Re: [金山毒霸识别此邮件为垃圾邮件]Re: 如何设计软件或者网站的导航
2 views
Skip to first unread message
蔡学敏
May 31, 2005, 9:17:25 PM5/31/05
to china-web-usabiltiy@googlegroups
nicklemail,您好！
说真的，看到庆祥发给大家的这些资料，我个人感觉很惭愧，鉴于最近的工作压力，我没有时间去仔细的看，回复起来也很有
问题。从我的角度来讲，我希望庆祥可以担负起会长的职责，分配一些工作下来，这样的话对个人来讲才会有压力和约束力。靠自
觉去做事是很难完成的。不是说个人没有自觉性而是我们的时间都是挤出来，在没有约束的情况下.......
没有纪律无法完成任何事情。
没有一个特定规则，可能这个协会转动起来会需要很长的一段时间，更可能会夭折。由衷的希望，有人可以以组织者的身份来
引导大家共同做这件事情。分配给每人一些任务，这样才不会是nickle在一支独秀式的工作。 如果我们每周每个人能坚持发表1篇
文章的话，现在也会有20篇了。
随便说一些想法，总之希望（包括我自己再内）的ue成员可以更紧凑的沿着一个方向努力，把我们的协会办起来。
======= 2005-05-24 11:00:57 您在来信中写道：=======
>这就是那篇研究导航在网站中的重要性的文章，我觉得写的非常不错。而且重要的时他们做了测试。
>
>MAKING IT FINDABLE
>
>IF THE USER CAN'T FIND IT, IT'S NOT THERE
>
>It is frequently said that navigation is 80% of good usability. I've
>often wondered what that means. What are the parameters that
>make a site navigable? What specifically do I need to get right to
>automatically have it be 80% good?
>
>User-centered Web designers answer this question reflexively. Good
>navigation means good information architecture. Good information
>architecture means having a hierarchical structure and the right
>labels.
>Having the right structure means deriving the hierarchy that reflects
>users' mental organization of the information. Using the right labels
>means ignoring the organization's (branded) terms for things and
>adopting the users' vocabulary for tokens and categories.
>
>These two parameters -- structure and labels -- are asserted to be as
>independent and complimentary. Neither is individually sufficient to
>trigger that 80% usability threshold. You have to get both right.
>
>WHICH COMES FIRST? THE LABEL OR THE STRUCTURE?
>
>According to Rosenfeld and Morville (1998), identifying the right
>structure depends on how well the target users know the taxonomy or
>classification of the content of the site. Exact schemes, such as
>alphabetical order or organizational structure, are best used when it
>is
>certain that users know the specific labels for the information they
>are
>seeking. Ambiguous schemes, such as organization by topic area, are
>preferred when users may not know keywords or specific content
>names, or when they may need to browse through the content to find
>what they need.
>
>Organizational structures can be created organically, based on designer
>intuition or by adopting existing label sets; through experts
>performing
>professional indexing; or via user-centered methods in which user input
>/ feedback is incorporated to construct and validate the information
>organization.
>
>LARGE, NOT VENTI
>
>Getting the labels right means matching the names for things to the
>words that the users use to refer to them. In creating effective
>labels,
>designers need to:
>
> - consider how much target users will know about the system and
> domain,
> - minimize jargon, particularly when speaking to a general population,
> - avoid ambiguity.
>
>Labeling systems can come from existing labels sets, benchmarks across
>other Web sites, experts, and users. The best labels are typically
>generated directly by representative users.
>
>When not informed by user-centered research strategies, both structural
>design and label creation can suffer from what Fleming (1998) refers
>to as the "disease of familiarity." That is, designers often assume
>that
>users know as much about the organization or topic as they do
>because they have a difficult time recalling what it's like to not know
>something. The result is an architecture that reflects the internal
>structure and labels of the organization. These architectures can often
>prove difficult for users who are not intimately familiar with the
>organization (Martin, 1999).
>
>As such, it is critical to gather user data to motivate and externally
>validate any proposed architecture.
>
>Flash back to reality, again. You have a short timeline and a limited
>budget. You can conduct some user research, but never as much as
>you would like to. You need to optimize your efforts.
>
>You can focus your research on deriving a solid user-centered structure
>or clear labels reflecting the users' vocabulary. Which do you pick?
