HP Redesigns Homepage And Misses Mark

HP recently redesigned its homepage www.hp.com. The previous iteration was predominantly blue with a navigation panel positioned in the middle of the page and which auto-rotated and changed colors - but, it still maintained the integrity of a conventional website.

The redesign is markedly different:

• It is mostly black. Interesting choice as black is usually considered edgier versus corporate. Plus, there is no sign of the previous blue so there is no continuity and this is okay if the brand is being transformed - which may be the case.


• The nav panel has moved to the bottom of the page but above the fold.


• The promotional area is much larger and dominates the entire page. It also has a control panel that appears small and is not immediately intuitive.


• The target market navigation panels popup after a delayed mouseover.


• The page falls below the fold. I've seen time and again in usability tests where users are peeved when forced to scroll beneath the fold on homepages.


• There are a lonesome 'Resources' flyout and 'News' scroller relegated to the footer of the page beneath the fold.


• There is a country site selector flyout that categorizes sites from "A through B", "C through D", etc. This breakdown is quite unconventional yet innovative but I think they might have out-innovated themselves here.


• There is an old-school 'home' icon. Today's standard is that the logo is the link to home which most semi-experienced users understand. Their logo is also linked but the introduction of the 'home' icon is passe.


• There are three links at the top left of the page that have no mouseover effect and onmouseover automatically takes you to pages - without you clicking. Same behavior on the 'home' icon.

This redesign screams boutique microsite reminiscent of the early to mid 90's when sites went off the deep-end trying to be different before reverting back to basics. What was interesting were the ads that appeared in the nav flyouts. I am sure HP's usability testing and the like validated their design and user experience but I think they have missed the mark here by over-designing and foregoing usability.

BEFORE:



AFTER:

Eye-Tracking Proves Ad Placement Matters

The placement of an ad on a web page determines the propensity of it being viewed by users. This, according to a study conducted by Marketing Sherpa using eye-tracking software to track users' viewership of ads above and below the fold. The study found that 75% of users saw ads above the fold. However, only 60% of the ads above the fold were seen by users.

This is not surprising as most users' initial view of a page is above the fold and anything below it requires the user to take the action i.e scroll. And unless there is some visual indicator like unfinished text to indicate that there is more below the fold or the content is compelling enough for them to want to scroll down for more, they are unlikely to scroll. Even if an ad is above the fold, the study showed that it can be missed altogether. This can be attributed to banner blindness where users recognize an ad for what it is and ignore it altogether, or the treatment or amount of negative spacing around an ad can affect the noise level of an ad, or the positioning of an ad even above the fold can affect its viewership. For instance, users have been trained that anything in the right column is usually marketing fluff so they ignore it altogether.

75% of users saw ads above the fold. However, only 60% of the ads above the fold were seen by users.

But what about ads that start above the fold and continue below it like skyscrapers?! My guess is that if the meat of the ad content is contained in the top part of the ad which is above the fold, that might be okay even if the call to action falls below the fold as most display ads are images which are completely linked so the user could click anywhere. However, I think the idea is really to keep it all above the fold.

The opportunity cost of pushing ads below the fold can be high. Already premuim placement such as skyscrapers and leaderboards have a higher CPM and recent reports indicate that display ads are losing out to search advertising. So, it seems that if you wish to maximize your ROI on ads, be sure to place them strategically above the fold.

Adobe Photoshop Express Free and Online

Adobe launched today the public beta of it long anticipated Adobe® Photoshop® Express. The free, online version of the popular photo editing software is now available on the web. Express will allow users to store up to 2 gigs of images online for free, make edits online, share photos, and up- and download photos from social networking sites.

Photoshop is a desktop software. What this SaaS-y move signals is a realization on the part of Adobe of the power of the Web's penchant for free, anytime/anywhere access versus the portability limitations of pricey software tied to a single computer. Another driver might be that many photo sharing sites already offer similar image editing capabilites. The online version of Photoshop will not have the full feature set of the traditional offline version. Will this cannibalize their desktop version? Not likely as they are targeted to different audiences - Express is to more the casual, connected end-user and Photoshop to the more serious professional. The web-based version is necessary for the company to keep up and evolve the software as well as another marketing opportunity and medium to exploit.

