February 27, 2008
Removing left-hand navigation
Our consultant recommended removing our site’s left-hand navigation on top and 2nd-level pages (and making it an option only on the 3rd level), and instead integrating the navigation elements into the main content well. Is this a newly accepted best practice?
Your IA consultant may have good data on which he is basing his suggestions. End-user data would be very valuable.
That said, general best practices you want to consider include making navigation and terminology predictable and consistent.
Navigation and terminology should be predictable, meaning that the information is where users would expect to find it and the name or label of the information clearly and accurately describes it.
Be consistent with your navigation. Your current website has some sections where the left side is totally redundant with the top horizontal 2nd-tier navigation, while elsewhere those areas offer different navigation options. You should pick one method and stick with it: Either 2nd-level horizontal navigation drives the next level of navigation on the left that is unique to each page, or eliminate the 2nd-level horizontal and deliver 2nd-tier navigation on the left of each page.
Filed under: Design, Usability | Permalink
February 07, 2008
Search engine optimization and usability
How can we optimize our site content for search engines but make sure it’s usable for people, too?
If you care about search engine optimization, then you most likely want users to find your site or landing page (through paid search or natural search) and take some action that’s important to you (e.g., buy something, subscribe to a newsletter, request to be contacted). It’s not enough just to be listed high up in the search results—your content needs to be optimized for people to understand and use, or they’ll click away.
For both search engines and people, it’s usually smart to put the most important information first, in page titles, headings and paragraphs (using topic sentences). Also, do your best to provide the information using the users’ vocabulary, not necessarily your own.
You also should write your link text very carefully. A link that says “click here” is relatively slow and difficult for users to process, because they have to read more to predict what they’ll get if they click on it. A “click here” link also is a wasted opportunity to tell a search engine what the link is specifically about, so your page is seen as less relevant.
Trying to trick search engine sites by inserting irrelevant keywords into your copy or endlessly repeating keywords can lead to trouble. Search engine sites may ban you, and users will be annoyed by you and click away.
Regarding the action(s) you want users to take, make sure they’re clear and prominent on the page. If you’re not sure whether buttons, links and other elements are prominent enough, then run a usability study with end-users (which is a good idea, anyway). A quicker method is to squint at your screen so it becomes blurry—do elements that stand out most on the page lead to actions you want the user to take?
Filed under: Content, Usability | Permalink
October 16, 2007
User data sources
We get feedback from users when we’re able to do usability tests, which is not often enough. What other sources are good for user data?
Companies often fail to take advantage of internal sources of user data. In defining requirements for the next release, do you talk to Tech Support or Customer Service to identify the most frequent or critical usability issues they’ve heard about from users? Those teams also are on the front line for hearing about new features that users want.
Technical Writers and Documentation Specialists also can be gold mines of information. If those folks are not already on your team, find them and ask their thoughts. Chances are, the things they have a hard time documenting are good issues to be explored.
Marketing and Product Management might have valuable data for you from surveys, focus groups, interviews, etc.
If your organization has a Training group, ask them what’s working and what the users want changed. Observe the training sessions yourself, too, and listen to people’s questions.
How about Sales Reps and Consultants who go out in the field? Try sending a User Experience Specialist on customer visits with them, to emphasize how important the customers are to your company, and to solicit feedback and requirements in a way that’s probably different from how the Sales Reps and Consultants do it.
However you do it, don’t rely on any single source to provide you with user data. Get feedback from multiple channels, compare and contrast the data across channels, and look for patterns and ”a-ha” nuggets in the data.
Filed under: Usability, Process_and_Strategy | Permalink
August 21, 2007
Remote Usability Testing
What are the pros and cons of remote usability testing?
Remote usability testing is an excellent method for getting feedback when study participants, facilitators and/or observers are in different physical locations. Using web conferencing software such as WebEx, GoToMeeting or UserVue, remote testing enables screen sharing among everyone involved in the study. When the study participant has control of the screen (in presenter mode), everyone can see in real time what that user is doing. A simultaneous telephone conference call enables people to hear what the user says as he or she works through tasks.
This method offers convenience and can save a great deal of time and money, as you can run sessions with users anywhere in the world without incurring travel costs. It’s also useful for enabling distributed development teams to observe sessions (we’re big fans of multi-disciplinary team members observing sessions live, whenever possible).
A few downsides to remote testing should be considered. Unlike testing in person, remote testing does not let you see the expressions on a user’s face, unless the user has a webcam. Facial expressions, gestures and other body language can be important sources of data. In addition, remote tests require slightly more preparation than in-person tests. For example, you need to ask potential participants about firewalls, operating systems and other system requirements to make sure they’ll be able to access the web conferencing software. Also, the web conferencing software adds another layer of technical complexity to the session, which may frustrate or confuse less-savvy Web users.
For the most part, though, the cons of remote testing are minor when you consider the benefits.
Filed under: Usability, Process_and_Strategy | Permalink
July 06, 2007
"Click here" links
My company’s site has links that say “click here” or “click here for more info”. I think our links should be more specific, but other people here say it’s OK because they see it on other websites. What do you think?
Avoid vague links such as “click here”. Our research shows that Web users typically scan text until they find content of real interest, at which point they switch into reading mode. If users are in scanning mode and see several “click here” links instead of meaningful, specific links that describe what they lead to, then the users are much less likely to follow the links and more likely to abandon the site. Making sense of “click here” links requires greater cognitive effort and more reading at a time when many users might not be ready to make the investment.
To learn more about research and guidelines for content usability, take our Content Usability: Writing for the Web training course, which will be offered in Austin, Texas on July 23-24, 2007. We also customize the course and offer it to companies on-site. Or, if you prefer a vague link to that same information, click here.
Filed under: Content, Usability | Permalink
Previous Questions |