Unusable Web
November 29, 2003 | 
22 Comments
The Web can be a scary place. There is so much information, so many pages and so many voices it’s a wonder how we, both as users and builders, keep it all straight.
Over the last few weeks I’ve been keeping an eye on how much I use the Web and what I use it for aside from “working.” I don’t have any hard and fast numbers to present but it seems to break down a bit like this:
I spend approximately 10-12 hours a week (outside of building pages, getting e-mail, testing, etc.) using the Web.
- 70% of my time is spent searching for information. This includes google searches as well as trying to find things on sites like contact information or an answer to a question or problem.
- 15% of my time is spent reading or using that information.
- 10% of my time is spent taking care of tasks. This includes shopping, banking and things like that.
- 5% of my time is spent entertaining myself. I’m talking about playing games, watching trailers, listening to music and other fun stuff.
So, I spend way too much time on the Web as it is, and 70% is spent just facilitating what I really want to do. Why?
Because much of the Web is unusable.
I have a passion for Web design. I think the Web is an exciting place and a great resource for many facets of my life. However, there are many other things I’d rather be doing than sitting at a computer using the Web. Imagine how a “typical” user feels.
I don’t remember where I heard or read it, but someone out there compared the Web to sex. Good sex for the Web would be hard and fast, no foreplay needed. Get in, get off. I feel pretty much the same way when it comes to my daily use of the Web.
(Author’s note: A few folks had a problem with this Sex analogy. For some reason using sex to illustrate the fact that people like to get on to the Web, get their information or take care of their tasks quickly, is either offensive or hard to grasp. I’m not changing it — I think it’s a good analogy which I wrote with no intention to offend. I think it illustrates my point well and that all it was intended to do. I respect your opinion and feelings if it bothers you, that is why I’ve acknowledged it, but please, I ask that you try to take it as it was intended and try not to attach hidden meanings or make a bigger deal out of it that it deserves.)
I really wish I could spend less time (and less brain power) searching for things, dealing with over-designed and over-engineered sites, backtracking out of dead ends, etc.
The vast majority of sites I come across have some very easy to fix problems. While I do have some usability experience, and have had quite a bit of “face time” with users, I’m not a usability expert by any stretch. What I am is a user of Web sites myself and a good observer who has seen quite a bit of actual user frustration. Here are some things almost every “business” site could do to make their site easier for me, as well as your “typical” user, to use.
- Title your pages properly. If everyone did this it would be much, much easier to find things via Google, etc. Learn more…
- Make your homepage more like a site map and less like a poster. Your homepage needs to provide me with a way to drill into your site. I don’t give a crap about your marketing stuff most of the time. If you think marketing goals and users goals can’t live together in harmony, you’re not thinking hard enough. Learn more…
- Speed doesn’t kill. I’ve got a short attention span and it’s getting shorter every day (I blame the Web for this — oh the irony). If your pages don’t load, I’m not waiting around. Learn more…
- Blend form and function. I like sites that look good and are usable at the same time. Thing is there are too many sites out there that are not only a pain to use, they’re a pain to look at. Ugly doesn’t equal usable.
- Optimize your words. If you have nothing to say, remove the fluff and the pages associated with them. Keep your writing as short as possible, but don’t skimp on important details. Learn more…
- Be careful with a redesign. If your are going to redesign, make sure you do it right. Talk with your users and make sure they’ll benefit from it. If you do make changes that don’t involve a full redesign, it’s best to do them a little at a time to give folks a chance to get used to them. Learn more…
- Don’t get too clever. If you want to get creative, do it on your own time. Personal, entertainment, art and experimental sites are good for this, express yourself there, or on a Web log.
- Avoid All Flash. Unless you’re using Flash for entertainment you’re probably (there are exceptions) better off without it at this point in time. If you need to use it (and I know there are times when you are forced to go with Flash) try and keep it to what you need it for and keep the rest HTML.
- Don’t launch new windows unless there is a very good reason to do so. Learn more…
- If it’s not HTML, let me know. Tell me when you’re linking to a PDF.
- Make your contact information easy to find. If your a business, don’t hide your phone number. Chances are I can’t find what I want on your site and will need to call you for support.
- Keep forms as simple as possible. Don’t ask me to fill out a long form with information you’re not going to use. I won’t do it. Learn more…
- Respect my privacy.
- Don’t assume anything. Test your sites, check your information, don’t blindly follow rules or believe everything you read (including this). Every site has particular needs and goals and there are exceptions everywhere.
- Last but not least — get to know me and your other users. If you don’t we’ll find someone who will. Learn more…
I’ve said most of this before, but as Jack White sings, “…it bares repeating now!”
Filed under: IA and Usability
Comments
1. ste said:
A lot of great points - I might add another that most (non-personal) sites should keep in mind:
“Lose the widgets unless absolutely necessary. Chances are the only users using them are the ones who created them.”
About the only site where I find the personalization features useful is Amazon, and that’s because they make it easier to spend my money.