Stanford Website Redesign Coming June'08

Stanford University is working on the redesign of their website. The project which started last Nov 15 will take 7 months with an expected launch date of June 15 '08. Codenamed "Project 8180" which refers to the total acreage of the Stanford campus, the redesign will be the third of the site since its inception. The site has not undergone a redesign in about 5 years.

The goals of the redesign are to create a more consistent and updated look and feel across Stanford sites, focus the global navigation by decreasing the number of menu items from 8 to 5, to surface and provide a more holistic view of what the university has to offer, and to better market it. What is interesting to note are the following:
-the page has a lot more content
-it is now more of a portal or gateway page
-front and foremost use of rich media i.e. videos (very web 2.0-esque)
-use of lots of imagery
-timely and current news section
-multiple rss feed subscriptions (very web 2.0-esque)
-jump links to the most popular content areas
-what looks like in-page quick links versus a link to another page (very web 2.0-esque)
-events calendars
-scrollable in-page view of other stanford sites (very web 2.0-esque)
-international program section surfaced

MOCKUP OF REDESIGN:

Yahoo Homepage Redesign

Yahoo has made a change to its homepage which can be considered fairly significant. The internet portal has moved their logo from the left to the center of the page. The logo now sits atop the search utility defying convention. This is kinda like the Google.com classic homepage, however, that's all Google has on that page - the logo and search box. The personalized Google homepage, however, has the logo to the left of the search text field as the page can potentially have a lot of content depending on which gadgets the user adds.

Yahoo's header height appears roughly about the same height as when the logo was to the left, the search text field is longer, and there is a clear "Search" label to the left of the text field in addition to their "Web Search" button label. Not sure I personally care for the new positioning of the logo as I feel it tends to clutter the search utility rather than draw attention to it which is what I am guessing Yahoo was aiming for. Yahoo has previously waffled on this issue and flip flopped the logo from the middle and then to the left and now back to the middle. The previous redesign from Yahoo was circa mid '06.

BEFORE:


AFTER:

Blue Links In A Web 2.0 World

Should all things blue on the web be links and all links on the web be blue? While in the offline world green means go, in the online world it is a well recognized convention that blue is our cue to click. But with the ever-evolving web, how is this standard faring?

• Corporate Sites. The vast majority of enterprise sites I looked at adhered to the law of blue links - Microsoft, HP, Cisco, IBM, and Intel. The anomaly was Oracle.
  

• News Sites. CNN.com, CNET, NYTimes.com, and WSJ.com all sported blue links.
  

• Consumer Sites. Amazon, Apple, eBay, MSN.com, Yahoo, Google, Walmart, and Petsmart are all bullish on blue. An exception I found was Target.com.

• Social Media Sites. YouTube, Flickr, My Space, Facebook all maintain blue links. But popular blogs HuffingtonPost, TMZ.com, and tech rag ValleyWag.com don't have blue links.

• Politicking Sites. HillaryClinton.com, BarackObama.com, and even JohnMcCain.com have blue links. So, clearly this rule transcends political persuasions too.

Of course, it also depends on the type of links, positioning, context, etc.. I am, of course, referring to the standard body copy links. Some sites even omit the border="0" on images thereby rendering the blue border on images to illustrate their clickability. Many sites use multi-formatting on their links to visually communicate their click states. And these links can come in all shades of blue. There is the Intel blue, big blue IBM's blue, and the Microsoft blue. Blue links are in fact the defacto fail-safe color of choice for links. Even usability guru, Jakob Nielsen, follows this model.

