No-click web UIs

[Chad Nantais]

http://dontclick.it (circa 2005)
"Within this interface, you won't find any buttons. Instead you
navigate the contents in a different way. You will get the hang of
it immediately."

Apple launched a refreshed version of apple.com today and I noticed
some no-click elements present. Go to: http://www.apple.com/mac and
roll over the "Top Downloads", "Top Widgets" and "Top News" headings
in the right hand column. Also, roll over the mini-content boxes in
the lower left under Mac@Work and you'll notice the same no-click
navigation.

Do you find Apple.com's implementation of no-click useful or disruptive?

--
Chad Nantais

http://myspace.com/chadnantais

[Kevin Snell]

It's Flash though *meh*. Flash = instant fail in my book. Not so much
for usability but maximizing target audience and being able to have
your website *usable* on older/slower hardware and 'net connections
(ie: dialup). And don't even get me started on Search Engines and
Flash sites. I think Flash elements on a page can work well, but
doing your whole interface in Flash I think is a big no no. Although,
in the example you sent, the no-click is implemented well. I would be
more impressed if the same thing was developed solely in javascript/
css/ajax.

Anyway, Flash aside, I think (like most Flash) that the way you
navigate and the way the content is presented on that site is too
unconventional. While "computer people" like us get it right away, I
don't think that would be the case for a lot of people. Because it's
so non-standard (especially the content area sub-navigation itself),
it's just going to create problems for the average user.

I like no-click elements, I think they can work, just not used in the
way your example illustrates.

Apple. Well, almost everything Apple touches turns to gold (in my
book). And their no-click implementation is no exception. The no-
click side bar elements implemented on the sub pages are brilliant
(ie: www.apple.com/mac/). Minimal use of real estate, easy to use and
quick to access the info presented - I love it. They retain a
traditional nav at the top which I think it still important.

Much like Flash, I think no-click usability is the kind of thing that
can be great if used in moderation. Don't go crazy with it and it can
do a lot for your site.

K.

[Stephan Wehner]

On 8/8/07, Kevin Snell <ke...@formulate.ca> wrote:
>
> It's Flash though *meh*. Flash = instant fail in my book. Not so much
> for usability but maximizing target audience and being able to have
> your website *usable* on older/slower hardware and 'net connections
> (ie: dialup). And don't even get me started on Search Engines and
> Flash sites. I think Flash elements on a page can work well, but
> doing your whole interface in Flash I think is a big no no. Although,
> in the example you sent, the no-click is implemented well. I would be
> more impressed if the same thing was developed solely in javascript/
> css/ajax.

I understood it to be a demo, maybe even "research in progress demo".
Is there much besides Java applets or Flash to capture the user's
mouse movement, without the visitor installing anything?

>
> Anyway, Flash aside, I think (like most Flash) that the way you
> navigate and the way the content is presented on that site is too
> unconventional. While "computer people" like us get it right away, I
> don't think that would be the case for a lot of people. Because it's
> so non-standard (especially the content area sub-navigation itself),
> it's just going to create problems for the average user.

I would rather think that the average person would do as well as me.
But I think the ideas are not that good - that's what create problems.
Moving a whole mouse is a lot more effort than moving one small part
of it -- the button. Clicking a button is also well-defined and
easy-to-carry-out. On the other hand mouse-gestures live in a
continuum. So mouse-gestures can be a lot more powerful, like a
language. But that also means there is a lot to learn for the user.

The site doesn't mention how they would make text selection available.
When I tried to copy text from their demo I got some kind of
error-screen "you clicked the button!"

> I like no-click elements, I think they can work, just not used in the
> way your example illustrates.

> Apple. Well, almost everything Apple touches turns to gold (in my
> book). And their no-click implementation is no exception. The no-
> click side bar elements implemented on the sub pages are brilliant
> (ie: www.apple.com/mac/). Minimal use of real estate, easy to use and

I find for the top-example "Top Downloads/Top .../Hot News", the lower
panel "Where to buy" jumps with the mouse-over effects for the
Top/Top/Hot panel. Maybe they intended that? I would avoid it.

In the bottom-left of the page they use the device to uncover photos
instead of lists; although you would think the photos would make the
page look more interesting if they were displayed all the time.

