When we did the trunk tests with group members websites last week, we all basically knew what every one was trying to go for because we're all in the same boat. However, I wonder if I had some of my friends who aren't taking the class to take the trunk test with my site - how would they fare?
On page 99, Krug offers other questions to take into account for strictly your home page. For some of them, I feel it will be difficult to answer without completely spelling out what the motive of the classroom project is, and that isn't "user friendly". For instance, with my website (www2.potsdam.edu/greenca190), you automatically see my name in bold print at the top of the page.
What is this? - this is obviously Christopher Green; but what about Christopher Green?
What does "Christopher Green" have here? - It looks like links to assignments, and an online writing portfolio. But why?
What can I do here? - Look at his work.
Why should I be here - and not somewhere else? - Because I'm Chris Green.
Krug says that the viewer should be able to answer these questions at a glance, correctly and unambiguously. However, I feel as if in order to "get" our websites from an outside-the-classroom point of view, I am going to need to put a giant chunk of info somewhere on the page. That doesn't follow Krug's rules.
One portion of the reading that I found interesting was "Farmers vs. cowmen" (pg. 126). I never thought of the internet as a "perennial struggle between art and commerce". I guess it only makes sense though, as a Graphic designer would receive a different education from a student studying marketing in school. One profound example I can think of of the difference between a graphic designer making a website and a marketing student making a website is the site for the new Star Trek movie coming out. The website first opens up to a loading screen, and takes a hell of a long time to do so. A trailer for the movie then plays, and afterwords you get the web page. It automatically sends you into full screen mode, which slows down my computer drastically. Then, you're completely taken awry by the site because it feels like a video game. I can tell that the creator wanted something somewhat futuristic, being that it's a site for Star Trek, but it's just difficult to navigate through since it's so over the top and breaks the "conventions" of internet usability.
Viewers also differ in opinion of websites. Reading this chapter can make me see how some people would prefer Yahoo over Google, when before I read it I figured they were just similar search engines. Yahoo seems to offer more then just a place to search - it offers newspaper headlines, horoscopes, games; an abundance of information right their at the home page. Some people might love all of this information, but some people might get overwhelmed. Google's homepage on the other hand is a bit more simple. It appears as simply a search engine, however has a simple horizontal toolbar all the way at the top for e-mail, news, maps, etc. This offers a more clean homepage, without so much coming at you at once. It seems more relaxed, and seems to suggest the search engine as its most profound feature.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Steve Krug - Don't Make Me Think
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)