Does this mean that sites with non-blue links are doomed? Not at all. While it is the color of choice for links, links are popularly manifested in a myriad of colors. Many well-known sites have successfully accomplished this. It is the implementation of those links to appear as links - either by way of underlining or some other visual cue such as a symbol - that become important but such links can and do work. A lot may depend on the target audience and genre of site. There are many examples of Web 2.0 sites and teen sites that do different things that work as well. But tread carefully with this before deviating from the norm.

How Some Users Really Navigate Your Website

How do most users navigate your site? They Google a site, click the site link from the search engine results to go to the site, and from the site they use the site search to deep dive to their desired content, and from the content page Ctrl-F to find exactly the content on the page. Does this sound familiar? Maybe a tiny bit extreme but it does happen. They may not be using your well crafted navigation system. These power users are bypassing it and powering through to cut to the chase.

I have seen this behavior in usability testing with more experienced high tech users on B2B sites. And my guess is that some version of this is the likely scenario for most high experience users. And, they will use the Back button in lieu of your navigation or right click and select 'Back' with greater confidence than the navigation that they won't get lost. The navigation is there as more of a supporting element for them - a backup of sorts or a prop. It is a fall-back should they lose their way. They would prefer to look to the content area for links to the content - resorting to the navigation as an afterthought.

The likelihood of some of this behavior depends on a number of factors.

• Familiarity with the site. If users have previously visited a site and feel relatively comfortable with it, they are more unlikely to spend time browsing and discovering. They just want what they want.

• Site content can also play a factor in this. The type of content, complexity of content, and the amount of content can determine if users prefer to deep dive versus browsing. A site with too much content on a page or poorly organized content might appear overwhelming and induce searching.

• Non-intuitive navigation labels can throw users off even if they wanted to use it forcing them to search instead.

• Quality of site search may affect the likelihood of a user using the search utility on your site. If they've learned from experience that it is not so good, they will avoid it and rely on your navigation system instead.
  

• People are busy. They have limited time and deadlines and tight windows in which to get things done. They are constantly multi-tasking and multi-site surfing simultaneously. And in the era of search, its just easier and quicker.

Of course, this does not mean that we do away with our navigation systems or spend less time designing the taxonomies for them, it just means that for some users it is just not the preferred mode of navigating sites.

Giving Users What They Want In 3 Clicks

I recently had a sales clerk say the following to me when he learned I was in the internet field:

I have a message for the people in your field. Can you tell them to make websites so that people can find things in three clicks or less!

Where have we all heard that before :)?! So this got me checking some popular sites to see how we are doing.

eBay.com - From the homepage, I clicked on "Books" under "Shop your Favorite Categories" and on the Books landing page, clicked "Science & Tech" and got a multi-page listing of books which was essentially as far it went. Because of the sheer number of results pages, I entered "usability" in the section search and found what I was looking for. That was 4 clicks but really 3 to get directly to all the books in that category. I can't imaging anyone wouldn't search at that point versus going through the 2.3K items retrieved.



Amazon.com - From the homepage, I clicked on "Books" in the left nav and from the Books landing page, clicked "Computers & Internet" then "Graphic Design" and then "Interface Design" and got a multi-page listing of books and found the closest match for usability books on page 2 of the search results. That was 4 clicks to get to the search results and 5 clicks to the actual book.



Barnesandnoble.com - From the homepage, I clicked on "Books" in the nav. From the landing page, I clicked "Computing & Internet", then "Programming", then "User Interfaces" and on page 3 of the search results, found what I was looking for. But I did get lost several times first going to "Graphics & Design" and "Internet & World Wide Web". That was 4 clicks to the search results and 6 clicks to the actual book - not including pain and suffering.



Of course, I could have searched from the home pages initially to get to results faster versus going through the prescribed nav paths on these sites. Overall, I would have to say that although eBay was deceptively faster in getting me to the results in the desired 3 clicks, the number of results was overwhelming and required clicking through too many results pages until I gave up and searched for the subject to arrive at the book. Although it didn't initially feel like it, Amazon was actually the best although the categories required a little thought in filtering through them. Not quite 3 clicks but also not too bad.

Easy To Use

Rolling With Online Video

The majority of online video content viewed in the US is news/current events followed by jokes/bloopers/funny clips and movie trailers (previews, clips). Such videos are generally up to five minutes in length. But as David Hallerman, eMarketer Senior Analyst states, "as technology problems are solved, however, making the computer-television connection more viable and pleasurable for the average consumer, online video content will expand in both length and breadth, and professionally-produced material will account for a large part of the menu.” But until then, don't extend the length of your online videos because as a lean-forward technology, the web is second to TV for now "when it comes to elements such as convenience, control and the ability to easily find enjoyable content, TV video content wins out for relaxation, sharing the experience with friends and family and less annoying advertising than online."

When A Website Redesign Takes Flight

In the market for a helicopter?! Sikorsky Aircraft, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., announced the redesign of their website yesterday. When I came across this, what stood out for me is that the company seems to get what sometimes gets forgotten - that a company's website is a business tool and increasingly its "front door" to a global audience and the first experience many visitors have with your brand. As a result, they wanted to make the site a positive and memorable experience for visitors.

Given the product, it is kind of cool that they tried to mirror the offline experience online which can sometimes be tricky to do and given the medium, not always recommended. The company used a combination of video and Flash animation to bring the aircrafts to life by creating an interactive aircraft tour complete with a hangar and airfield, helicopters landing and taking off with all the sound effects, and a pilot describing them. You can get different views of the aircrafts and click on specific parts to get more info...simplified like buying a pair of jeans. They messaged their progress bars creatively; the labels were things like countdown, requesting landing clearance, and cleared for landing/takeoff. It's overall a very creative and unique way to sell such a complex product online effectively using rich media to create an interactive tv-like experience and taking design to greater heights.

Martha Stewart Expands Online Empire

Today's good thing (actually Thursday's) at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia was the acquisition of a 40% stake in online wedding planning company, Wedding Wire. The union provides MSLO the opportunity to increase their digital footprint in the lucrative wedding business both on- and offline. Wedding Wire boasts a localized online wedding marketplace, planning tools, and a social community. "By investing in WeddingWire, we are assembling a robust online offering with a proven toolset to enhance our digital Weddings content and complement what is already the category's premier print magazine," said Wenda Harris Millard, President, Media, MSLO. "We are impressed by WeddingWire's superior online platform and see great opportunities to leverage its expertise across our Internet sites and bring similar tools and features to our other lifestyle content verticals. This is also a tremendous opportunity for our advertisers to reach couples engaged in the process of planning their wedding."

The media mogul's growing online empire is quite impressive. Her own site, MarthaStewart.com, is of course elegantly designed but also has a lot of Web 2.0 and new media features and capabilities that a lot of traditional tech companies lack. It is clearly designed for users and usage and around community building. It's a good thing!

Web 2.0 Sites - Who Is Really Commenting

I recently did an interview at our Web 2.0 Conference & Expo of members of the Web 2.0 user generation and uncovered an interesting finding. I asked five twenty-somethings if they commented on articles, blogs, and videos. Surprisingly, contrary to the belief that these young Web 2.0'ers are actively posting comments to blog posts they read and videos they watch, is apparently NOT the case. These young people apparently prefer to take a more passive approach as voyeurs rather than active participants. They might read blog posts and watch web videos and even read the comments but not necessarily add to them. One person said he might comment if there were a lot of comments and he really liked the story or video. Another said she would read her friend's blog to keep in touch and might post comments there. But they were not commenting on mainstream blogs or Youtube videos. As it turns out, they weren't commenting because they didn't like what they read or saw just that they didn't feel inclined to engage beyond that. They were happy to consume the content but nothing more.

This begs the question - who is really commenting on these sites?! If the so-called Web 2.0 user generation is not commenting, then who is? Commenting on most sites can be anonymous so if users wish to remain unknown they can. Other sites like Youtube, for instance, requires users to login before posting a comment but the commenters can use screen name aliases. What's also interesting is that most of the comments on these fun consumer sites are generally meaningless one worders or one-liners but the members of the user generation interviewed still did not comment.

