Search Box Usability Notes
Ben Goodger
The multiple-engine feature in Firefox isn't really that useful, for a
number of reasons:
- the engine selected persists across uses and sessions, even if it
isn't a general purpose engine like Google, Yahoo, etc. but rather a
more specialized search like Dictionary or IMDB, which a user may only
use once.
- the discoverability of the dropdown menu is not good - there's an
engine favicon (which doesn't look particularly button-like) and a
small drop down arrow.
Some nice things about IE7b2's implementation:
- a good job of discoverability of the dropdown menu and the utility
of the bar with a clicklable looking search button (similar to the Go
button) and a clickable-looking drop-marker
- clicking the drop marker and then choosing another engine
immediately does a search with that engine, e.g. you could type "King
Kong" then choose IMDB from the list instead of clicking the regular
search button and go there. That's nice.
Some not-so-nice things about IE7's implementation:
- the engine you selected through the above operation sticks for the
rest of the session (although it resets after you close and restart
the browser) It'd be nice for it to reset.
- because of the session-reset it's not clear to users that they
haven't actually changed their default action, just temporarily picked
another. Immediate reset would help, and doing a better job of the
right behavior might too...
It seems to me there are two types of search engines: all purpose
(google, yahoo) and specialized (amazon, imdb, etc). The latter you
don't necessarily want on all the time. Selecting Yahoo over Google
seems a pretty permanent change to me, but selecting IMDB doesn't.
Engine Discovery
See the notes in the wiki about discovery strategies. I believe we can
probably support Microsoft's system for OpenSearch discoverability,
plus a few others. Their UI for announcing discoverability is
interesting, and consistent-ish with their feed discoverability. What
are people's thoughts? A writeup on this feature can be found here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/07/527266.aspx
-Ben
Axel Hecht
> Utility of Multiple Engines
>
> The multiple-engine feature in Firefox isn't really that useful, for a
> number of reasons:
>
I wouldn't be that pessimistic, my mom's using it. And she's using it
for your non-common engines like amazon, too.
That doesn't mean that we can't improve in discoverability and
usability, of course, I'd just not call it "not that useful", I guess.
2cts. € cents, of course ;-)
Axel
Ben Goodger
-Ben
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Mike Beltzner
Utility of Multiple Engines
The multiple-engine feature in Firefox isn't really that useful, for a
number of reasons:
Do you mean that it isn't useful, or that it's not easy to use? I would argue that it's very useful, as evidenced by the number of searchplugins in existence, and the fact that it allows for some very rich task-oriented customization. I think that you just mean it's not easy to use, but want to make sure, as that changes the dynamic of this conversation somewhat ;)
- the discoverability of the dropdown menu is not good - there's an
engine favicon (which doesn't look particularly button-like) and a
small drop down arrow.
Agreed. It also appears at the wrong side of the input field, as drop-downs normally appear at the right. As you've noted elsewhere, we have a general problem with the affordances of items in the URL bar and search bar in that they don't appear like clickable buttons. There's the associated problem that the search plugin logos aren't always descriptive enough for the service, and there's a plan to finally fix that with some ghost text in the background a-la Safari, I think.
Some nice things about IE7b2's implementation:
- a good job of discoverability of the dropdown menu and the utility
of the bar with a clicklable looking search button (similar to the Go
button) and a clickable-looking drop-marker
- clicking the drop marker and then choosing another engine
immediately does a search with that engine, e.g. you could type "King
Kong" then choose IMDB from the list instead of clicking the regular
search button and go there. That's nice.
Yes, I've always wondered why we have one confirmation event to select the search engine, then another to verify that the search term is still the one we want to search on. I suppose it could be annoying in an edge case where a user picks the engine first and then wants to type in their search terms, but the unintended effect there isn't disastrous or anything.
It seems to me there are two types of search engines: all purpose
(google, yahoo) and specialized (amazon, imdb, etc). The latter you
don't necessarily want on all the time. Selecting Yahoo over Google
seems a pretty permanent change to me, but selecting IMDB doesn't.
Hm. This is an interesting point. Can we safely make this assertion? I can think of counterexamples where switching search engines indicates that a user wants to narrow their search domain for the next 1..n searches. For example, if one were to be trying to track down an intersection of movie actors, or get information on the directors of two or three movies, then they might want to do repeated searches with the same specialized engines. Or using the eBay search button, someone might want to do repeated searches, narrowing their search terms each time. Wouldn't it be more frustrating for them to continually have to pick the eBay search engine?
Other thoughts here: Classifying a search engine as "multipurpose" or "specialized" requires that someone (user, software, searchplugin author) make an evaluation of whether or not a given engine is multi-use vs. specialized. Also, it would mean that some search engines behave differently than other search engines, which increases the complexity of the UI.
mike
--
-------
mike beltzner, user experience lead, mozilla corporation
Ben Goodger
> Do you mean that it isn't useful, or that it's not easy to use? I would
> argue that it's very useful, as evidenced by the number of searchplugins in
> existence, and the fact that it allows for some very rich task-oriented
> customization. I think that you just mean it's not easy to use, but want to
> make sure, as that changes the dynamic of this conversation somewhat ;)
I guess I mean I don't think it's living up to its potential, in its
current form. That's my feeling from my own usage, speaking as someone
more likely to twiddle with things than your average joe.
> Hm. This is an interesting point. Can we safely make this assertion? I can
> think of counterexamples where switching search engines indicates that a
> user wants to narrow their search domain for the next 1..n searches. For
> example, if one were to be trying to track down an intersection of movie
> actors, or get information on the directors of two or three movies, then
> they might want to do repeated searches with the same specialized engines.
> Or using the eBay search button, someone might want to do repeated searches,
> narrowing their search terms each time. Wouldn't it be more frustrating for
> them to continually have to pick the eBay search engine?
The refinement question is interesting. I guess that's why IE7 and
Google Toolbar 4 maintain the selection until the end of the session,
but with browser uptime on the rise that's an increasingly long time.
I wonder if there's some other cue we can use to reset the engine?
> Other thoughts here: Classifying a search engine as "multipurpose" or
> "specialized" requires that someone (user, software, searchplugin author)
> make an evaluation of whether or not a given engine is multi-use vs.
> specialized. Also, it would mean that some search engines behave differently
> than other search engines, which increases the complexity of the UI.
Microsoft easily sidesteps this by having the notion of "default" -
the user sets what engine sticks.
-Ben
Pam Greene
> Hm. This is an interesting point. Can we safely make this assertion? I can
> think of counterexamples where switching search engines indicates that a
> user wants to narrow their search domain for the next 1..n searches. For
> example, if one were to be trying to track down an intersection of movie
> actors, or get information on the directors of two or three movies, then
> they might want to do repeated searches with the same specialized engines.
> Or using the eBay search button, someone might want to do repeated searches,
> narrowing their search terms each time. Wouldn't it be more frustrating for
> them to continually have to pick the eBay search engine?
The refinement question is interesting. I guess that's why IE7 and
Google Toolbar 4 maintain the selection until the end of the session,
but with browser uptime on the rise that's an increasingly long time.
I wonder if there's some other cue we can use to reset the engine?
Personally, I would far rather the browser (or any software) be inconveniently passive than inconveniently active. If it leaves the engine I set, and I now want to return to some other engine, I think, "Oops, I changed it and forgot to set it back." If it changes it back and I want to search for another movie director, I think, "Stupid software." (For instance, although I may not be a typical user, the current "Add Bookmark" behavior of always returning to the root folder annoys me every time, since I'm often saving several bookmarks on the same subject.)
Using a cue, even a very clever one, will make the behavior harder to predict. It's easier to remember either "it stays where I put it" or "it always reverts" than (for instance) "it's been 25 hours since I last searched".
Is there any way we can detect that a "specialized" search returned no results, and automatically do it again with a multipurpose engine? If we're thinking of showing local (history/bookmark) search on the same page as some remote engine's result, perhaps adding a third set of results (local, specialized remote, and general remote) would also be possible in those cases.