>
>Resnick and Sanchez (2004) sought to answer exactly this question.
>They conducted a controlled experiment to explore the relative value
>of a user-defined structure versus user-generated labels in determining
>perceived ease-of-use and efficiency of a Health Product shopping
>Web site.
>
>THE STUDY
>
>To prepare the study materials, Resnick and Sanchez conducted a
>series of preliminary norming exercises.
>
>First they conducted a survey of existing health food Web sites to
>identify existing schemes for product organization. They found two
>prevalent themes: by product (e.g., bars, pills, books) and by task
>(e.g., weight loss, reduce stress).
>
>Then they conducted a card sorting task with ten participants to
>generate groupings and labels for the to-be-included elements. Users
>indicated a clear preference for the task-organization within the card
>sorting task.
>
>Finally, they conducted a category label ranking task with 20 new
>participants to evaluate the goodness-of-fit between proposed content
>and category labels. They used these findings to derive three levels of
>labeling.
>
>To test the relative contributions of user structure and good labels,
>Resnick and Sanchez created 6 versions of a fictitious health food
>website that systematically varied structure and label quality:
>
> - Task-structure / Good Labels
> - Task-structure / Medium Labels
> - Task-structure / Poor Labels
> - Product-Structure / Good Labels
> - Product-Structure / Medium Labels
> - Product Structure / Poor Labels
>
>They then recruited 60 more participants complete a shopping scenario
>on the fictitious site. Within the scenario each participant was
>instructed
>to collect six specific items on the site.
>
>Resnick and Sanchez hypothesized that since the majority of the
>participants in the card sort had derived a task-based organization,
>that the task-based structure would prove easier to navigate than the
>product-based structure.
>
>They also hypothesized that users would be more efficient on the site
>with good category labels than on the site with medium or poor labels.
>
>They measured efficiency via time to complete the task, number of
>clicks, number of errors, and number of products found.
>
>SOME THINGS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
>
>Resnick and Sanchez' data shows that good labels had a robust effect
>on performance:
>
> - Time: Participants were 90% more efficient on the site with good
> labels than with poor labels.
>
> - Number of clicks: The site with good labels required 25% fewer
> clicks to complete the task.
>
> - Errors: Participants committed significantly less errors (strays
> from optimal path) on sites with better labels.
>
> - Number of items found: Participants found significantly more items.
>
> - Satisfaction: Participants' satisfaction ratings were significantly
> higher on sites with better labels.
>
>The findings for structure were somewhat different.
>
>First, users were more efficient using the product-based structure
>than the task-based structure. This enhanced performance on the
>product-centered organizations is in conflict with their tendency to
>organize the content by task in the preliminary card sorting study.
>
>Second, structure had a significant impact on task efficiency for
>number
>of clicks and number of errors. However, efficiency differences by
>structural type were only meaningful for the test sites with bad
>labels.
>For sites with good labels, there was no benefit to having one site
>structure over the other.
>
>EVEN WASHINGTON, DC IS NAVIGABLE IF THE STREET
>SIGNS ARE GOOD
>
>These findings -- that labels matter more than structure -- are not
>surprising if you think about it.
>
>When you land in a new city, if the street signs are visible you can
>get
>around without learning the structure of the street layout.
>
>If the signs are hard to see or missing, a familiar -- or at least
>predictable -- structure helps. In a predictable city like New York,
>once you know where you are, you can predict where you are going
>based on the 44th street, then 45th street, then 46th street grid
>structure.
>Not so in cities like Washington, which is designed on a difficult-to-
>intuit diagonal spoke structure, or Bombay, where streets emerged
>organically.
>
>So, Resnick and Sanchez suggest that the key to good architecture,
>and by extension usable navigation, is good labels. If you get the
>labels
>right, you are most of the way there.
>
>References and charts for this newsletter are posted at:
>http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr05.asp
>______________________________
>____________________
>
>The Pragmatic Ergonomist, Dr. Eric Schaffer
>
>This structure vs. label study is interesting, but be careful. I have
>seen disasters when wonderful labels are placed in the wrong structure.