These interviewees were not shy; they were outgoing and adventurous, some were Stanford students, and they all worked - most in high tech and a couple in the service industry. Their behavior seems to suggest that unless there is an element of familiarity/community or they felt engaged enough or felt strongly enough about something, these Web 2.0-ites simply do not comment.

Right Column Aversion

Most users suffer from right column avoidance syndrome. They simply have an aversion to the right rail content on websites. They avoid it like the plague. They deny its very existence. Their peripheral vision ends where the right column begins. How often have we all glazed over the right most content on a website? Why is this you might ask?! In fact, we all know the reason. It's right column fatigue. We have trained users to expect nothing short of gimmicky marketing and sales pitches in that area of web pages. Even if your site hasn't fallen victim to this, it has become standard convention for this real estate to be relegated to this purpose. It has become a mostly noisy and free-for-all area especially on B2C sites. This rule transgresses all sites including B2B ones as well. A site is a site is a site - all weaved from the same web. So, as long as we accept this - much like users avoid the right channel - as site creators we, too, should equally avoid the right channel when it comes to placing anything there other than non-critical content. For content your users will be seeking and will need to be successful with their task at hand, avoid placing it in the right channel as it is likely to be overlooked.

The other side of this is that the propensity of the right channel content to be overlooked is also related to how ads-y it appears. So, if your right channel content appears more like real content versus marketing, chances are it might get noticed.

Adobe Stock Photos Service To Be Discontinued

As of April 1, the Adobe® Stock Photos royalty-free image service will be discontinued. I received an email yesterday from Adobe announcing this. The service was introduced in May 2005 as part of CS2 and allow CS users to search image libraries to purchase royalty-free images. The reason being cited for the discontinuation of the service is that "Adobe has decided to concentrate its efforts in other areas".

The photos which are part of this service are from the stock collections of the following providers: Amana, BananaStock, Blend Images, Brand X Pictures, Comstock, Creatas, Digital Archive Japan, Digital Vision, Glow Images, Goodshoot, Image Source, Ingram Publishing, IPN Relay, IT Stock International, Masterfile, Photodisc, PhotoObjects.net, Photosindia, Purestock, Redchopsticks, Stockbyte, Tetra Images, and Thinkstock. Here is a listing of the types of images you can find on these site.

93% of Websites To Add Web 2.0 Functionality In 2008

More than half of online businesses plan to add Web 2.0 capabilities to their sites in the next six months to enhance their sites' user experiences. And, over 93% plan to do the same within the next 12 months. This, according to a survey conducted by Scene 7 of 335 retailers, manufacturers, agencies, and high-tech companies that sell products or services online.



The most popular Web 2.0 features sites plan to deploy this year include:
-Alternate views
-User ratings, rankings, and comments
-Videos - merchandising, advertising, and demonstration
-Blogs
-360-degree spin
-Interactive catalogs & circulars
-Product tours & integrated views
-Personalized messaging throughout the site
-Quick looks & rollover views
-Personalized stores (with My Account, profile, favorites)
-Zoom
-user-generated visual content
-RSS

And of these Web 2.0 features, the ones deemed most effective are:
-Alternate Views
-Zoom
-Personalized Stores (My Account, Profile, Favorites)
-Microsites
-360 spin

The RITE Method of Usability Testing

RITE or Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation is a method of usability testing that has been getting a fair bit of airtime. Attributed to Michael Medlock from Microsoft, it was first used by the company in gaming tests but has since been more broadly adopted. It is described in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Handbook (published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) as a method where "fewer participants are used before implementing changes, but more cycles of iteration are performed. With RITE, it is possible to run almost 2 to 3 times the total sample size of a standard usability test. However, only 1 to 3 participants are used per iteration with changes to the prototype immediately implemented before the next iteration (or group of one to three participants)".

The goal of this method is to address as many issues as quickly as possible. For this to work, it is important to have a functioning high fidelity prototype, the ability to make changes quickly, and to identify three types of behaviors - critical success behaviors, important but not vital behaviors, and less important behaviors. And, categorizing potential usability issues into four categories will help to determine the time it will take to fix the issues. A clear solution, quick implementation issue should be fixed immediately before the next round of testing; a clear solution, slow implementation issue should start to be fixed but be ready for testing in later rounds of testing, and; an issue with no clear solution or a minor issue requires more data gathering.

The advantage of the RITE method is that it is extremely rapid and highly iterative allowing for immediate feedback of the UI being tested as well as for feedback on the implemented fixes to the issues first identified.

10 Best Intranets of 2008

Jakob Nielsen just came out with his annual 10 Best Intranets of 2008. The winners are based in six different countries and five of the winners were US companies but surprisingly, there was only one high-tech company, SAP. The winners in alpha order are: Bank of America (US); Bankinter S.A. (Spain); Barnes & Noble (US); British Airways (UK); Campbell Soup Company (US); Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation (US); IKEA North America Service, LLC, (US); Ministry of Transport (New Zealand); New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (Australia); SAP AG (Germany).

The winning elements were design consistency in navigation and UX, integrated IA, focus on productivity tools, employee self-service, access to knowledgeable people versus knowledge management, and better presented company news.

Some of the key findings were:
-News was a key homepage focus on most intranets
-Multimedia use growing in popularity
-Improved user experiences yielded productivity gains for tools such as employee directories to facilitate access to people with knowledge and single sign-on capability as employee self-service was key on most intranets
-The most used technologies used were SharePoint and Google Search Appliance
-Some intranets had unique names as opposed to just "Intranet" such as Discover, InSite, and Flagscape, Employee Self Service, my Campbell, Coldwell Banker Works, and US Retail Inside

Other trends which they discovered were:
-Increased personalization
-Integration of information sources, often resulting in a single "one-stop shopping" page
-Emphasis on mission-critical applications and information (such as sales targets)
-Improved event and project calendars
-Special sections to help orient new employees
-Prominent display of stock quotes and other financial information
-Integration of external and company news, often in the form of customizable feeds
-Alerts integration
-Redesigned and improved search features

Account Sign-In: 8 Design Mistakes to Avoid

Jared Spool over at UIE has a great article on common design mistakes in designing an account sign-in process.

Mistake #1: Having a Sign-in In The First Place
Mistake #2: Requiring Sign-in Too Soon
Mistake #3: Not Stating the Benefits to Registering
Mistake #4: Hiding the Sign-In Button
Mistake #5: Not Making "Create New Account" or "Forgot Your Password" a Button or Link
Mistake #6: Not Providing Sign-in Opportunities at Key Locations
Mistake #7: Asking for Too Much Information When Registering
Mistake #8: Not Telling Users How You'll Use Their Information

Why Apple Is An "A" Player

I was at an Apple store yesterday - this one was newly refurbished - and was struck by how kool and high tech it is. The store is kinda easy on the eye, open, and new-age design much like Apple products (iPhone, Mac, iPod, etc.). Hit the closest available Mac to surf online - the graphical picture quality is next to none. And, if you have some, get your kids started early by dropping them off at the kiddie Mac play area complete with miniature sized everything. There are built-in plasmas on the wall telling you who is the next customer being served and offering up tips on how to use your Apple products along with definitions of terms like Wi-Fi and bandwidth, etc. There are store clerks everywhere. I made the mistake of pausing a few times and was instantly approached each time by a clerk offering their assistance. No need to checkout your purchases at the cashier, clerks on the floor come out-fitted with electronic POS devices. Got a Mac because it looks cool but have no idea how to use it, a friend of mine mentioned he was getting his friend a one- to two-hour lesson for Christmas with an in-store Apple "genius". Ok, I wouldn't consider myself a die-hard Apple fan - I have a Mac collecting dust - but I do like Apple products and their product and UI designs and experience (on- and offline) are good. Not perfect but good. Where else can you get this?!

The Apple Online Store is equally cutting-edge. The UI is clean, clear, streamlined, and seemingly simple. It is Web 2.0-esque with the use of gradients and radial-edged corners. It is wide-screen, utilizes a lot of white, displays a lot of content which is well organized and clearly labeled. The scale of images is not overly large or small. The online store site is clearly identified at the top left with a store-specific search (separate from the general site search), contact tel, and online chat.

The company has had a stellar year and with their recent release of Mac OS X Leopard, they sold 2 million copies in the first weekend. Fresh on the rumor circuit is that Apple has sold nearly 5 million iPhones since its debut in June, half of their '07 and '08 goal. Apple is also currently embroiled in a controversial case against Harvard student, Nicholas M. Ciarelli's web site, Think Secret, which reports on leaked insider info about Apple's product plans. They have reportedly come to an undisclosed settlement which, in essence, means the site will be shut down. Nonetheless, they keep pushing the edge on product and UI designs and I look forward to what's to come from them in the new year.

Using Eye Tracking To Focus A Webpage

Eyetracking studies where you look at users' reading and gaze patterns are a staple of web usability research. We hear all about users going for the jugular - the golden triangle - or casting F- and E-shaped patterns on a site. While this is generally the case in parts of the world where we read from left to right, what is interesting is that what people look at is totally dependent on what you show them or rather what they see. What tends to happen is users will look at what catches their eye initially, then depending on what's on the page or not, move onto the rest of it to create these shapes. So, whatever you as a site owner makes more attention grabbing is what will likely grab users' attention first and foremost. It could be something over to the far right or smack dab in the middle of a page, if it sufficiently stands out from other elements on the page. However, if you have an overly busy page, users may not know where to focus either.

On an e-commerce site like, Target.com, the focal area is the big red ad area in the middle of the page then the eye moves to the bullseye logo at the top left. Of course, it also depends on how the page loads. If the top left portion of the page loads first, like on BestBuy.com, and the content area is slow in painting on the screen, then the top left is what users will be forced to look at. Usually, though, that's just the logo so I am not sure how much value that is to the site or the user. On cnn.com, clearly, CNN wants you to see the top headline story first so they make the featured story image very large and incorporated the findings of eye tracking research in keeping the image to the top left so it is unlikely for users to miss it. Similar situation on yahoo.com. Google.com's homepage is a bit of an anamoly. The focus on the homepage is the logo and search text field but the search results pages follow the regular F-shape pattern. There are other cases where flashy ads can be a scene stealer away from your core page message. The prescription for this would be to tone down the visual impact and scale possibly of such ads. And, there are other cases where there are a lot of competing items vying for the user's attention. This requires prioritizing and balancing these various elements and determining and focusing on what is the core message of the page. This is easier said than done on homepages versus a landing page, for instance, given that on homepages, you are trying to communicate as such as you can as homepages tend to be gateway or directory-like pages.

Finding The Right Mix Using A/B Testing

How does A/B and multivariate testing apply to the design and execution of calls-to-action with respect to how we leverage the social graph. Malcolm Gladwell reveals the keys to success in a presentation that he made at a conference in 2004 entitled "Learning from Spaghetti Sauce". He concludes that "by embracing the diversity of human beings you will find a sure way to true happiness".

We have learned that "one size fits all" is a failed strategy because no single message appeals significantly to a diverse mass audience. Why send out a call to action for which the conversion rate is predictably too small to be considered successful? Instead, you should apply Gladwell’s lesson to how you determine your strategy. I recommend that you do so through multivariate and A/B testing. Campaigns for causes, for example, are like branding/imaging campaigns for powers of association. Their pitch and presentation must be re-designed (in wording, composition, content, imagery, layout, audio, voice, video, typeface, user-interface, interactivity elements, recipient psychographics) to fit different target audience clusters in the social graph (based upon interests, activities, gender, income, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, media platform/network/channel preferences, etc.).

Given a sufficiently large testing sample, variations on the test message can be allocated for testing upon different audience clusters. Doing so helps you to figure out the right match of message<->target cluster. When we perfect a portfolio of clustered solutions, a better overall conversion and ROI is assured than when we pursue the single most “perfect” productive solution.

Written and submitted by Rich Reader, General Partner & Marketing Director, PlanetCheck

Five Usability Challenges of Web-Based Applications

Usability guru, Jared Spool, recently published an article on Five Usability Challenges of Web-Based Applications. He cited Facebook's Beacon debacle where users are able to find out what their friends are up to.

Usability Challenge #1: Scalability
The number of users affected and the amount of information thrown at users are issues. "Designers need to take both the scale of the user base and the scale of the data into account when thinking about how to design their web-based applications effectively. A contributor to Facebook’s mini-feed debacle was the scale of their design. Facebook, making any change to their site, instantly affects eight million people. If even one percent has issues with the change, that’s 80,000 affected users. Being a social networking site compounded Facebook’s issue. Users connect to other users, some users having dozens or even hundreds of connections. Those users with many connections instantly saw a very populated mini feed and realized their previously subtle interactions on their page were now broadcast to each connection."

Usability Challenge #2: Visual Design
"Sometimes, in web application design, it feels like every pixel matters. This isn’t just a question about the application’s aesthetics. Visual design can have a huge impact on how the application communicates its use. Yet, if the visual design isn’t clear and concise, the design takes the user’s focus away from what they wish to think about and forces them to try to guess what the designers were trying to tell them. Visual design problems affect an application’s success in a variety of ways. In the mildest form, they slow users down and distract them from their task. In the worst cases, they confuse users to the point of giving up or needing assistance. If the application is in the organization’s revenue stream or helps reduce costs, we’ve seen visual design issues can dramatically affect the bottom line."

Usability Challenge #3: Comprehension
"Potential investors use the MSN Money Stock Research Wizard to help determine if a stock or mutual fund is the right investment for them. Because MSN Money tailored the wizard to new investors, the application contains detailed explanations, not only about the stock the investor inquired about, but about the questions the investor should be asking. Even if the application functions properly, it will fail the user if they don’t understand the information it’s trying to tell them. The investor needs to both use and comprehend the wizard for it to succeed. Web-based applications often help people by doing things outside their expertise. They turn to the application to help guide them through a decision making process they couldn’t do on their own. Yet, if they make the wrong decision, it negatively affects their experience and their relationship with the organization."

Usability Challenge #4: Interactivity
"One of the big differences between a web application and other types of web pages is the user is far more interactive. On a content-rich site, users mostly click links and occasionally search. Yet, in a web application, they enter data, sort it, rearrange it, and move back and forth through the screens. Understanding how the user will manage their time becomes critical. Does the team put all the data entry on one long screen? Do they break it up across multiple screens? What is the logical order to enter the data? Users don’t always follow the “happy path.” They enter data incorrectly. They decide they need to go back and change something they’ve already entered. They discover they need to learn more about what the application is asking of them and, thereby, need more detailed assistance. Something as simple as always providing a mechanism to “undo” what’s already been done can create interesting usability dynamics. Handling how the application deals with browser controls, such as the back button, can make the designer’s life more challenging."

Usability Challenge #5: Change Management
"The designers at Facebook learned the hard way that quick changes to the application, even if the team thinks it’s an improvement, can have serious negative results if done incorrectly. We all know that users are resistant to change, yet designing how the change will happen is often overlooked, to serious detriment of the user experience. While users are resistant to change, they are willing to do it when given enough support and structure. The problem with quick changes often happens when users frequently use an application and the old design conditioned them to things being a certain way. Even when the change is to their advantage, they often need warning and support to go from the old to the new. We’re now seeing teams start to design the change process along with designing the changes themselves. Paying attention to how users make the transition can increase a change’s adoption and build long-term user loyalty."