I chuckled when I read the one about ugly sites. (“Ugly doesn’t equal usable.”) Were you perchance thinking of Jakob Neilsen’s site when you wrote that one? ;)
Posted on November 29, 2003 01:26 PM | #
2. Keith said:
Good point, Ste, however you comment makes want to reiterate that one should never assume something about what users use or not or what they do or don’t do.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I just want to make an important point.
You might be right, and based on lots of study there are some general guidelines (but no rules) one can follow like what I’ve listed here and many more, but nothing should take the place of getting to know your users and having them tell you what they use or don’t use.
I guess I just want to be clear that while these are things that I notice in my use of sites and user testing with people on my sites – they may not all be right for every site out there. My guess it they would be in most cases but it’s very important to get to know and observe your users and then decide based on the goals of your particular site.
As you say, Amazon makes great use of personalization. I like it and it does help me spend money on thier site. I imagine other sites could benefit from that as well, but it needs to be done right and needs to match the goals they’ve laid out for the site as well as the goals of their users.
Unfortunately “chances are”, even if it might be right, really shouldn’t be enough to make a design decision on with lots of things (your point could be an exception – I feel you should always nail the basics first before taking on “widgets” or extra and they usually aren’t central to a sites goals anyway) and assuming users are going to act or work in a certain way is all too often what leads to bad design decisions.
It seems like this is a common problem on many Web teams.
“Oh, user will do X…” or “Our users don’t like B…” are phrases that should only be uttered after you have user data to back them up. Otherwise chances are (if you’ll pardon the expression) you’ll be wrong.
Posted on November 29, 2003 04:15 PM | #
3. Lynn said:
Great post Keith. I like how you added links to more indpeth information and how you refrain from preaching as much as you can. ;)
I do have a question, and I hope this doesn’t sound negative, because it’s not.
Could you give an example of an “bad design decision”? I know what you mean, and I’ve seen it myself, but it might be good to have you illustrate a story about one. How it was resolved and what were the ramifications and all that.
Thanks…I’m bookmarking this.
Posted on November 29, 2003 04:30 PM | #
4. Keith said:
Thanks for the kind words Lynn and of course I have some stories of bad design decisions I can share. Heaven knows I’ve made enough. Anyway, great idea.
What I’ll do is do that in a sperate post. That way I can keep this discussion more on topic and that way others can get in and share their own stories.
Look for that soon.
Posted on November 29, 2003 04:47 PM | #
5. Christian said:
Nice article Keith. I intend to post something a little more salient, but in the meantime, I had to point out one of the few brilliant uses of Flash that I’ve seen on the web. Classic! (Hat tip: Good Experience).
Posted on November 29, 2003 06:26 PM | #
6. dez said:
As always thanks for the good advice. While reading your post I had a call from my cousin who was having a hell of a time looking up a course on the website of the Uni I work at. They “re-designed” the site a couple of years ago at the same time as they moved to a new admin database system. Despite a detailed consultation process, on both the site and the new system, the powers that be ignored everyone and it’s cost $10 million to fix all the admin problems (estimated figure). One of my colleagues participates in a working party that tried to tackle the site’s problems. They were ignored once again and the site still sucks. We also started talking about how the two main telecommunications companies here in OZ, who are also major ISPs, have the most unsable sites we’ve come across, second only to my Uni. What do these jokers spend their money on?
Posted on November 29, 2003 08:39 PM | #
7. Moose said:
“I’ve got a short attention span and it’s getting shorter every day (I blame the Web for this oh the irony).”
Fortunately, not all target audiences share this property. There are types of sites where users spend hours on end in one go, and visit repeatedly if they are time constrained at first visit. These sites are not written with users of short attention span in mind, and that is unrelated to how well or badly these sites are designed.
If I visit the Swedish Book Review’s online counterpart to the quarterly, or scientific sites, I don’t expect to get one-liners, or even a couple or triple of paragraphs. I’m actually looking for the longest passages I can find on the topic that is of vital interest to me. Users such as I have totally different needs than you, as you can imagine. It all depends on the target audience.
Commercial and news sites are extremely popular, and I am not surprised that advices fly all around on the specifics of design for hit and run visitors. I just wonder why and whence all thus universality of must/should/mustn’t/don’t. Everywhere I turn nowadays, I see “verboten” signs. Sadly.
M.
Posted on November 29, 2003 09:52 PM | #
8. Roger said:
Lots of very good points. Here are some more:
Don’t lock out visitors
Avoid frames
Stay away from DHTML menus
Don’t require registration
Posted on November 30, 2003 06:24 AM | #
9. Patrick Griffiths said:
Good points. And concise - very usable!
Personally, I think usability is the single most important factor of web design. Unfortunately too many people seem to stick their noses up at it. Usability doesn’t necessarily have to result in something as plain as useit.com - there’s no need to compromise design for usability, it’s just another thing to think about and there are so many easy things that can be implemented, such as those points you mention.
Posted on November 30, 2003 07:59 AM | #
10. Rick said:
Moose, sure, you can have a lot of info on a page, just make sure that the actual page doesn’t take more than 20 seconds to load. That’s what I think is meant by the impatience. You want the information, and you want it now, not in 20 seconds.
