I’m still shocked after all these years of the net being around there still doesn’t seem to be any parameters in place of what you should & shouldn’t do when designing a site & some of them are just common sense things.
Well, there are design Best Practices floating around out there for the web (which are different than the ones for print), but there’s also some guidance at WCAG (even though it’s specifically stated for disability and accessibility, a lot of it is indeed the common-sense stuff that works for everyone).
To me anyway; ironically, I was trying to figure out who was “Sp”? For a few seconds - didn’t mean SitePoint.
I assume that’s a new marketing term for “a stupid cat”? Now if I had seen a reference to Poes (minus the abbreviated reference of her being stupid) I’d have figured it out within a split-second. I need rest my eyes deceive me. :D[/ot]
WCAG stands for “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines” and the clue is in accessibility - making your website usable for people with varying levels of needs - though admittedly it’s not exactly a perfect solution. The problem with wanting best practices on what to-do and what not-to with design is that much of design is VERY subjective and therefore the ability to determine the best route is based on a lot more variables than can be defined by rules. Much of design theory is based on psychology, sociology and a whole bunch of research, studies and indicators - however as people change and as society evolves their browsing habits, those rules flex on a constant basis for their audience. Stuff like the user-experience is far too complex and theoretical to ever be like code where you can state precise rules - it’s much in the same way as science and medicine, in that as our understanding of humans evolves, so does the methods we use to treat conditions.
[/quote]Sp has the right of it, but she’s a little incomplete. Nielsen attacks the issues from a very pragmatic point of view. Basically, he is testing for how well people can use your work. You may deduce certain principles from his articles (and he often spells them out in a limited sense), but there is much more to understanding the user interface than primarily usability.
For your graphic design artist there are maintaining branding, setting a mood (a part of the sales effort), illustration, and affordance. The first three are common graphic design concepts. Affordance, a term appropriated from the industrial design field by Norman for the human/computer interface, is, at its heart, about making things’ usages obvious. For example, a push bar on a door implies that you push to open, whereas a handle implies you pull. Use both where only one works, and your less than happy visitor will pick the wrong one 90% of the time. (Hm, maybe you wouldn’t, but I do, and I just might have wanted to buy something, but now I’m just pissed off.)
That brings us to the vocabulary used on the site. This belongs to the field of information architecture (IA), or library science. Use the words your potential customer is likely to use when navigating your site; not what the marketing dweebs have decided was catchy. Don’t let the graphics guy determine your page’s navigation layout. That belongs to IA.
Sales is about authoring. Talk benefits. List features if you must, but tie each to its benefits. As the old sales maxim goes, “sell the sizzle, not the steak”. Ask for the order with each benefit. Your graphics might include a happy button to take the client to an order form, or an obviously pleased person enjoying the benefits, etc…
No, I mean graphical user interface, where things should be placed on a site so the site moves like a well oiled machine when a surfer moves through it. I think that also includes how to use graphics to sell instead of just as pretty objects.
Hell, just read all the alertboxes. You always have to look at your own site and your own users, and doing your own usability testing (which can be done on the cheap with just a few people), but the report I bought states that they figure they can state their findings as “general”… that is, for the average web site.
I agree. The other day I signed up to a new affiliate program & I got to the page where the countries were listed.
I scanned the list which seemed very small (was in a rush), & didn’t see Canada, so I almost accused them of being anti Canadian since so many sites are.
They wrote me back & told me it was there, go try again.
Once I stopped & looked, I still couldn’t find it. Then all of a sudden my eyes picked up on the fact that there’s 2 arrows at the bottom of the little box pointing left & right within the drop down (it was actually a drop up) box.
I’d NEVER seen such a thing before & I had to go backwards several screens within the dropup box just to find Canada.
It was cute & I laughed about it. They still can’t tell me what it is. I was told it was html & an iframe & I’m not a coder, but it seemed to me to be way more than simple html.
My point is, if I hadn’t complained & was someone else who just walks away (that’s a good 75% of the population btw), they would have lost me as an affiliate.
While it’s not exactly the same thing you mentioned about using cute terminology, when people decide they are going to go outside the box & try something new & cute, god knows how many users/buyers they lose.
I’m still shocked after all these years of the net being around there still doesn’t seem to be any parameters in place of what you should & shouldn’t do when designing a site & some of them are just common sense things.
It’s no wonder the web design industry still isn’t taken seriously. Not once have I ever had a GWD teach me anything when I hired them. If you are a true professional, you educate (in a subtle way) as you are doing the work. This shows the company that you know your stuff.
I suspect a good 75% (or more) of all companies or even sole practitioners have no clue what they need when creating a site. They don’t have to know how to do it & they may not find the right people b/c they are so hard to find, but they should at least know what to look for.
It’s no different than knowing that when you build a house you need to look for a plumber, electrician, drywaller, flooring specialist, etc. etc.
I only ever came across one guy who claimed he knew what he was doing when it came to graphics, placement, etc. He did one very enticing template for me that I loved (I don’t think the placement was all that, but it was gorgeous), but when I asked him to redo my existing site’s design, it turned out to be totally gross, so I lost money there.
My assistant at the time took what he did & revamped it & did a totally wonderful design & he’s not an “expert”.
So my point is, I’ve had to deal with tons of GWDs over the last 8 years, & only one seemed to know (or claim by talking a lot) that he knew what he was doing beyond claiming to design something pretty.
I know we can’t budget out for the expensive GWDs, but I surf million dollar companies that are worse than my site.
Most of the wannabee GWDs ask me what I want it to look like (yeh, I’ll do all the work for you & then pay you toooooo).
Oh didn’t realize there was a course in PHP, but I assume that’s pretty basic, correct?
No, I mean graphical user interface, where things should be placed on a site so the site moves like a well oiled machine when a surfer moves through it. I think that also includes how to use graphics to sell instead of just as pretty objects.
So far, courses have been run on PHP, JavaScript, CSS and HTML5. By GUI, do you mean WYSIWYG web design? If so, no. Perhaps you should head to lynda.com for that sort of thing. I think they have lessons on Dreamweaver etc…
That brings us to the vocabulary used on the site. This belongs to the field of information architecture (IA), or library science. Use the words your potential customer is likely to use when navigating your site; not what the marketing dweebs have decided was catchy. Don’t let the graphics guy determine your page’s navigation layout. That belongs to IA.
One of the studies in the report I got had a guy who was on a Sony site (dunno which one) and his task was to find a physical store.
The test subject did a lot of looking, because it was hidden within a dropdown menu under some confusing terms. He finally clicked on it, having spent time making sure it was nowhere else, and ended up on a page called “Sony Style” and all the links said things like “find your Sony Style Store”. The test subject was very confused: Sony Style sounded like a specialty shop, not a plain old ordinary Sony shop like he was looking for.
The marketing guys had made the site say “Sony style” everywhere, confusing people who never heard of the term (I have Sony products, I’ve never heard of Sony Style either… I don’t follow marketing compaigns). The test subjects expected things like “store” or “Sony store”. So that’s what you use. “Find a Sony store near you” is understandable to everyone, isn’t it?