>For example, an alphabetic structure where the user does not know the
>word (is it "Hire Employee" or "New Employee"?). I am quite sure it is
>worthwhile continuing to design, refine, and validate the structure as
>well as the labels. In fact, it will cost little extra to attend fully
>to both
>as the research methods can be combined into a single test session.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
致
礼！
蔡学敏
fanyian...@vip.sina.com
2005-06-01
说真的，看到庆祥发给大家的这些资料，我个人感觉很惭愧，鉴于最近的工作压力，我没有时间去仔细的看，回复起来也很有
问题。从我的角度来讲，我希望庆祥可以担负起会长的职责，分配一些工作下来，这样的话对个人来讲才会有压力和约束力。靠自
觉去做事是很难完成的。不是说个人没有自觉性而是我们的时间都是挤出来，在没有约束的情况下.......
没有纪律无法完成任何事情。
没有一个特定规则，可能这个协会转动起来会需要很长的一段时间，更可能会夭折。由衷的希望，有人可以以组织者的身份来
引导大家共同做这件事情。分配给每人一些任务，这样才不会是nickle在一支独秀式的工作。 如果我们每周每个人能坚持发表1篇
文章的话，现在也会有20篇了。
随便说一些想法，总之希望（包括我自己再内）的ue成员可以更紧凑的沿着一个方向努力，把我们的协会办起来。
======= 2005-05-24 11:00:57 您在来信中写道：=======
>这就是那篇研究导航在网站中的重要性的文章，我觉得写的非常不错。而且重要的时他们做了测试。
>
>MAKING IT FINDABLE
>
>IF THE USER CAN'T FIND IT, IT'S NOT THERE
>
>It is frequently said that navigation is 80% of good usability. I've
>often wondered what that means. What are the parameters that
>make a site navigable? What specifically do I need to get right to
>automatically have it be 80% good?
>
>User-centered Web designers answer this question reflexively. Good
>navigation means good information architecture. Good information
>architecture means having a hierarchical structure and the right
>labels.
>Having the right structure means deriving the hierarchy that reflects
>users' mental organization of the information. Using the right labels
>means ignoring the organization's (branded) terms for things and
>adopting the users' vocabulary for tokens and categories.
>
>These two parameters -- structure and labels -- are asserted to be as
>independent and complimentary. Neither is individually sufficient to
>trigger that 80% usability threshold. You have to get both right.
>
>WHICH COMES FIRST? THE LABEL OR THE STRUCTURE?
>
>According to Rosenfeld and Morville (1998), identifying the right
>structure depends on how well the target users know the taxonomy or
>classification of the content of the site. Exact schemes, such as
>alphabetical order or organizational structure, are best used when it
>is
>certain that users know the specific labels for the information they
>are
>seeking. Ambiguous schemes, such as organization by topic area, are
>preferred when users may not know keywords or specific content
>names, or when they may need to browse through the content to find
>what they need.
>
>Organizational structures can be created organically, based on designer
>intuition or by adopting existing label sets; through experts
>performing
>professional indexing; or via user-centered methods in which user input
>/ feedback is incorporated to construct and validate the information
>organization.
>
>LARGE, NOT VENTI
>
>Getting the labels right means matching the names for things to the
>words that the users use to refer to them. In creating effective
>labels,
>designers need to:
>
> - consider how much target users will know about the system and
> domain,
> - minimize jargon, particularly when speaking to a general population,
> - avoid ambiguity.
>
>Labeling systems can come from existing labels sets, benchmarks across
>other Web sites, experts, and users. The best labels are typically
>generated directly by representative users.
>
>When not informed by user-centered research strategies, both structural
>design and label creation can suffer from what Fleming (1998) refers
>to as the "disease of familiarity." That is, designers often assume
>that
>users know as much about the organization or topic as they do
>because they have a difficult time recalling what it's like to not know
>something. The result is an architecture that reflects the internal
>structure and labels of the organization. These architectures can often
>prove difficult for users who are not intimately familiar with the
>organization (Martin, 1999).
>
>As such, it is critical to gather user data to motivate and externally
>validate any proposed architecture.
>
>Flash back to reality, again. You have a short timeline and a limited
>budget. You can conduct some user research, but never as much as
>you would like to. You need to optimize your efforts.
>
>You can focus your research on deriving a solid user-centered structure
>or clear labels reflecting the users' vocabulary. Which do you pick?
>
>Resnick and Sanchez (2004) sought to answer exactly this question.