Posted on November 30, 2003 08:31 PM | #
11. Christian said:
Keith, your comments about the dangers of web developers assuming what users will do on a site made me think about a recent article I read suggesting a number of shortcomings in the traditional usability testing methodology. Namely, that by creating a script for users to follow, you are assuming that you know the major tasks they want to perform on your site and thus you are limiting your testing to cover these assumptions.
It’s certainly an interesting take–I wonder what other people think about ‘listening labs’ and whether anyone has tried them out?
Posted on November 30, 2003 09:35 PM | #
12. Christian said:
Oh, and to Lynn’s comment about bad design decisions… well, I think I found one: I give you the Official Page of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Ain’t it a beaut?
Posted on November 30, 2003 09:39 PM | #
13. Marc said:
Good article - even if the article itself falls victim to some very simple usability problems.
“Learn more” is right up there with “click here” in terms of usability. List’s are good, but why not make the keywords in each section the link so i could scan it easily without being drawn to the masses of “learn more” links…
Just a thought.
Posted on December 1, 2003 12:18 PM | #
14. Keith said:
Everyone’s a critic, eh Marc? :0)
But you’re probably right, and I thought someone might mention that. I didn’t put a whole lot of thought into that, but I did put some into is and rejected the idea you mention simply because many of the articles don’t quite match up with the keywords I could link them to.
Those links were added after the post was written because I felt they were good “related item” resources. To me linking text to something that doesn’t actually describe what is behind that link is a no-no. Rather than rewriting those points to facilitate a link, I just added “Learn more…”
Probably not the most usable solution, you’re right. “Learn more…” doesn’t really tell the user anything either. I knew this, but right then I didn’t have time to put any more thought into it.
In any case I’ll give it some more thought and try and see if I can’t come up with something better.
Posted on December 1, 2003 01:07 PM | #
15. Marc said:
Commenting on these things, I feel like one of the two old guys from the muppets.
The fact is if we all personally practised everything we preached (on usability and accessibility) then articles like this would have no reason to exist.
That I found your article during my surf online at work in little old New Zealand, read it, commented - and had a reply all in the same morning without opening up my inbox once - that is highly usable in my book.
Posted on December 1, 2003 06:46 PM | #
16. The Scholar said:
Excellent post Keith. Here were my thoughts on the whole situation and how the web could be done just a little bit easier:
finding information on the web
I think the major problem is designers who are given high profile sites that really don’t care about the designs that they are doing. If most personal designers were given these jobs, the web would definitely be a better place.
Posted on December 3, 2003 06:37 PM | #
17. Anita Kay said:
“Good sex for the Web would be hard and fast, no foreplay needed. Get in, get off.”????
Not my idea of good sex, could you keep in mind you are writing for a wider audience - not just men? thanks -
Posted on February 25, 2004 08:32 AM | #
18. Keith said:
Anita, I hope your not offended. I fully respect your views, and my view of good sex is much different than that as well but…
Did you read the post? “Good sex for THE WEB…” It’s an analogy. One that has very little to do with real sex and is used for the purposes of illustrating my point. It really it should make no difference what gender or sexual preference the reader has.
I wasn’t saying “The Web is like good sex, which is hard and fast….”
Please read before you commment.
Posted on February 25, 2004 03:35 PM | #
19. Jennifer said:
Hmm, and what exactly is sex for the web?? Sorry to comment on a trivial point that is not important to the article, but I was thinking about commenting on the analogy too before Anita did. Saying the web is like sex for the web is like saying an airplane is like food for the airplane. Or something. :)
Posted on February 27, 2004 11:57 AM | #
20. Keith said:
Argh. Jennifer. “Saying the Web is like sex for the Web?” That isn’t what I said. If that is what I’d said I agree it’d be pretty silly.
Damit people - READ THE POST. I didn’t say the Web is like sex. Not at all.
I was trying to illustrate a point using sex as an analogy. For crying out loud is it that hard of a leap? People like to get onto the Web, get their information or whatever and get off. Kind of like people who are into hard and fast sex.
Maybe it’s a stupid analogy, but, please, before you knock it – read it and try and understand it. All the comments I’ve heard about this (and there have been a few over email) have said that I’m comparing the Web to sex. I’m not. Read what I wrote. I’m comparing the Web to a person having sex if anything.
My intention was never to compare the Web to sex. The Web is many things, but if it’s anything it’s much closer to a noun than a verb.
Posted on February 27, 2004 12:21 PM | #
21. Merrell Ligons said:
Kieth I agree with you analagy. Although I consider myself a lover, when It comes to the web I want to get on, find what I need then get on with the rest of my life. I’ve been developing sites for over 5 years. I have a wife and two kids that have gotten the shaft because It takes me hours to find out how to add an event to outlook from a web page.
Posted on June 9, 2004 02:49 PM | #
22. Denis said:
Keith, I agree with your points you raised but feel there are too many rules/standards.
rule,rules rules…do this, dont do that.
Just think who you wish to target. If I am selling animated icons, then my site is going to look like crap for most people as it will be filled with all sorts of different, ugly colours, non stop irritating blinking icons… but should I care. I don’t think so. This applies to flash or anything for that matter.
Posted on June 15, 2004 01:36 AM | #
Comments are now closed