Posts Tagged usability
Anti-pattern: Dead Zones
Posted by Todd Toler in Interaction Design, Visual Design on September 10th, 2009
The Independent Film Channel's home page used to be one big "Dead Zone" before they redesigned it.
Ad placements are, by definition, dead zones. These are specific, predictable sections of a website’s screen real-estate that are subconsciously tuned out by the user as unrelated to the page’s main content and functionality. But designers unintentionally create dead zones of their own all the time. A classic and well understood example of a dead zone is “right-rail” blindness. Content and features below an ad – such as in the right-hand column of a typical two or three column layout – are tuned out as ads on the assumption that everything from an ad down is also an ad. According to Nick Gould, CEO of the design and research firm Catalyst Group, the evidence of this phenomenon goes well beyond the anecdotal. “There is no question that right-rail blindness is a phenomenon we’ve observed in both eye-tracking and usability testing. This is of course mainly due to the ingrained expectation that ads live there.” And it’s not just a matter of positioning elements in a layout. The manner in which a page element itself is designed can greatly amplify or lessen the dead zone effect, in the worse case scenario unintentionally deactivating important content areas and features from the user’s attention. Often this comes from trying so hard to make an element “pop” visually, that the reverse effect occurs. “The dead zone effect is obviously exacerbated if elements below ads are ad-like in their design,” Gould says. ”Furthermore, promotional elements that have standard ad dimensions and contain images are frequently mistaken for ads.” Read the rest of this entry »
Validity and Think-Aloud Protocols
Posted by Todd Toler in User & Design Research on August 5th, 2009
First adapted from the work of experimental psychologists – most notably, Ericsson and Simon’s landmark 1993 work Protocol Analysis, – think-aloud protocols are the de-facto standard for usability research in both the lab and field settings. If you’ve seen or given a usability test before then you know what this is, it’s when the moderator tells the respondent to use a website or other application and then says “Hey, tell me what you are thinking.” Jakob Nielsen and other HCI researchers were quick to trump the merits of this technique for uncovering usability problems with sample sizes as small as four people. Why is the technique so effective? Well, it’s validity stems largely from the fact that it’s a direct measure of what’s happening in a subject’s short-term memory. Other examples of direct measures of human cognition are hard to find… in fact, the two others that are primarily used are response tests (e.g. reaction time indicators) and MRI brain scans! So to have a direct measure that is cheap and easy to administer and also provides qualitative insights into the user experience is powerful indeed! But if the interview is poorly moderated, or descends into a Q & A session between moderator and respondent, then this validity flies out the window… so let’s look at the issue more closely.
Recent Comments