>They conducted a controlled experiment to explore the relative value
>of a user-defined structure versus user-generated labels in determining
>perceived ease-of-use and efficiency of a Health Product shopping
>Web site.
>
>THE STUDY
>
>To prepare the study materials, Resnick and Sanchez conducted a
>series of preliminary norming exercises.
>
>First they conducted a survey of existing health food Web sites to
>identify existing schemes for product organization. They found two
>prevalent themes: by product (e.g., bars, pills, books) and by task
>(e.g., weight loss, reduce stress).
>
>Then they conducted a card sorting task with ten participants to
>generate groupings and labels for the to-be-included elements. Users
>indicated a clear preference for the task-organization within the card
>sorting task.
>
>Finally, they conducted a category label ranking task with 20 new
>participants to evaluate the goodness-of-fit between proposed content
>and category labels. They used these findings to derive three levels of
>labeling.
>
>To test the relative contributions of user structure and good labels,
>Resnick and Sanchez created 6 versions of a fictitious health food
>website that systematically varied structure and label quality:
>
> - Task-structure / Good Labels
> - Task-structure / Medium Labels
> - Task-structure / Poor Labels
> - Product-Structure / Good Labels
> - Product-Structure / Medium Labels
> - Product Structure / Poor Labels
>
>They then recruited 60 more participants complete a shopping scenario
>on the fictitious site. Within the scenario each participant was
>instructed
>to collect six specific items on the site.
>
>Resnick and Sanchez hypothesized that since the majority of the
>participants in the card sort had derived a task-based organization,
>that the task-based structure would prove easier to navigate than the
>product-based structure.
>
>They also hypothesized that users would be more efficient on the site
>with good category labels than on the site with medium or poor labels.
>
>They measured efficiency via time to complete the task, number of
>clicks, number of errors, and number of products found.
>
>SOME THINGS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
>
>Resnick and Sanchez' data shows that good labels had a robust effect
>on performance:
>
> - Time: Participants were 90% more efficient on the site with good
> labels than with poor labels.
>
> - Number of clicks: The site with good labels required 25% fewer
> clicks to complete the task.
>
> - Errors: Participants committed significantly less errors (strays
> from optimal path) on sites with better labels.
>
> - Number of items found: Participants found significantly more items.
>
> - Satisfaction: Participants' satisfaction ratings were significantly
> higher on sites with better labels.
>
>The findings for structure were somewhat different.
>
>First, users were more efficient using the product-based structure
>than the task-based structure. This enhanced performance on the
>product-centered organizations is in conflict with their tendency to
>organize the content by task in the preliminary card sorting study.
>
>Second, structure had a significant impact on task efficiency for
>number
>of clicks and number of errors. However, efficiency differences by
>structural type were only meaningful for the test sites with bad
>labels.
>For sites with good labels, there was no benefit to having one site
>structure over the other.
>
>EVEN WASHINGTON, DC IS NAVIGABLE IF THE STREET
>SIGNS ARE GOOD
>
>These findings -- that labels matter more than structure -- are not
>surprising if you think about it.
>
>When you land in a new city, if the street signs are visible you can
>get
>around without learning the structure of the street layout.
>
>If the signs are hard to see or missing, a familiar -- or at least
>predictable -- structure helps. In a predictable city like New York,
>once you know where you are, you can predict where you are going
>based on the 44th street, then 45th street, then 46th street grid
>structure.
>Not so in cities like Washington, which is designed on a difficult-to-
>intuit diagonal spoke structure, or Bombay, where streets emerged
>organically.
>
>So, Resnick and Sanchez suggest that the key to good architecture,
>and by extension usable navigation, is good labels. If you get the
>labels
>right, you are most of the way there.
>
>References and charts for this newsletter are posted at:
>http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr05.asp
>______________________________
>____________________
>
>The Pragmatic Ergonomist, Dr. Eric Schaffer
>
>This structure vs. label study is interesting, but be careful. I have
>seen disasters when wonderful labels are placed in the wrong structure.
>For example, an alphabetic structure where the user does not know the
>word (is it "Hire Employee" or "New Employee"?). I am quite sure it is
>worthwhile continuing to design, refine, and validate the structure as
>well as the labels. In fact, it will cost little extra to attend fully
>to both
>as the research methods can be combined into a single test session.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
致
礼！
蔡学敏
fanyian...@vip.sina.com
2005-06-01
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages