Top 10 Usability Blunders of the Big Players

[ArticleBot]

This is an article discussion thread for discussing the SitePoint article, "Top 10 Usability Blunders of the Big Players"

How about the abuse of how links open, such as the Sitepoint system that somehow blocks Firefox from ctr-clicking to open pages in a new tab?

Refreshing indeed. Thanks for the reality check! :)

[codepoet]

Err, how is that one different to the first one?
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/blunders-big-player-2

I still think it is rather useless to point the finger, anyone who is interested in accessibility _is_ aware that the web hardly has any "big player" that does it well.

Furthermore, it is very easy to judge the end result, but in big corporations web development is not as easy as in small companies or a blog.

We can copy and paste most of the posts from the last article now here:
http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177117

I like reading articles like this because they are wake-up calls as to who is paying attention to usability and who isn't. However, I have to agree with stylo~ - it is very frustrating that I can't do a normal function I always do - open sites in new tabs. This is a big usability problem to me. Still - great article as always, guys.

[tonyskyday]

Originally Posted by codepoet

Err, how is that one different to the first one?
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/blunders-big-player-2

One is accessability, the other is useability.

-Tony

[Hierophant]

Wasn't this article published before?

[fatnewt]

This seems to be the third of three very similar articles.

The two predecessors are:

7 Usability Blunders:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/blunders-big-players/
March 24, 2003

10 Accessibility Blunders:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/blunders-big-player-2/
June 24, 2004

[megamanXplosion]

I agree with everything in the article

[Brak]

I agree with all of them except excessive download time - I believe the site in question (ESPN) has full rights to nearly require broadband. It's advertising for a cable channel... which means their target audience has extra money... which means they most likely have broadband. Plus it's delivering a rich multi-media experience and the end load time is worth it - the home page is stunning.

Furthermore, 139k or more of this information will be cached to the user (externally linked files), and most users visit frequently.

Not to mention, why are we quoting UK statistics when we're dealing with an American-based web site catering to the US? I believe the US is 40%+ broadband now.

[codepoet]

Hmm, I got 512 broadband and about 80% of it is maxed out with downloads, uploads and the server. The speed of the connection is not necessarily the speed the user can or want to have for a site.

I think the biggest problem here is that usability means "being usable for the audience" and strict, technical means of testing don't quite cut it. I am quite sure that many of these companies _did_ usability testing and found the product OK enough for the targetted audience.

I would also add as a point pop-up windows, or links that open in a new window. As a user i dont want windows to open in a new window as its a hassle to organise, move, resize etc. I as a user know if i want a window in a new window - and if i do i will open it in one. If i dont open it in a new window it means i dont want it in a new window.

[simonth]

I agree to most of the points listed and a slight different opinion on the one about frames. Yes, it is considered as a old technique now (is iframe the replacement for it?) but it does serve some good purposes.

By having frames, certain sections of the site e.g. left navi bar can be retained and not reloaded every time a new page is requested. This actually makes the browsing of the site seems faster as only the area where new content is displayed, is reloaded.

I still believe it has some uses till now. actually does any of you know the original purpose of frames when this tag was created?

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by stylo~

How about the abuse of how links open, such as the Sitepoint system that somehow blocks Firefox from ctr-clicking to open pages in a new tab?

Because of some crazy JavaScript, SitePoint's links don't do anything for me. I click, and nothing.

The trick is to drag the link outside the current browser window, then back in again, then release.

I've no idea what the code is trying to achieve, but how many users will figure that one out themselves?


Amorya

I'm very pleased to see that you think not having search is the #1 problem with these sites. I agree, though bad search is almost as big a problem (I'm not a fan of Index Server).

I have lots of information, with no advertising, on this topic at SearchTools.com, and I hope you find it helpful.

Avi Rappoport
Search Tools Consulting

[polvero]

Wow! I visit nba.com all the time and now that I think about it...it's quite amazing that they've gotten away without a search function

I have a question about visited links.
How distinct should the visited links be?
Because trying to fit them in the color scheme of the site is already hassle (that is if you're changing the color of a visited link). So factoring in another color is most often times out of the question.
How about changing the border to border-bottom: dashed 1px #somehex;
which was originally border-bottom: solid 1px #somehex;
(i'm a big fan of the border-bottom rather than the text-decoration)

Anyway, where I'm getting at is, how much of a difference?

I notice that there is some crazy javascript on www.bmw.com which reloads the page, each time the browser window is re-adjusted.

[rusko]

some of the points you have made seem to be somewhat forced, if you will.

3 - it's a press release, for pete's sake. press releases have to follow a certain format and bulletted lists are not it. general usability is important, but it is but a means to an end - in this case, the end is for the press to read the release (hence 'press release').

5 - this is hardly a big enough faux pas to mention. the page can't be displayed - you get to go back and try again.

7 - frames can be useful. i wouldn't use them, but in this case, they give the site a snappier feel and prevent user disorientation by clearly denoting which portion of the screen contains dynamic data by reloading that part of the screen only.

10 - i'm sorry, but this is completely off. i agree with the general point that conventions are important, but the scrolling function on bmw.com are perfectly understandable (checked using my blonde gf) and i see no issue with them. the site is simple, to the point and easy to use since there are few options, making navigation very streamlined. you need to find a better example for this.

paul

[MikeFoss18]

Paul, I agree with you on the navigational issue, but only because of the product they are trying to sell. I would suppose that something new and different was created for the site so that it could accurately reflect the idea that BMWs themselves are different. I can almost hear the ad now: "There are people that buy cars to get from here to there...and there are those that buy them to be different."

Or something dumb like that.

However, the frames issue has got to be one of the biggest points made. While frames are nice to use, they are horrible from a design standpoint. Apart from having all of the problems denoted above, frames can quite possibly give you too unique an experience. To change a web page to make it different is one thing (flash, etc.) - to change the very thing that holds a browser together makes the concept of the window itself foreign to the user.

[Durham_SP]

Nice tight article - very useful reminder of the important points

In the 2nd item of the list, "Massive Download Time", there's a recommendation to use Web Page Analyzer. I've tried comparing the Web Page Analyzer's results to the files actually downloaded to my cache for the same page and I see dramatic differences. For my own site's home page (http://www.designshift.com/) the files actually downloaded to display the page total 72KB but the Analyzer says the total is 271KB. I wondered how this might work with another site, so I tried the Stopdesign home page (http://www.stopdesign.com/), and this time the results were off again, but in the other direction -- Web Page Analyzer reported 61KB and the files actually downloaded to my cache equalled 116KB.

So Web Page Analyzer reports the Designshift page at almost 4 times the actual download size, and the Stopdesign page at 1/2 the actual download size.

One unusual factor in the Analyzer report on the Designshift site is that it is counting every image referenced in the CSS, even though most of them are only actually downloaded and used on *other* pages and not on the home page. Basically I have a different banner and background images for each section of the site. The stylesheet determines which images to use according to the id assigned to the <body> tag.

I don't know why it underreports the size of the Stopdesign home page, but all in all something certainly seems wrong.

The BMW site is the worse. I cannot even scroll down because their navigation goes off the bottom of my screen with 800x600 resolution. I had to make IE go into full-screen mode to be able to scroll down. Then I had to go find USA way down there. (I'm used to USA being at the top of lists.) While I was scrolling the whole page suddenly decided to reload and I was afraid I accidentally missed their small navigation arrows and hit Germany. Once I got back I scrolled and click USA. Then it opened www.bmwusa.com in a separate window. What was the point in doing that? I didn't need a new window so I could still see the annoying screen that let me select my country. When I switched back to the www.bmw.com window to close it, I saw it said "Server not found" on the page.

This was a very bad user experience.

[codeman38]

Wow, BMW's site *is* quite awful. Why did they have to reinvent the wheel, rather than using a standard widget such as a SELECT box that can be accessed equally well using either a keyboard or a mouse? Their custom scroller is slow and inaccessible... not to mention that it only works with JavaScript turned on.

Bank sites are the worst... To register at Downey Savings, for example, you had to enter the full (first, MI, last) name from your account in a freeform text box, in exact case, with exact punctuation, and still it didn't work because inevitably whomever entered it into their computer system put it in slightly different than what's on your checks. Sigh. Second gripe would be sites that don't support any browser but I.E. or support alternate browsers badly.

This list has a few good suggestions, but I have a few problems with a couple of them... first, I don't see a problem with calling a 404 error a 404 error... as long as you don't just call it a 404 error and move on. I would say that most net users are familliar with this error code, and what it means, even if they don't fully understand. I think that an error page should clearly show that a problem occured, and then state the problem, and then give them the tools to move on with the site... calling it a 404 error doesn't hinder this. We don't need to dumb EVERYTHING down =o)

As far as the 'visted links not shown' issue, I have mixed feelings about this... on one hand I can see where showing the visited links can be helpful, but maibly it just makes a page look uply with all sorts of mixed-color links everywhere... this is especially true if the default purple color is left in place... GIVE ME A BREAK!