Is it not that this no-click element works well here because
mouse-over is quite a primitive trigger? So it makes it easy to
understand. Easy Undo-Redo as well.

What is this kind of element called? It saves space, like tabs, but it
allows more elements, since each tab gets the same width, and there is
not total tab-bar-width/height to worry about.

> quick to access the info presented - I love it. They retain a
> traditional nav at the top which I think it still important.
>
> Much like Flash, I think no-click usability is the kind of thing that
> can be great if used in moderation. Don't go crazy with it and it can
> do a lot for your site.

Sounds good. I suggest that the Apple page should have dropped the one
with the photos.

Stephan

> K.
>
>
> On 7-Aug-07, at 8:10 PM, Chad Nantais wrote:
>
> >
> > http://dontclick.it (circa 2005)
> > "Within this interface, you won't find any buttons. Instead you
> > navigate the contents in a different way. You will get the hang of
> > it immediately."
> >
> > Apple launched a refreshed version of apple.com today and I noticed
> > some no-click elements present. Go to: http://www.apple.com/mac and
> > roll over the "Top Downloads", "Top Widgets" and "Top News" headings
> > in the right hand column. Also, roll over the mini-content boxes in
> > the lower left under Mac@Work and you'll notice the same no-click
> > navigation.
> >
> > Do you find Apple.com's implementation of no-click useful or
> > disruptive?
> >
> > --
> > Chad Nantais
> >
> > http://myspace.com/chadnantais
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>

--
Stephan Wehner

-> http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
-> http://www.thrackle.org
-> http://www.buckmaster.ca
-> http://www.trafficlife.com
-> http://stephansmap.org

[Chad Nantais]

On 8/8/07, Kevin Snell <ke...@formulate.ca> wrote:

> Apple. Well, almost everything Apple touches turns to gold (in my
> book). And their no-click implementation is no exception. The no-
> click side bar elements implemented on the sub pages are brilliant
> (ie: www.apple.com/mac/). Minimal use of real estate, easy to use and
> quick to access the info presented - I love it. They retain a
> traditional nav at the top which I think it still important.

Interesting to note that the apple.com/mac implementation of no-click
does not use Flash.

Also, my own encounter with the apple.com/mac no-click content was
serendipitous. Once I discovered it, I began scrubbing the page for
more of the same behavior. I'm not sure how many other users would
follow the same pattern. However, I think that Apple has realized
that the iPhone UI is very hot right now and they will likely recreate
much of that tactile experience in their web presence, as well as
their other products (new iMac design is said to mimic the iPhone).
Others will surely follow suit on the web.

It won't be long before someone creates a Javascript toolkit that apes
the iPhone's nifty interface features like album cover flipping.

Chad

[rillian]

One thing I did like was how they've done index thumbnails in iPhoto
'08.
Dragging the mouse over the poster image for an album flips through
all
the images in that album, so you can quickly scan the contents without
changing the view mode.

They've done the same thing in the (apparently flash based) web
gallery
on their hosting service.

A nice use of the increased computing resources available to simplify
the ui.

-r

[Chad Nantais]

I was just admiring that, in fact. It's at
http://www.apple.com/dotmac/webgallery.html (Watch The Demo) for those
who are interested.

Chad

[Pepito]

Very annoying. Distracting. From this point of view the user will
lose focus paying attention to all the other graphics moving around.

Usability: low

I would not recommend this approach in order to solve problems and
provide solutions... it is maybe: artistic.

On Aug 7, 8:10 pm, "Chad Nantais" <cnant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://dontclick.it(circa 2005)

[Nathaniel Brown]

I'm impressed. When I implement something like though, I will be sure
to have a minimum of a half to one second delay in order to cause the
drop down. The immediate effect of the action causes me to show
elements I don't want, but may be required to go over due to the path
of where my cursor is.

--
Nathaniel Steven Henry Brown

Toll Free: 1-877-446-4647
Vancouver: 604-724-6624

[Nathaniel Brown]

Reminds me.. I did something like this last year for canadaonrails.com
with the top right news tab. I still enjoy that functionality and
usability.

[Chad Nantais]

Nathaniel,

Yes, I remember seeing that now. Perhaps this functionality would
have been enhanced by making it an overlay rather than having it
displace the whole page below it. And if there was also a way to exit
the rolldown (make it roll back up) that would have sealed the deal
for me.

