First and foremost, I would like to say that I think it is ironic that a person is writing a book about Web Usability with so many footnotes. I can only imagine that I am not the only person who absolutely hates footnotes, because my eyes have to travel up and down the page on a consistent basis. Krug even talks about how people get tired and frustrated when moving their eyes across a web page searching for what they need to find.
Some of these footnotes he writes are frustrating because they just seem unnecessary. For instance, on page 4: I have an even cushier job now. Since the book came out, I spend a lot of my time teaching workshops, where, unlike consulting, there's no opportunity to procrastinate and no homework... I don't really care what you're doing now. I care about web usability, which is why I opened this book. Some footnotes used by Krug are useful, however a lot of them seem to just take up space, which he advises you not to do with your websites.
However, one portion of the book I found to be extremely interesting was Chapter 3. "Conventions are your friends" it says, and somewhat advises you to try not to be original. Krug points out that people are use to the way the internet is - some that come to mind are buttons/links, navigation bars, search bars, etc. It's alarming how you don't notice these conventions until Krug points it out. The metaphor of "reinventing the wheel" when it comes to conventions is a great way to put it - and Krug says that you can't explore possibilities that range to outside of these conventions, because it will confuse web users who are accustomed to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like most of the footnotes, because I enjoy his sense of humor, but I can see how they'd get irritating if one was just reading for content. (I also like footnotes in general, but I know I'm old-fashioned.)
ReplyDeleteI have to agree about the pointlessness of reinventing the wheel, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of telling people - especially designers in such a brand new area as the web - that they shouldn't innovate. Is that really the direction we want to take, especially with the whole internet being so very young? It seems like we're way too early in the process to think that something works so well it doesn't need to be improved upon.
Interesting how a failed rhetoric of humor can really alienate a reader. Note to self: be careful about joke-making in writing and online. Is it different in person, with spoken communication...in class, I can see my jokes flop and save face? BTW, this is an ancient point about the "danger" of writing.
ReplyDeleteChris, you say you don't care what he's doing now. Did it just seem self-indulgent or cocky to you...I'm asking because I'm guessing you *do* care about his credibility and if the guy actually knows what he is talking about. It's really a question, here, about self-representation, ethos, and the connections we build with audiences through our pages and screens. How might you translate these lessons about humor and credibility in to your own visual and written communications?