Interview with Jakob Nielsen

[ArticleBot]

This is an article discussion thread for discussing the SitePoint article, "Interview with Jakob Nielsen"

[AJKock]

I am glad that somebody of note actually also dispises people making words on a page into ads, instead letting it lead to more information regarding the link topic (as we are used to on the web).

I was a bit surprised by his attitude towards things like AJAX, but I understand where he is coming from. We as programmers and designers are once again getting excited about "kewl" things we can do. It will still take some time, before we actually work through all the stuff to give something really useful and usable for the USER.

[A.N.Onym]

Nothing surprising about him not being content with AJAX. I myself think that AJAX is not a usable technology and should be used as cautious as Flash.

[adpd]

Yeah, if anything I thought Jakob was restrained with regards to him comments about AJAX; I expected to him to slaughter it.

[dsa1971]

It seems like Jakob thinks Ajax has some potential if used in the right circumstances which applies to a lot of things in technology. Developers just go a little overboard sometimes when they find a new toy. There are definitely some sites making use of Ajax in a beneficial manner rather than using it just because they can.

[auricle]

It's good to see Nielsen coming out against keyword ads. Just yesterday, Tobias Schlitt objected to such a practice.

[Dan Schulz]

Originally Posted by A.N.Onym

Nothing surprising about him not being content with AJAX. I myself think that AJAX is not a usable technology and should be used as cautious as Flash.

I feel exactly the same way as you do. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our opinion.

I guess that's why they're called "opinions" .

[DC_todd]

I've been reading Jakob's trite comments for years and think he is completely over rated. Having worked as a govt. contractor most of those people believe he is god and there is nothing farther from the truth.

Ok...I give it to you...usability is absolutely paramount but what about design? Should you sacrifice all design aspects for usability...NO! Take a look at his terrible web-site. It is one of the worst on the web....sure, its usable..kind of. I don't think its really that usable. HOT AIR! Just some geek trying to milk a buck. Besides have you seen all of the "high resolution" photos that self absorbed **** has on his web-site? LOSER...the thumbs down is for you.

I dont' like him...but I will say that 50% of what he says is credible and most of it is just common sense and good taste....which I might add that a lot of folks just don't have.

[Juvenall]

*sigh*

When will people come to understand that Nielsen is the same caliber of moron as the people who fight against anything with pointed corners and for 3 miles of handicap parking at the mall?

If you just ignore him, he'll go away.

[redux]

Originally Posted by Juvenall

for 3 miles of handicap parking at the mall?

care to enlighten us here, juvenile?

[Sagewing]

Neilson regurgitates the same crap over and over. Whatever is new, he doesn't like it because it can't reach 100% of people, blah blah.

It's such a cheap position. He's not innovative, he's only a nay-sayer. I think he's a useless pundit and will drift into obscurity without being credited for actually adding anything to the electronic world except lots of blather.

[AutisticCuckoo]

Originally Posted by redux

care to enlighten us here, juvenile?

Originally Posted by Juvenall

If you just ignore me, I'll go away.

[rscherer]

Yet again Jakob fills our screens with the same rubbish. I agree whole heartedly with 20% of what he says, it's the fact that he is so set in his ways, old fashioned and idealistic that he fails to see the usability benefits that rich applications can bring to a section fo the population. We can't always be developing for the lowest common denominator!

[AJKock]

I think some of you misunderstands the difference between features and usability. More features doesn't mean better usability. DC Todd, i don't agree with you but I can understand the frustration as a designer. Sometimes designers take it too far, because it is about expression, but if you only focus on expression, don't expect your result to be usable. Expression is a personal thing. Just look at art or poetry and see the various opinions and understanding it evoke.
Jacob is over concervative, but somebody must be. There is enough evangelists of new technology. One thing I think he can maybe focus on is to differentiate between information and entertainment sites, which have different goals and to a certain degree, different user expectancies. Do you want to be entertained or be informed?

[Sagewing]

AJ, those are good points. But do we really need someone to tell us, "Don't use any features and you'll reach the widest audience!". It's simplistic to the extreme. It would be more helpful to say, "here is how to balance usability vs. features". What do we really learn from JN?

[AJKock]

Originally Posted by Sagewing

... But do we really need someone to tell us, "Don't use any features and you'll reach the widest audience!"...

If your goal is to maximise commercial success, then yes. Like I said, you can use features, but make sure the way they are implemented is usable.
For example: Active pages are slower than static pages, but we can see they are reloading when the page changes. With AJAX, content gets pulled into the same page. If it is slow there is not something that shows you that it is still loading. A person that isn't tech savy will wonder if his browser got stuck or he didn't click an option properly. But on the other hand if you give him "virtual feedback" on the same page, it will be more userfriendly. So to conclude: You can use features, just make sure that you take inconsideration the usability changes your new feature creates.