Cheers,

Chad

[Nathaniel Brown]

Haha funny you should mention that. That was what I was trying to do
when I did it, but didn't have enough time to "seal the deal" as I
would have liked. Definately could do it now.. maybe for the next conf
:)

Try clicking on the tab, that should close it.

[Chad Nantais]

Aha. I missed that. Since it was a mouseover that triggered the
rolldown, I expected that a mouseover would also be required to exit
the rolldown.

[Nathaniel Brown]

I found it got a little too wild when you mouseover it by accident and
it closes. I believe anything that goes backwards should be a choice
for the user to make :) Highlighting the button/tab on mouseover might
have worked better for that.

[Stephan Wehner]

On 8/9/07, Nathaniel Brown <ns...@inimit.com> wrote:

I found it got a little too wild when you mouseover it by accident and
it closes. I believe anything that goes backwards should be a choice
for the user to make :) Highlighting the button/tab on mouseover might
have worked better for that.

On 8/9/07, Chad Nantais <cnan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Aha. I missed that. Since it was a mouseover that triggered the
> rolldown, I expected that a mouseover would also be required to exit
> the rolldown.

What happened to me was that I got the roll-down, but by accident, since my mouse  happened to be in the trigger position when I opened the page.
So when I reloaded, it didn't happen again.
So I thought a cookie was set or something.
So I opened the page in other browsers and it took me some time to realize what the trigger was.

One difference between the Ruby-on-Rails page effect and the ones at http://www.apple.com/macand is that the apple page reuses existing page-space without big jumps on the page.

Stephan

> On 8/9/07, N

[Jerome Ryckborst]

Hello,

 

I'm pleased to join this list. Thanks for setting it up!

 

My first post to this list is a usability request. (Way to make friends, Jerome. :-o)  The subject line of e-mail from this group is obscured by the name of the group. Could it be shortened from [Vancouver-usability] to [V-U], as an example?

 

This Jing movie illustrates the problem and shows why a very short label could still be clear:

• http://www.screencast.com/t/BqLdlihi

-=- Jerome

[Chad Nantais]

Jerome,

Welcome. Glad you joined.

I think your suggestion of shortening the subject prefix is a useful
one and have implemented it.

Speak up if this bothers anyone.

Chad

On Aug 9, 11:34 am, "Jerome Ryckborst" <j3r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm pleased to join this list. Thanks for setting it up!
>
> My first post to this list is a usability request. (Way to make friends,
> Jerome. :-o) The subject line of e-mail from this group is obscured by the
> name of the group. Could it be shortened from [Vancouver-usability] to
> [V-U], as an example?
>
> This Jing movie illustrates the problem and shows why a very short label
> could still be clear:
>

> * http://www.screencast.com/t/BqLdlihi
>
> -=- Jerome

[Chad Nantais]

Actually, do we even need a subject prefix in this day and age?

Chad

[Stephan Wehner]

On 8/9/07, Chad Nantais < cnan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, do we even need a subject prefix in this day and age?

I think it helps. Prepending in brackets looks like the norm to me; maybe in lower case - [vu] ?

Stephan 

[Greg Andrews]

On 8/9/07, Chad Nantais <cnan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> Actually, do we even need a subject prefix in this day and age?

I believe it still has relevance. I have a number of lists that go
into one folder/label, it helps to still have them easily
identifiable.

Good suggestion on the shorter prefix, lower case might be better.

-Greg

[Chad Nantais]

And lower case it is.

On Aug 9, 12:57 pm, "Greg Andrews" <gregandr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[sarah Love]

Hi guys
Hope you don't mind me joining the discussion. I have owned a flash
website for the last 3 years and boy I have had all the problems
associated with flash.
Getting a good ranking on google
Older slower computers cant view my site
And many conflicts with add-ons

But now I have it I will stick with it, but the lessons I have learned
is don't grab and use the latest technology and expect your customers
to adapt. Because they wont, they will just leave your site.
If you are running a profit making website then it is best to let the
technology evolve a bit before you implement it.

Don't get me wrong I like having a flash website but its always a
trade off between haveing the latest flash gadgets and customer
satisfaction.

Please feel free to visit my site http://www.grahamvideos.co.uk

Sarah Love

> > -Greg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -