WAP is Whack?!

Not a chance! WAP-enabled sites provide new opportunities for user and design innovation. And innovate we must given the pint-sized platform with which we are tasked to work. Usability on a smaller form factor comes with its own special set of handicaps. Issues of connectivity, download capability, readability, navigation, and learnability are amongst the top considerations.

Navigating a site on a handheld device can be slow and daunting at best. As a result, we need to innovate to accomodate the differences between surfing the web from a desktop computer versus a handheld browser but not over-innovate lest we should alienate our users. Treading new waters is tough enough so any steps towards easing the learnability and recognizability factors go a long way towards improving usability. A master WAP design framework has pretty much been established for the most part - a lone logo at the top of the screen and a copyright line in the footer. The guts is the sandbox and typically where the navigation panel can be found. The use of common, cross-platform GUI elements such as blue, underlined link styles and conventional interface interactions such as clicking the logo to return to the homepage aid in easing the usability burden.

The WebGuild also recently held a packed-house event on "Mobile Web Trends" featuring Nir Baldev of Google's Mobile Division and Kelly Goto of Goto Media.

A Site With A View

Have you ever noticed on some sites, and e-commerce sites are usual suspects, that the option to 'view all' or to view a lengthy listing of items generally results in the associated thumbnail imagery being scaled down, and in some cases, becoming downright indicipherable. As a result, they lose their visual communicative value altogether.

A likely argument for altering the thumb dimensions is to prevent the page from getting too lengthy and/or weighty. However, the benefits of maintaining clear visuals, especially in an e-tailing environment, far outweigh the negatives. A site that does a good job of executing on this well is Nordstrom.com. However, you'll notice and this is not uncommon, that there are boundaries surrounding the view filter. For instance, the user is not given the option to view all 200 plus items on a single page. This is likely for the usability protection of the user in that 99 has probably been deemed an optimal viewing number without encumbering neither the page length nor weight and ultimately, the user experience. Its sometimes tempting to want to get ahead of one self and see it all in one shot but as they say 'all good things are worth waiting for'.

Going Corporate with Web 2.0

To do or not to do! One of the challenges with new technologies is knowing when it's appropriate to use them. Some are more the thing de jour, which you probably want to avoid, while others have more staying power. Web 2.0 has made the web fun again by virtue of all the cool functionality afforded by AJAX, JSON, and the like. Just-in-time information delivery by way of updatable, in-page modules and dynamic content generation are just some of the ways these new technologies have provided some very cool and efficient options versus the traditional page-based designs to which we are accustomed.

However, just because we can does not mean we should. The application of such technologies needs to be carefully considered in the corporate arena. How does one usefully and usably incorporate such functionality onto corporate sites. Depending on your site, there are probably some or no viable options to do so. If you are approaching the onslaught of Web 2.0 with some trepidation, then perhaps a solution may be to try it out on your internal sites and applications and solicit feedback. This way you cost effectively vet the viability of the solution on internal test subjects without causing any harm to your revenue producing sites.

Metaphorically Speaking...

I was just at the Nielsen Norman Group, Usability Week 2006 Conference, where I immersed myself in a 3-day Interaction Design bootcamp with Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini. An important point made by Tog was that metaphors are a good thing. Perhaps, that was more Martha Stewart-esq than he actually said it. Either way, this makes sense since metaphors are used as a teaching aid to enable people to recognize and make some sort of association with something else.

Recognizability is the goal. The right visual metaphor, sans words, can speak a thousand words but not if the metaphor is not easily recognizable. It can be the difference between 'huh' and 'aah' or slowing the user down and increased productivity. In many popular programs such as Paint or Photoshop, an image of a paint brush is used to denote painting, or a paint bucket for filling-in color, or an eraser for erasing, or a magnifying glass for enlarging, etc. There are no words alongside these icons, only alt text. Some metaphors, good or bad, have become learned and recognizable by users. As a result, they become the defacto standard and should be heeded closely when used. For example, Photoshop uses a capitalized "T" to denote the text type tool whereas, Paint uses an "A". They are similar enough and have become recognizable for what they represent. But, would a "B" or "Z" do the trick...probably not, given that "B" has become synonymous with bolding and "Z" is still universally TBD.

Visual metaphors can also be just the fix in a real estate crunch. However, if there is no space for accompanying text, other than the obligatory alt text, its even more important that users be able to instantly recognize what the icon represents. Additionally, such metaphors can also serve to add some visual interest to a page and call more attention to the function it metaphorically represents.