Is Web getting More/less usable?
Douglyss Giuliana
Over the past few years, has the Web been getting more usable or less
usable? Browsers have improved greatly. True HTML tools exist. People
have more experience with HTML. But has usability improved? Have the
single-really-long-page sites disappeared? Is navigation more clear? Or
is the web still full of useless graphics, poorly-designed navigation, and
amatuer interfaces?
I'd like to hear everyone's two cents.
Doug Giuliana
Edgewater Technology
Jorn Barger
Douglyss Giuliana <dgiu...@edgewater.com> wrote:
> Over the past few years, has the Web been getting more usable or less
> usable?
Much more.
> Browsers have improved greatly.
Not so much in terms of ease of use.
> True HTML tools exist.
This is an advantage for the author, not the reader.
> People have more experience with HTML.
I don't think this is critical-- hypertext design is, though.
> But has usability improved? Have the
> single-really-long-page sites disappeared?
I don't remember many of those. I'm waiting for the many-one-paragraph-
pages-in-a-row sites to merge those short pages into
one-page-per-article.
> Is navigation more clear?
Yes.
>Or
> is the web still full of useless graphics, poorly-designed navigation, and
> amatuer interfaces?
There's still lots of awful sites. Microsoft and Apple, for example.
But there's lots of good sites now. My Excite is very well done. IMDB
is superb. The informal network of Frontier newspages/weblogs is a
great step forward. SJ Mercury's breaking-news page is good. NewsHub
is good. Salon is okay. DejaNews is okay. Yahoo TV is good.
Web-based BBS's have standardised pretty reasonably. eBay works well.
Science Daily works well. The Village Voice works well. The various
webcam sites have their system worked out fine. CNN improved things a
lot a week or two back.
Pointers to most of these can be found via my weblog (see sig).
j
--
I EDIT THE NET: <URL:http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/html/weblogs/weblog.html>
"In human stupidity, when it is not malicious, there is something very
touching, even beautiful... There always is." --Leo Tolstoy
Gunter Dubrau
Douglyss Giuliana wrote:
> Browsers have improved greatly.
No, except of the bookmark function.
> True HTML tools exist.
True HTML tools exist if you can work with it like with ToolBook and its
Script language (years ago). I will go today to the Asymetrix site ... arrgh,
it is quite expensive.
> People have more experience with HTML. But has usability improved?
Yes, but there are still some function under HTML with spoil usability, for
instance the definition of check boxes. Only the little graphic symbol is
mouse sensitiv (?clickable?), but not the label. Another example is the
neglect of the input channel "keybord". You can only browse with it using the
tab key. There is no possibility to define under HTML short cuts like Alt-S
for the link or button "search".
> Have the single-really-long-page sites disappeared?
No.
> Is navigation more clear?
Sometimes.
> Or is the web still full of useless graphics, poorly-designed navigation,
> and
> amatuer interfaces?
Such sites will be never overcome, and why it should be?
> I'd like to hear everyone's two cents.
This was my two cents.
Gruss, Gunter Dubrau.
--> Softwareergonomie-Beratung.
Dan Strychalski
Gunter Dubrau (gunter...@mms-dresden.telekom.de) wrote --
> Yes, but there are still some function under HTML with spoil usability,
> for instance the definition of check boxes. Only the little graphic
> symbol is mouse sensitiv (?clickable?), but not the label. Another
> example is the neglect of the input channel "keybord". You can only
> browse with it using the tab key. There is no possibility to define
> under HTML short cuts like Alt-S for the link or button "search".
The Alt key is specific to IBM-type x86-based microcomputers. HTML is
designed to work with all computers. The W3C doesn't play favorites. In
any event, keystroke definitions are entirely up to the browser, and with
a good browser, not only do you never need a mouse, you can do without
dedicated arrow, function, paging, editing, and number-pad keys -- even
without Tab and Return/Enter (you can use them, but you don't *need*
them). Try some other browsers; it ought to be quite an eye-opener.
Dan Strychalski dski at cameonet, cameo, com, tw (no _x_)
da...@testnow.com
> Over the past few years, has the Web been getting more usable or less
> usable? Browsers have improved greatly. True HTML tools exist. People
> have more experience with HTML. But has usability improved? Have the
> single-really-long-page sites disappeared? Is navigation more clear? Or
> is the web still full of useless graphics, poorly-designed navigation, and
> amatuer interfaces?
At TestNow we have been doing website testing for over a year, and we have
not noticed a substantial change in overall usability perceptions. Although
more tools are available now for improving usability, there are also more
places for designers to make mistakes. I think each evolution of the web
includes both opportunity and risk. As websites become more like
applications, users will expect certain things based on their past
experiences, and designers will only be able to violate those expectations
with tremendous care.
We did a website usability test recently for a website that had a fairly
lengthy form for users to fill out. The designer had incorporated a
marvelous element to indicate the progress of completion. This is a concept
that users generally have a good deal of experience with in applications, and
the element was very successful. The particular implementation of the
element would not have been possible two years ago, so I see this as a good
example of usability progress on the web. On the other hand, frames are a
classic example of a tool that had the potential to aid overall usability,
but through widespread misuse acquired a reputation for screwing things up.
I think it all comes down to the designers. It is tremendously difficult for
a tool to enforce usability principles, so the question is "Have web
designers become any more cognizant of or experienced in usability in the
last few years?" Unfortunately, I don't think so, but there are signs of hope
for the future...
Dave Shackleton
Tes>
<input type=
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
m...@pmsmicado.com
Doug,
It seems very difficult to find _one_ answer to your questions. An estimation
of a degree of usability depends heavily upon the task one wants to support
by providing a website.
Concerning entertainment/surface/UI, it's my impression that there seems to be
some sort of learning curve, the designers are going through to the positive
direction. At least some sites seem to be more streamlined according to the
technology at hand on the consumers side.
Referring to content/information, one cannot see too much improvements.
Everything is put to the Net. Only few seem to think about the process of
finding specific infos. Those few who do take care on this subject provide the
"pearls" in the ocean of offers.
In summary, I'd say that one of the main tasks for the designers should/will
be a thoroughly structurization of information into meaningful and _useful_
chunks.
Cheers,
Juergen D. Mangerich (Dipl.-Psych.)
PMS MICADO SoftwareConsult GmbH - Germany
e-mail: m...@pmsmicado.com - vox: +49.69.631555.0 - fax: +49.631555.99
Consultant for human-factors of software systems
In article <01bd9873$85e21850$42a7f5c7@douggnt>,
"Douglyss Giuliana" <dgiu...@edgewater.com> wrote:
>
> Over the past few years, has the Web been getting more usable or less
> usable? Browsers have improved greatly. True HTML tools exist. People
> have more experience with HTML. But has usability improved? Have the
> single-really-long-page sites disappeared? Is navigation more clear? Or
> is the web still full of useless graphics, poorly-designed navigation, and
> amatuer interfaces?
>
> I'd like to hear everyone's two cents.
>
> Doug Giuliana
> Edgewater Technology
Gunter Dubrau
Dan Strychalski wrote:
> Gunter Dubrau (gunter...@mms-dresden.telekom.de) wrote --
>
> > browse with it using the tab key. There is no possibility to define
> > under HTML short cuts like Alt-S for the link or button "search".
>
> ... Try some other browsers; it ought to be quite an eye-opener.
>
And now, pleace tell me the names this browsers.
Gruss, Gunter Dubrau.
Dan Strychalski
Quoting himself, then me, Gunter Dubrau
(gunter...@mms-dresden.telekom.de) posted --
>> > browse with it using the tab key. There is no possibility to define
>> > under HTML short cuts like Alt-S for the link or button "search".
>>
>> ... Try some other browsers; it ought to be quite an eye-opener.
>
> And now, pleace tell me the names this browsers.
One answer is obvious, but tends to bring out the worst in some Usenet
participants, which is why I avoided mentioning it by name: Lynx. Not
that I think it has a very good keyboard command set; there is huge room
for improvement, and not much hope that the people who inherited (maybe
I should say salvaged) the code will be able to work on the keyboard
command set soon. But it uses the keyboard for everything -- it *has*
to, after all -- and just because of that, it should help you see (1)
how keystrokes and HTML are unrelated, and (2) how the big-name browsers
fall down when it comes to making effective use of the keyboard.
The other browser I had in mind is now defunct: DOSLynx. Used WordStar
keystrokes. While I wouldn't say nothing could be better, I must say I
haven't seen anything better, though vi keystrokes are also a work of
art and a joy (ouch! [inside joke, folks -- vi was written by Bill Joy])
to use.