Posted via email from What’s this for?

Posted via email from What’s this for?

But, the worst part of the process for me was at the payments stage. When asked to submit my credit card details, I automatically hunt out the sure signs of a secure payment system — basic stuff such as a https in the URL bar and a padlock icon appearing. I saw neither in this case. Ok, it’s possible that the secure part of the site was buried in a frame, so I right-clicked to get a context-sensitive menu on the form hoping that this might reveal some information. It didn’t, so I quickly cancelled my sign-up.

I contacted the City Lit the next day and they assured me that the process is completely secure. This is what they had to say:

Thank you for your observation and be assured we take online card security very seriously. You will be comforted to know that Netbanx collects card payments on our behalf in a secure and PCI compliant environment. PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) is a world-wide benchmark mandated by the card schemes for the protection of cardholder identity and transaction information. Netbanx is a reputable company that was founded in 1996 and was the UK’s first payment service provider . We have been using their services since July 2006 without incident … Please be reassured that whilst the padlock does not appear, the payment window within the online enrolment window is secure with 128 bit encryption.

The first part of this sentence doesn’t mean much to me not being a security specialist. However, whilst I’m reassured that they do take security seriously, I’m concerned that the user receives no information or feedback as to the level of site security.

Now, I haven’t got any screen shots to back this up  – and can’t get any without going through the process again — so I’m prepared to admit I may have missed something, although I did examine the page in-depth. Some clear, explanatory text would have set my mind, and presumably others’, at rest — if you take pride in the level of security you offer, then let your users know (maybe skip the bit about PCI DSS though!).

Posted via email from What’s this for?

I would have preferred to have had some way of navigating through the information on the splash image — for instance, some carousel-style controls or something along the lines of the BBC home page:

On the BBC home page, there are clear controls to change the splash image — they even tell you what you’ll expect to see.

The problem with the Tate approach is that each image displays for about five seconds. I counted six images, so that’s thirty seconds you need to wait if you want to take another look at something that caught your eye. One sure way to frustrate your users.

I really like this approach — summarising the new features in a lightweight overlay with two clear headings: one announcing the new drag and drop functionality relating to labels and messages, and the second answering the question, “where did all my labels go?”. If you’re left in any doubt, the two diagrams nicely sum things up. There’s some clear calls to action in there too — the “Ok” dismisses the overlay and the “Manage labels link” allows you to decide for yourself which labels you want to appear on the left.

The functionality itself is quite interesting — it’s the closest Gmail has come so far to emulating the traditional folder set up found in many email clients. If you drag a message, it gets assigned a label and automatically archived, so it doesn’t appear in the main inbox. Gmail’s lack of folders has never personally bothered me; in fact I tend to find that using folders is quite often a short-cut to losing mail. Still, it’s quite useful when it comes to things like mailing lists which can quickly overwhelm your inbox.

A valid drop target is indicated via the label name becoming highlighted in inverse, e.g. white text on a blue background which is pretty intuitive. The tool-tip, “Move x conversation[s]” also changes colour to match. It’s less obvious when you choose an invalid target — in fact you get no feedback other than nothing apparent happening:

A valid drop target in Gmail.

An invalid drop target

Last week I got hold of Designing Web Interfaces by Bill Scott and Theresa Neil. They’ve published all their examples on Flickr which is a handy reference.

On Tuesday I checked out some of the buzz from the SXSW interactive awards. Lost Zombies was terrific fun — a project to build a Zombie documentary / drama via a community (what’s with Zombies at the moment? People love them — check out Survive the Outbreak too). Anyway, this is a really interesting idea, although one I imagine which might end up looking a bit like the film in Son of Rambow when the entire school starts to get involved if the producers aren’t too careful.

We Tell Stories, another winner from SXSW is a digital fiction site produced by Penguin. I love the idea of things like this, although there is a tendency for any kind of hypertext fiction to go down the “Fighting Fantasy” books route. If you’re too young to know what I’m talking about or were too busy talking to girls in the mid-Eighties, these books were adventures in which you got to make a choice of what you wanted to do at key points in the story (if you decide the kill the evil witch of Swqkssx then go to page 100 etc.).

On Wednesday I learned why the Japanese don’t like the iPhone (too basic for very sophisticated mobile users apparently, well, amongst other reasons). Moving forward to Friday I got back into serious Web Development land and started enjoying the wonders of CSS border radius (Firefox and Webkit only, naturally). You might notice a couple of rounded borders on this site, although I tried not to go too mad, difficult though it was. Also, I checked out a couple more typography and grid layouts site. Because you can never have too much of that kind of thing can you?

