[Limbo]

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html

He is an arrogant sod... Wake up mate it's 2005!

[pgo]

1. Legibility Problems
2. Non-Standard Links
3. Flash
Flash is a programming environment and should be used to offer users additional power and features that are unavailable from a static page.
4. Content That's Not Written for the Web
5. Bad Search
6. Browser Incompatibility
7. Cumbersome Forms
9. Frozen Layouts with Fixed Page Widths
10. Inadequate Photo Enlargement

Arrogant sod, yes.

But he's got a number of good points. Granted most of his criticisms are aimed at business/services sites. Niche sites don't really have to worry about some of this stuff.

The only one I don't agree with is 9 - "frozen layouts with fixed page widths" - now, I much prefer fixed width pages. They are far easier to manage readability by keeping line widths decent. Plus designing something with ems just becomes a huge pain in the ass.

Even his site, when I view it at 1280x1024 it's so wide that I can't stand reading it. Too bad "max-width" doesn't work across browsers!

[Transmogrify]

Seen this?

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Q...ient=firefox-a

[pgo]

Originally Posted by Transmogrify

Seen this?

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Q...ient=firefox-a

Doubt it. And I still haven't seen it!

Not working.

EDIT: "Text-only" worked.

Yawn. Yes, he makes a few good, nit-picking points. I didn't say Nielsen was 100% right - I said he was still an arrogant sod, but in general he's correct. Making it hard to distinguish links from everything else is a bad thing. Using Flash inappropriately is a bad thing. Not resizing photos when you say you will is a bad thing. Tiny, non-resizable text is a bad thing. And so on and so forth.

Of course, my problem with Mr. Nielsen is that he comes off as such an arrogant sod. He works in absolutes - "This is the only way to do things or your site is rubbish."

That's nonsense. There's always exceptions. As the letter says, designers shouldn't be at odds with the likes of Mr. Nielsen, we should be finding common ground and compromising. Or at least listening to what they have to say.

[Transmogrify]

Works here!

Mr. Nielsen,

I am writing to you because I have many issues with your latest Alertbox, Why Consumer Products Have Inferior User Experience, and quite frankly, with much of what you have written in the recent past. I would like to address these points and I hope you take this letter to heart.

Prove to the designers out there you understand the principles of good design by tackling your own little spot on the world wide web.

You state,

Here are just few examples of the BMW 745i's clueless interaction design...

These are aggressive words. In my opinion, too aggressive. Considering how well BMW has designed so many cars in the past, it seems unnecessary.

Do you believe that attacking them, or any designer, in this fashion will somehow inspire them to make a better product? Calling anyone or any team that obviously has the ability to design something as complex as a automobile, especially ones that are of BMW's caliber, "clueless" does nothing to further the goal of creating better design.

You state,

Physical products, from consumer electronics to cars, are needlessly complex because they're developed by insular companies that continue to ignore the growing usability trend.

Nothing in your column backs up this statement. For someone who uses data and research as a model for work, I would be interested in knowing how you arrived at the conclusion that, generally speaking, companies are "insular" and that a majority of the products on the market are "needlessly complex."

You state,

It's common to ridicule German engineers for their ignorance of customer needs, but no hardcore engineer should ever accept a slow computer for a high-end product.

You should simply apologize for this statement.

There is no place for this sort of talk from anyone in our field, especially from someone at your level. German engineers, like many engineers across the globe, like many designers across the globe, are smart, talented people. To make a blanket statement about some sort of generalized behavior based on ethnicity is both unproductive and unseemly.

You state,

Of course, a young designer whose vision hasn't yet started to deteriorate wouldn't have the first problem. And anyone reviewing design options in a brightly lit meeting room wouldn't have the second problem. Finally, professionals reviewing design proposals are likely to be sober, whereas many of their customers will be making a major dent in a six-pack, reducing both visual acuity and clarity of thought. If your customer base is likely to imbibe, you must design accordingly.

Once again, you use generalizations with no data to back up the point. Have you done a study that shows that young designers as a group ignore this problem? What constitutes young? And what percentage of that population wears glasses? Further, you demean the user base at the same time, even going so far as to suggest that designers should be intoxicated in order to test their own work in this particular instance. A most bizarre statement if I've ever read any.

You state,

Examples of poorly designed consumer products are legion. Although there are a few good ones, most have bad-to-horrible usability for two reasons: lack of incentive and the lack of a usability culture... TiVo is an example of a consumer electronics company that integrates usability methods during early product development, employing user testing and low-fidelity prototyping with mock-ups.

In the first part of this statement, I think you overlook the real reason why the world suffers from poorly designed products, and I think you do so because you seem to lack a true understanding of what characteristics lie at the heart of good design.

Poorly designed products come from poor design.

The lack of a "usability culture" is not the driving factor with poor design in my experience. It certainly is a factor when designers ignore usability practices in their work, but there is so much more to it than that. Peter Merholz pointed out some excerpts from Henry Dreyfuss' Designing for People that discuss how certain behaviors you claim are part of a "usability culture" have actually been a part of a good design culture for quite some time. This from a book written in the '50s. Prototyping, testing prototypes and iterative design are good design culture. That is also how TiVO designed their remote control, and it clearly shows.

Simply adding a usability culture to a company will have some impact on the overall qualitative design of the end product, but it's not nearly enough. That is to say, the products that are created may become usable, but it won't guarantee they are well designed. However, a design culture that has its roots in good design practice will have a large impact on the overall qualitative design of the end product. It's presence will also create products that are entirely usable.

Why?

Because usability is an aspect of good design and the practice of good design. Not the other way around.

I say this because you constantly state in article after article that it is usability that will save the world from bad design. Quite the contrary, it is good design that will save the world from bad design. Usability is one piece of that puzzle, but let's be clear about what we are talking about.

You state,

Why does TiVo get it while other consumer electronics vendors don't? My guess is that TiVo's usability advantage comes from being based in Silicon Valley. And, while it's possible that TiVo has grokked usability simply because my thought waves emanate as I pass its headquarters en route to my favorite Indian restaurant each week, the more likely explanation is that Silicon Valley has been permeated with the seeds of a usability culture over the past five years.

How are we take you seriously with this sort of remark? TiVo has a well designed product, there's no denying it. TiVo employed a design process that anyone who practices good industrial design engages in. They did a lot of prototyping. They did a lot of testing. They did a lot of iterative design work. That's what good designers do. Pure and simple. They did their homework, like any good designer does.

The fact that many designers don't employ these practices is most definitely an issue, but are you encouraging them with this sort of article? Not from my point of view, speaking as a designer.

Finally, you state,

Today, companies that develop computer products or new Internet services need a user experience strategy, just like they need an offshore strategy. Usability is simply one of the issues that executives are expected to care about. It doesn't mean that they do the right thing, or use the correct methods at every step. But it does mean that they can't ignore usability.

Replace the word "usability" with the word "design" and I would be in violent agreement with you.

Mr. Nielsen, I respectfully request you stop posting articles like this. You do yourself and the usability field a disservice by speaking in terms that are vague, not backed up with research data, and filled with hyperbole. Further, until you learn more about what it takes to be a designer, and what it means to design a product with your own two hands, I respectfully request you stop trying to dictate any design agenda as some subset of what you view as the usability agenda.

The world needs better designers -- I whole heartedly agree. Designers could learn a lot from you, and what you have to say as it pertains to understanding how to do better research, gather relevant data, and all the homework activities that are required before one can begin the process of design. They could also learn a lot from you with regard to testing, and how to listen to users and discover what they truly need. But the manner in which you write, the lack of relevant evidence missing in many of your Alertboxes, the apparent lack of understanding about what it means to design something well from the point of view of the designer -- these things do nothing to promote better design in the future.

In fact, at this stage of the game, I would dare say you are doing far more harm than you are doing good, and I ask that you cease this behavior.

I have a suggestion that I hope you take to heart. Prove to the world that you understand what it takes to provide the world with good design. Prove that you understand that good design, especially as it pertains to the field of high-technology product design, is also about nuts and bolts, honest, straight-forward usability. Prove to the designers out there you understand the principles of good design by tackling your own little spot on the world wide web.

Redesign UseIt.com with your own two hands. Do the work yourself. Make it readable. Make it pleasing to the eye. Fill it with content that inspires people to do better in their own work. Take the time to employ some basic typography principles. I'll even let you borrow my copy of Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst. Create a pleasing color palette. Create some simple, yet elegant informational graphics. Go take a few photos.

Do all of this and make your own web site usable. It is possible. In fact, for someone who is at your stage in their career, I would claim it is required.

Respectfully,
Andrei Michael Herasimchuk

[pgo]

Haha. I finally got it. See above.