody. I like nice designs as much as you do, but I still want headlines in my document. I love navigations that have smooth rollovers and effects, but I might need those as lists of links at the same time. Degrade gracefully, as they call it, it is harder to do, but fun to find out how to do it.

Trust me, for I am user, and you want me.

Currently employed in London as a Lead Front End Developer, Chris has been bouncing around the globe working for several agencies and companies. A web enthusiast from 1997 on workplaces include Munich, London, Santa Monica and San Francisco. More of Chris' writings can be found at http://icant.co.uk and he blogs at http://wait-till-i.com

22 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment | Rate this article:

Great reminder!

Submitted by notabene on March 13, 2004 - 05:20.

I like this kind of reminder. It has to be said again and again. This is going to be forwarded to a few clients, I'm sure ;)

I'm sure you must have read Steve Krug's book, Don't Make Me Think, but I felt it was worth mentioning it here as it provides many returns based on experience, and it's amazing how blatantly obvious things seem to be, when shown to us this way.

And We don't think about these things.

Submitted by slholmes on March 15, 2004 - 14:29.

No we don't think about these things. They're all implied and if we don't like what we see instantly, well we just leave. It's not like we just go and grade you. We just don't enough to do this so do it right to begin with. If you want to do tricks, well carve out a section in your site and maybe I'll get there. We also like to search with Goggle - alot. We don't bother to go to your site unless your pages are meaningfull in the short google description. We get really upset when the search terms we use don't actually appear in the content of your pages. Really upset. We never go back and we skip over all the other zillions of places your site shows up on google. Flooding the google search engine is sure fire way to not get us to see your hard work.

Excellent Article

Submitted by skyzyx on March 15, 2004 - 14:41.

This article is absolutely fantastic! It will definitely help me to improve the usability issues in my own site! Thank you so much!

great article

Submitted by branko on March 16, 2004 - 06:02.

Great article.

Now how am I going to show this to my customers without them throwing a fit?

I don't agree with the conclusion, though. You say: 'use the glitz in moderation'. That sounds like it's OK to build a little tunnel, or to only change the mouse pointer a little bit, or to only offer a Print link on half of the elligible pages.

Moderation has got nothing to do with it. Some things you should not do, ever. Other things you should only apply as an add-on, for those who support the technology (images, Flash, JavaScript, etc.). And in the end, if the web site author makes an inaccessible web page, that is fine too. Authors just should not assume to get any visitors. Because in the end, it's the author that has a story to tell. And he or she should use all means deemed necessary. Authors should also be informed, however, that their audience is only going to listen on their own terms; and they should be informed as to what these terms are (such as you outlined in this excellent article).

Excellent!

Submitted by Xanadu on March 17, 2004 - 08:33.

Excellent!

Good article

Submitted by pab29 on April 2, 2004 - 09:56.

I like this article. Its very informative and useful

Amazing Article

Submitted by nainil on April 5, 2004 - 14:19.

Hi,

Your article is really amazing.
I had a chance to read "Design Logic". The link is below.
http://www.freewebmasterhelp.com/articles/logic

A bit far-fetched...

Submitted by richie on April 12, 2004 - 21:15.

While most of this article is reasonable, it overlooks one aspect of web programming today - its increasing complexity.

CSS is recommended by W3C over many HTML tags. If you the user is adamant about keeping your browser the way you've always had it, and refuse to evolve, how am I supposed to incorporate W3C's recommendations when your browser doesn't support these new features?

It's easy to say that web designers need to support all browsers, and every version too. But that is becoming increasingly difficult. The designer's work suddenly grows ten fold, just trying to make everybody happy.

Take for example a user that disables javascript, cookies, and is behind the times in CSS support. How many websites can such a user use today before getting a notification page for browser upgrade? Only major websites with unlimited resources to devote to cross-browser coding can handle such backward users. Unfortunately, such sites are few and far between.

The bottomline is, if I feel that visitors to my website still using screwball browsers are a tiny fraction of the majority, I may very well just ignore them and use features I otherwise couldn't use.

ESPN is leading the way in embracing new web technology and shutting out browsers that don't support the new features. Sooner or later, other sites will follow suite, making people change their old browsing ways.

Not the point

Submitted by codepo8 on April 12, 2004 - 22:38.

Richie, the point is not making the web site behave and look the same way for each browser, this is totally counterproductive web development. A user that has a browser with bad CSS support and JS and cookies turned off should get a plain vanilla HTML document, headlines, paragraphs and lists, and be happy with that. By adding gradually (use @import to avoid bad CSS browsers getting a stylesheet, check for DOM before applying CSS, have backend functionality to create the same behaviour as the javascripr used) you make all happy. Webdev is complex, agreed, but I'd rather know how to give older browsers a lowest common functionality than patronise my users to upgrade, in a lot of cases, they can't or even don't know.

simplistic view

Submitted by richie on April 13, 2004 - 08:43.

codepo8, the web is moving away from plain newsgroup style of presenting info, to a medium of live interaction. If all that my site does is present info, then yes I can accomodate everybody. But in today's world of complex web apps, those diehard users stuck in a time warp would be left out. Here is an example. On my site, I needed a 1-on-1 chat system to enable my visitors to interact with one another. I created it using php/mysql/javascript/css/dhtml. Now tell me how I could accomodate a user that has javascript turned off. I don't have $20,000 to hire a flash or java programmer to create such a custom app. So, as far as I'm concerned, if a user's browser doesn't support javascript/css, the user doesn't get to chat, period.

re:simplistic view

Submitted by codepo8 on April 13, 2004 - 09:01.

If you need a 1 to 1 chat system, then you don't particularily talk about a web site, you talk about an app in a web site, other rules apply. Users participating in that will be OK with needing certain browser extensions, granted the chat is interesting enough.

Again, as the user, I choose to participate or not. If I have to upgrade my browser for that, I might do it.

You go outside the scope of a web document, hence you don't need to cater all, on the other hand you should not be surprised if not too many use it.

Please also consider that some users are not "stuck in time warp" by chance, they simply can't or don't know how to move on.

Our "world of complex web apps" is in a lot of cases just the choice of the wrong medium. I can put HTML on steroids and make it behave like an app, but I do sacrifice users by doing so, that is the price. Most probably another technology like flash might make more sense, as it tells the user that there is something more to expect than simple HTML.

apples and oranges, hammers and nails

Submitted by branko on April 13, 2004 - 09:09.

Richie,

As they say, if all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The web was built for a purpose; in theory, it fulfills that purpose to a T. If anything, it has fulfilled that purpose a little too well: every netizen with an idea of which internet service would really take off, tries to implement the idea using a website. And, like you, starts complaining where the web obviously breaks down, and starts blaming others, preferably users.

Luckily for users, they've got the ultimate choice in the matter. They don't have to visit your website. If the extra service you offer by piggybacking onto web technologies incites enough visitors to use your service, good for you! Your disdain for all the other users is unwarranted, though. Users have got the final say-so, not you. The old-media idea of coercing users into a certain mode of usage won't wash in this space.

Oh, and I have seen chat channels on websites that were implemented without JavaScript or CSS, but that's beside the point. It worked only reasonably well, but that is to be expected, of course, from a technology that tries to mimick an exisiting internet service like IRC. The stand-alone service is going to win out anytime.

I agree, but not totally

Submitted by richie on April 13, 2004 - 11:27.

branko, The web was designed for a purpose, but it is evolving into other uses. You can't change that.

I'm interested in knowing the chat app that doesn't use javascript/css. I may adopt that if it's a 1-on-1 type chat, doesn't require me to learn a new programming language, allows unlimited users, and fits within my price range. Also, it must not require the user to install anything besides his browser. I'm really interested in seeing that.

codepo8, the excuse of not knowing how to move on is lame. How about asking somebody who knows. For those who can't upgrade their browsers, e.g. at work, my guess would be that they do not need it for their work.

Users have a choice of not visiting my site. But like I've said before, if such users are a tiny fraction of my visitors as revealed by my weblogs, then I'd forgo losing them.

It's like going to a hotel bare-footed and without a shirt. You won't get served. Yes we want your money, but you also have certain responsibilities..

No javascript

Submitted by codepo8 on April 13, 2004 - 11:54.

Banks and financial companies often have proxies that filter out Javascript or turn it off for security reasons and I suppose they do use them for their job.

How can you see the users you lose in your logs? That is not very logical.

Have you ever worked with complete computer newbies or people that came to computers late in their lives? Every change in the OS or the browser is a mystery and frightening to them.

But again, you don't need to cater everybody, but it is because of their choice not yours.

Older versions of CGI::IRC didn't have any Javascript, they simply refreshed a frame, which was a pain to use, I guess this was meant by the chat app.

MUD

Submitted by branko on April 13, 2004 - 12:03.

Actually, it was a MUD that had a webinterface, but a chat would work the same. I cannot remember what the MUD was called, though.

The idea was that all the past text (or a selection thereof) would be displayed as HTML text, and the same page would also contain a form field for entering text.

Something like:

<form method="post" action="chat.php">
<input name="text">
<?php
$lines = read_buffer();
$cc = count($lines);
$lines[$cc] = $_GET['text'];
save_buffer($lines);
$cc++;
for ($i=0; $i  
  login or register to post comments

...

Submitted by richie on April 13, 2004 - 13:27.

I recommend this thread:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum100/18.htm

codepo8 : I can see users who can't use my site by reading the headers they sent to my webserver. Complete computer newbies need to ask for help, just as I need help when my car acts up. If a business turns off javascript for security reasons, my point it that the workers should not be surfing on a site that requires javascript. They can do so on their own time.

CGI::IRC? Wouldn't I have to learn CGI for that in order to get it to mesh with my website? I don't wanna learn cgi, as I already have php. Anyway, I'll check it out, but we're drifting away from the main topic, which is that at some point, a web programmer is forced to draw the line.

branko: Having different versions of your site or part of it is extremely demanding. I wouldn't consider your idea because it would require refreshing. My current version uses javascript to write info from hidden frames into visible frames, and also to gather data from form fields and send it to scripts in hidden frames for processing. This gives a clean chat interface without refreshing.

At the end of the day, what a webmaser includes or bypasses on his site is a matter of opinion. This kind of topic quickly leads to an impasse. No matter what you say, the other side will always come back with a counter point. So, goodluck to everybody.

Actually this is a fruitless discussion

Submitted by codepo8 on April 13, 2004 - 14:05.

And I won't participate any longer. Fact is that the user owns you still, hence if you use something that is very sophisticated, you will have less users. Fact is also that, depending on how interesting the extra functionality is, that is not much of a problem, and may even get users to upgrade/install things. But you cannot rely on it, neither should you make it available to them. This means that a functionality that requires flash or javascript should only be an option when you have them enabled/installed, something that can be easily done via DOM and/or replacement content in the object tag.

Yep

Submitted by henrik_m on May 19, 2004 - 03:32.

Good one

Henrik

ADMIN-EDIT: Please stop spamming the comments with links to your web site hidden in the text, thank you.

meow

Submitted by sardonyx on June 14, 2004 - 23:46.

i am a user too and i have my own set of standards when using the internet. so hear me... meow!

Start of page header

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Submit

Recent comments