Saturday’s link was a only child and came courtesy of Twitter in response to me pimping my post about useful usability sites I’ve been looking at recently: Johnny Holland: it’s all about usability. A site “exploring the interactions of experience design” no less. All articles are written in the voice of the eponymous Johnny, so there you go. One I will be dipping into I should imagine.

So that’s it for this week. As always, these links are brought to you via the Internet and my Delicious bookmarks.

With that in mind I started doing a bit more research and last year I started a course in User Interface Design and Evaluation which has been a great introduction to the field of HCI and usability. I’m hoping that with the knowledge and experience I’ve built up, I’ll be able to refine my career more in the direction of interaction design and usability.

But, this got me thinking — how easy is it to change tack in the Web industry? Back in the 90s it was more fluid before things got a bit more professionalised. Now roles are a bit more clearly defined: you’ve got a whole range of job titles from information architect to designer and developer, each with their own knowledge, skills and training requirements. How easy is it to move between these different disciplines?

With this in mind, I posted to IxDA to get the view of the professionals. I got some very useful responses, some on-list, some off. All the responses were encouraging — some people thought education was more important that others, but no-one was saying, “MSc in HCI or forget it”. Some people had been in the same boat as me and made the transition. What came out was yes, it is possible to make this transition — but you’ve got to work at it. In a nice bit of serendipity I came across a recently-recorded Podcast produced by UIE called “Transitioning to IxD and Usability” where a Web Developer was asking exactly the same question.

I’ve summarised a few points from the respondents to my question and this podcast which might be of interest to others in a similar situation:

• Apply your knowledge in your existing post — this may depend on how supportive your employer is (I’d say I’m lucky in that my employer is reasonably supportive about this and I’m already involved in some usability projects).
• In terms of new roles, consider one which is a “hybrid” between your current role and the direction you’d like to move into.
• In smaller companies, such as start ups or in Agile teams there may be more opportunity to combine different skills.
• Coming from a development background puts you in good stead for communicating design ideas to developers and also you’ll understand the kinds of problems they experience
• Read and learn! There are a lot of useful books, sites, blogs and podcasts out there (c.f. my post on 8 interaction design and usability sites).
• You are what you say you are: you may be the most knowledgeable person in the room about usability! Think about how you market yourself.
• And my favourite from the UIE podcast: it helps if you dress in black, wear Buddy Holly glasses and complain about the usability flaws in every system you come across!

I’m going to continue to research this matter, time permitting. I’d love to hear the views of some more employers on this. If I manage to get any I’ll publish a follow-up post!

The rationale is understandable: IE6 is eight years old and is the bain of designers’ and developers’ lives. We’ve had to produce workarounds for IE6 to achieve the same effects that are easy in other browsers, or have had to hold back on providing functionality because IE6 users wouldn’t be able to use it. Take a look at your stats package and you’ll probably find that the number of IE6 numbers is rapidly decreasing.

So, fair enough then. Let the users know they’re using an old browser, encourage them to upgrade it and we can all move on?

I’m in two minds about this. The developer part of me thinks, great, yes, we really shouldn’t be being held back by the Browser That Refuses To Die and, as long as the upgrade messages are displayed sensitively no-one’s going to be too put out. Plus, browsers are pretty easy to download and install, even for the more technically-challenged. But, the user-centred-designer part of me is a little concerned. Should we be telling our users what they can and can’t use to access our sites, just because we don’t like working with a certain browser? Remember, the Web is for users, not for developers.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that: the majority of users don’t care which browser they use, some may not be sure what a browser is (”it’s just the Internet, right?”), some may not have the first clue how to upgrade but more often, they have no control over it — think especially of users in large organisations who have no option but to use the provided software. IE6 is still prevalent in many larger organisations for a number of reasons, including institutional inertia when it comes to upgrading software, or organisational priorities or policies. Should these users be discriminated against? I’m not sure.

So, how should the IE6 problem be dealt with? Progressive enhancement might be an option whereby you provide a base experience for all users, and a richer one for those running newer browsers. But, how do you define what your base experience should be? It used to be about making the information accessible — remember when we moved to @import statements for CSS so Netscape 4.7 users just got a plain page? They could still read it, although it didn’t look great. Web apps muddy the water — they’re not just about providing information, but a more interactive experience.

I think this is a tricky area. Personally, I’m not going to lament the demise of IE6 and would like to see it crawl off to die as soon as possible, but I don’t think I can impose my preferences on other users. What do you think? Is the Norwegian approach right? Or, should we be trying to support IE6 as long as our stats show a reasonable percentage of people are using it (over 5, 10%?) or give IE6 users a cut-down version of our site?