[Dr John]

Unfortunately for those who don't like Nielsen, he reports the results of research. The facts that are found. Now you can ignore what he reports, but it is based on what users are observed to do, so it would be a bad idea to ignore everything he says.

For example, how often did you click on what you thought was a link in an article only to discover it was an advert, and get annoyed? With practice, we learn to ignore or be suspicious of things that might be keyword ads. But should we be forced to take this attitude, and have to hover over every blue underlined word for a few seconds in case it reveals itself to be an ad? It slows up our use of a web site. and others have said they don't like it either. So why take objection to what he says? If you don't like his personality or the style of his web site, does that make the research reported unimportant or wrong or worth ignoring?

[Sagewing]

Sure, there is lots of research but there are lots of sources for those facts. It's Neilson's analysis that is lacking - he always takes the easy road of 'avoid this, avoid that' which is cheap, and not very helpful.

Which article would you rather read?

1) "How to integrate feature _________ while still maintaining usability and accessibility by using technology _________."

OR

2) "Don't use feature _________ because it's not usable".

People want innovation, not pessimistic and non-innovative analysis. We look for people to help us BALANCE usability and cutting-edge features, and we look for people to help us INNOVATE ways to use both, and we look for people to help is get CREATIVE and find NEW ways to meet everyone's needs.

He's an old nay-saying pundit, imo

(uh, oh! Am I one, too???)

[AJKock]

Originally Posted by Sagewing

People want innovation, ...

Actually, I don't think that this statement is true. People want things to work and as simple as possible. People that want to sell stuff or that wants to be creative, wants to be innovate. Users don't! They want the job done. This is exactly want JN points too. Designers and innovators think they are the average user.

[Sagewing]

You are right, but JN doesn't write for users, he writes for web developers. So, developers need to learn to innovate and push the envelope in a way that lets users just be users.

I have never known an ordinary web user (i.e. my Mom) who knows who JN is. We are the audience for his blathering.

[Dr John]

Originally Posted by Sagewing

You are right, but JN doesn't write for users, he writes for web developers. So, developers need to learn to innovate and push the envelope in a way that lets users just be users.

I have never known an ordinary web user (i.e. my Mom) who knows who JN is. We are the audience for his blathering.

Agreed. And JN tells you when testing shows that something makes it tricky for users, and how to make it less tricky. Although from some of the posts here, you'd think he only said don't use this and never gave a better way to do it. If research shows people ignore itemA and focus on iitemB, you are being told make itemB where you put the important bits of tinformation! Or if itemX causes more problems than itemY, then use itemY iinstead. That's what we need to know. Positive advice. some here only focus on the "don't do this" part and complain, instead of reading the "try this instead" bits.

For example. How many of us routinely make a logo clickable to take the user to the home page? Because research showed that users try clicking on the logo!
How many of us place navigation links together in one place? Because research showed that made it easier for users than spreading it around at random, the way designers did five - ten years ago!
Remember those sites where you had to search around to find the bits that where hidden links, and how hard it was to remember which bit took you where? Most people don't do that now, because research showed it confused new visitors.
Pages with huge amounts of graphics look pretty, but research showed that people got bored waiting for a home page with lots of graphics to load and went elsewhere.

We take this sort of knowledge for granted now, but for a while it was not the way things were done. Research has helped improve web design, and new designers, noticing the way pages are now built, learn the correct ways. But five - ten years ago, it was a bit different. These were just some people's opinions with no facts to back them up.

And there are other usability researchers who say the same sort of things, but JN is the best known amongst web developers and as the most quoted, he gets the flack. Look for what he does recommend as useful, don't assume he is just complaining about something. As he was asked about AJAX, of course he will give an opinion. That's what interviewers do - find the latest innovation / hot topic and ask about it.

[Sagewing]

Make the logo clickable? If that's the example of his advice, it's weak.

[Dr John]

Originally Posted by Sagewing

Make the logo clickable? If that's the example of his advice, it's weak.

It was an off the top of my head example, as you well know. Although as I said, about five years ago only some sites had clickable logos, but research showed users were clicking them regularly to see what happens. The research was reported, now almost everyone does this. Weak? It is now common knowledge because it was widely accepted.
Read his summary reports and learn more.

[Neil Bradley]

The guy annoys me. I don't value a word he says.

Neil, I agree. I pretty much throw what Nielson says out the window. He's never incorporated the non-robotic elements of the human experience into his theories and usually fails to address the topics in question for what they can contribute to usability, choosing instead to trash them for not addressing his areas of focus (i.e. his comments regarding current ajax implementations).

Sadly, I still see loyal Nelsonites out there who believe they can follow a guide and be effective and decorated designers. WEAK!