Myk Melez
> On 2/10/06, Mike Beltzner <mbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The refinement question is interesting. I guess that's why IE7 and
> Google Toolbar 4 maintain the selection until the end of the session,
> but with browser uptime on the rise that's an increasingly long time.
> I wonder if there's some other cue we can use to reset the engine?
Another possibility is to make it easier for the user to revert to the
default engine by providing some UI for doing so which is more efficient
than the generic UI for choosing any engine. Unfortunately at the
moment I can't think of what that might be besides a keyboard shortcut
(which is great for power users but not so much for everyone else).
-myk
Myk Melez
> On 2/10/06, Mike Beltzner <mbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The refinement question is interesting. I guess that's why IE7 and
> Google Toolbar 4 maintain the selection until the end of the session,
> but with browser uptime on the rise that's an increasingly long time.
> I wonder if there's some other cue we can use to reset the engine?
Another possibility is to make it easier for the user to revert to the
Joe Hughes
>The refinement question is interesting. I guess that's why IE7 and
>Google Toolbar 4 maintain the selection until the end of the session,
>but with browser uptime on the rise that's an increasingly long time.
>I wonder if there's some other cue we can use to reset the engine?
It'd also be interesting to explore post-search rather than pre-search
engine switching. By that I mean allowing the user to type something
in the search box, hit enter, and then decide on another engine
(either because the default engine's results weren't useful, or they
just didn't think about engine choice before doing the search--or they
were just lazy).
Here's one interaction scenario:
I go up to the search box and type "Yuengling" and hit Enter. I get
the Google results, but there's also a bar at the top of the page
(like the popups/extension bar) that says something like "See
'Yuengling' results from [Yahoo] [Amazon] [Answers.com] [Creative
Commons] [Wikipedia]". Clicking on one of those buttons re-runs the
search using that particular engine. The bar disappears once you
follow a link off of the result page. (Effectively, this provides a
pseudo-tab for each engine.)
Now, that particular UI might not be ideal, but it's an example of one
way to get the results you want with less fiddling, bigger Fitt's law
areas, and better discoverability--at the cost of a more
intrusiveness.
.joe.
Ancestor
> Here's one interaction scenario:
> I go up to the search box and type "Yuengling" and hit Enter. I get
> the Google results, but there's also a bar at the top of the page
> (like the popups/extension bar) that says something like "See
> 'Yuengling' results from [Yahoo] [Amazon] [Answers.com] [Creative
> Commons] [Wikipedia]". Clicking on one of those buttons re-runs the
> search using that particular engine. The bar disappears once you
> follow a link off of the result page. (Effectively, this provides a
> pseudo-tab for each engine.)
It's interesting idea, however bar would definitely have to have an
option not to show it again, just like pop-up blocker bar.
I am not convinced about its usefulness. I for one don't find myself
very often in a situation when I have to repeat the search with a
different engine, although it may be more common than I think.
My main point is that you don't just search Google and immediately see
that you didn't find what you were looking for. You usually check out a
couple of results and take a look at the later pages of results before
you find out that you need to search more. And by then the bar is gone.
However, I think the bar would be great for educating users. It would
show them that there are multiple engines available and could also
contain information that you can add even more of them.
- Anc
Jason Spiro
> Joe Hughes wrote:
>> Here's one interaction scenario:
>> the Google results, but there's also a bar at the top of the page
>> (like the popups/extension bar) that says something like "See
>> 'Yuengling' results from [Yahoo] [Amazon] [Answers.com] [Creative
>> Commons] [Wikipedia]". Clicking on one of those buttons re-runs the
>> search using that particular engine. The bar disappears once you
>> follow a link off of the result page.
>
> However, I think the bar would be great for educating users. It would
> show them that there are multiple engines available and could also
> contain information that you can add even more of them.
Why not just show multiple search buttons all the time, like the Google
Toolbar 4 beta does? If you want to search IMDB, you type in your search
and click the IMDB icon. To search Amazon, you click the Amazon button
instead. Three or four search buttons wouldn't take up so much space on
the URL bar. Plus, it would be much less cluttered than the temporary
search bar you suggest.
--
Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today