Ten Usability Heuristics

October 30th, 2007

by Jakob Nielsen

These are ten general principles for user interface design. They are called “heuristics” because they are more in the nature of rules of thumb than specific usability guidelines.

Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
 
Match between system and the real world
The system should speak the users’ language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
 
User control and freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked “emergency exit” to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
 
Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
 
Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.
 
Recognition rather than recall
Minimize the user’s memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
 
Flexibility and efficiency of use
Accelerators — unseen by the novice user — may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
 
Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
 
Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
 
Help and documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user’s task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

Why you shouldn’t ask “Why?” in a usability test

October 25th, 2007

Problems with asking “Why?”

When running a usability test, it’s very tempting to ask participants why they behaved in a particular way. We are naturally curious. “Why did you choose that option?”, “Why don’t you try searching?”, “Why did you pick the ‘About Us’ link rather than the ‘Contact Us’ link?”

The assumption behind these kinds of questions is that people can introspect into the reasons behind their behaviour. We think that the participant knows why he chose the ‘About Us” link, and all we need to do is to help the participant elicit the reason.

Nisbett and Wilson’s classic study

In fact, there is a whole raft of evidence showing that people are very poor at introspection. In a classic study carried out thirty years ago, Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson carried out some research outside a bargain store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The researchers set up a table outside the store with a sign that read, “Consumer Evaluation Survey — Which is the best quality?” On the table were four pairs of ladies’ stockings, labelled A, B, C and D from left to right. Most people (40%) preferred D, and fewest people (12%) preferred A.

In fact, all the pairs of stockings were identical. The reason most people preferred D was simply a position effect: the researchers knew that people show a marked preference for items on the right side of a display. But when the researchers asked people why they preferred the stockings that they chose, people identified an attribute of their preferred pair, such as its superior knit, sheerness or elasticity. The researchers even asked people if they may have been influenced by the order of the items, but with just one exception (a psychology student who had just learnt about order effects) nobody thought this had affected their choice. Instead, people confabulated: they made up plausible reasons for their choice.

Confabulating about beauty

In a related study published in Science two years ago, Petter Johansson and his colleagues showed a similar finding. In this study, an experimenter showed a participant two pictures of different women, and asked the participant to point to the most attractive. If you were a participant in this study, you would have seen the experimenter hand you your chosen picture, discard the other photo, and then ask you to justify your choice.

Unknown to participants, the experimenter was a part-time magician, and using a sleight of hand technique he was really showing the participant the picture of the woman rated less attractive. He now asked participants why they had chosen that picture.

Remarkably, even when the photos weren’t that similar, the majority of participants (73%) didn’t spot that they were now looking at the woman they thought was less attractive. Even more curiously, participants now provided “explanations” for their choice. So for example they might say, “Well, I chose this picture because I like blondes”, even though the participant had really chosen a brunette (whose picture was now face down on the table). Just as with the fake consumer evaluation survey, people confabulated: they made up reasons to justify their choice.

What this means for usability testing

Let’s now interpret these findings in the light of a usability test. When we ask a participant, “Why did you choose that option?”, the participant will introspect and provide an answer. But the participant may not have conscious access to the reason for his or her choice. And as these studies show, participants are unlikely to say, “I don’t know”. They will provide an explanation for their behaviour, an explanation that they may really believe to be true — but which is effectively made up.

This isn’t the best basis on which to make product design decision.

Research like this shows that we shouldn’t be asking “Why” in usability tests. Instead, your usability test should focus on the definition of usability in an international standard:

“Extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.”

For example, this might mean:

  • Can people complete the task?
  • How long do they take?
  • How many errors do they make on the way?

With its focus on what people do, rather than what people say, usability testing has a unique place amongst consumer research methods. When you ask participants “Why”, you are diluting the power of your usability test and you could end up changing your design for all the wrong reasons.

Listen to participant comments by all means — they can make good highlights videos — but remember to support them with behavioural data.

References:

Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977). “Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes”. Psychological Review, Vol 84 pp 231-259.

Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S. and Olsson A. (2005). “Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task”. Science, Vol. 310. no. 5745, pp. 116-119.

This article was written by Gret Higgins. Gret works for Userfocus, a usability consulting and usability training company that helps organisations reduce costs and increase profits by making stuff easier to use.

Guidelines for More Effective Online Display Advertising

October 23rd, 2007

Online advertising is fast evolving. As greater portions of media budgets shift online, online advertising is tipped to become more expensive. Why? Because advertising dollars are coming into the online market at a rate faster than internet users are generating additional page impressions.¹

So with prices going up, online advertising’s efficiency can only be maintained if the online creative works harder. Marketers need to understand the principles behind effective online creative if they’re to get the best results from online campaigns.

Effectiveness varies widely depending on the creative

Online researcher Dynamic Logic has shown not all online ads are created equal.

Their chart below highlights differences in scores for a number of brand measures, depending on whether an ad was above or below average in terms of boosting online advertising awareness. This analysis is based on a study of 60 European campaigns in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) market.²

FMCG Creative Scores

  • Delta = Exposed - Control
  • Best / Worst defined as top / bottom 20% sorted by online ad awareness delta
  • Source: Dynamic Logic MarketNorms®, Europe through Qtr 1, 2006

For example, the best performing ads generated an 11 percentage point increase in brand awareness and a nearly 8 percentage point increase in purchase intent. In contrast, the worst performing ads had little effect on these measures.

‘New’ media: creative guidelines same as those for ‘old’ media

So what worked for the best performing online ads? The Dynamic Logic study offers a series of ‘best practices principles’ for online creative. Not surprisingly, these are similar to guidelines that have underpinned effective creative for years. Some of the more important ones are summarised below:

1. Keep the message simple.

Good advertising starts with a single-minded message. Numerous studies of offline creative have demonstrated that ads with one message consistently outperform those with multiple messages. Things are no different online.

2. Make sure people don’t have to work for the message.

People don’t go online to look at advertising. They’re there for other reasons - for entertainment, for networking, for research, or to make a purchase. So ads that take effort for people to decipher are likely to fail. People should never have to interact with the ad to simply see the brand or to see the message.

For example, people shouldn’t have to mouse over ads to see a message.

But this does not mean that ads shouldn’t be interactive. Online ads should take full advantage of the medium to allow people to follow links to learn more. Or to just have some fun.

3. Avoid ‘reveal’ ads.

These ads are like the dreaded build sequences in PowerPoint® presentations, where lines are revealed one after the other. Similar to PowerPoint audiences, online viewers tune out quickly. So reveal ads were found to perform poorly. The only exception seems to be for highly entertaining or humourous ads. But these are rare.

People don’t read pages on websites. They scan them. You have their attention for fewer than 3 seconds, so the creative must deliver your message quickly.

4. Integrate online with offline.

Integration with offline creative is vital. And the most important element of any advertising campaign is the underlying idea (or creative concept). Focus on how this idea translates into the online work.

For example, the online Marmite Squeezy ad allows people to draw (and send) their own polarizing subjects, dramatizing the product’s new packaging format. The online idea and execution link with the offline campaign shown below.

Marmite Online Creative
Online creative

Marmite Print - George Bush

Print: ‘George Bush’

Marmite Outdoor - 4WD

Outdoor: ‘Chelsea Tractor (4WD)’

5. Avoid highly intrusive ads.

As stated above, people go online for a specific reason. Anything that gets in the way of people accomplishing their online tasks will just annoy them.

For example, never use ads that ‘float’ across web pages, obscuring the text beneath. These types of ad are likely to rate poorly.

Source: http://www.aidedrecall.com.au/viewArticle.html?id=3

References:

1. See DoubleClick’s paper “The Decade in Online Advertising, 1994-2004″ (April 2005), posted at:

www.doubleclick.com/us/knowledge_central/

2. From Dynamic Logic presentation “Online Advertising Creative Best Practices” (July 2006), posted at:

www.dynamiclogic.com/na/research/industry_presentations/

Euro Teens Respond to Online Advertising

October 23rd, 2007

Young adults in Europe find online advertising more effective than other channels; like their American youth counterparts. E-mail and instant messaging (IM) are high on the list of activities. A report commissioned by MSN and conducted by Helen Petrie, professor of human computer interaction at the University of York, details the online habits of young people in Europe.

Europeans age 16 to 24 years old use the Web as a social medium. Thirty percent of Web users in this group communicate via email and IM with friends, family and colleagues. E-mail and IM are more heavily used early in the week. Lunchtime and the end-of-day periods account for peak daily usage.

Due to time spent on email, 37 percent of online advertising is viewed by this group on email Web sites such as MSN’s Hotmail.

The Internet is viewed as the most favorable channel for advertising by this group, over traditional radio, cinema or magazine advertising. Nineteen percent find online ads the most informative form of advertising. Fifteen percent find it the most relevant when compared to traditional media in terms of “reflecting the advances in creativity in the digital marketing industry in recent years,” the report said.

In a statement, MSN EMEA Regional Sales Director Marc Bresseel said, “These results indicate that the online medium is an essential tool in young people’s daily lives with which they are highly engaged. Europe has 40 million consumers between the ages of 16 and 24 who are increasingly living a truly digital lifestyle and marketers need to take this into account when planning their advertising campaigns,”

The report recorded the personal communication habits of Internet usage of 16 to 24 year old Internet users on an hourly basis across Europe.

By Enid Burns, The ClickZ Network

Future of Online Advertising

April 19th, 2007

fooa1.png

June7-8 2007
GothamHall Broadway
NewYork NY

The Future of Online Advertising (FOOA), is a brand new two-day conference where the biggest names in online advertising will gather.

FOOA will spotlight technologies and companies at the forefront of online advertising. The conference will not only focus on the Web Publisher, and the various ad technologies they need to know to drive ad revenue on their sites. But also focus on advertisers, and highlight the latest set of technologies now at their disposal.

Topics:

Ad filtering
Advertising networks
Advertising on social networks
Advertising in the virtual world
Affiliate marketing
Advertising standards
Behavioural targeting
Click fraud
Contextual advertising
E-mail advertising
Pay-per-click advertising
Search Engine Marketing (SEM)
Search Engine
Optimization (SEO)
Video advertising

The IAB’s Interactive Marketing Units

April 19th, 2007

For those who aren’t familiar with the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), is an association dedicated to helping online, Interactive broadcasting, email, wireless and Interactive television media companies increase their revenues.

The IAB is also aimed to organize the industry to set standards and guidelines that make Interactive an easier medium for agencies and marketers to buy and capture value. Among the members of the IAB are the major websites and portals leaders in the Interactive advertising industry.

Nevertheless you can find many different web advertising formats on the Internet today, some of them are formally recognized by the IAB. These formats are classified as: In-Page Units and Over-the-Page Units.

In-Page Units:

Medium Rectangle – 300×250, 30KB
Rectangle – 180×150, 20KB
Leaderboard – 728x 90, 30KB
Wide Skyscraper – 160×600, 30KB
Full Banner – 468×60, 30KB
Half Banner – 234×60, 20KB
Vertical Banner – 120×240, 30KB
Micro Bar – 88 x 31, 5KB
Button – 120×90, 120×60, 10KB
Square Button – 125×125, 20KB
Vertical Rectangle – 240×400, 30KB
Large Rectangle – 336×280, 30KB
Skyscraper – 120×600, 30KB
Half Page Ad – 300×600, 40KB

Over-the-Page Units:

Pop-Up – 250×250, 40KB
Pop-Under – 720×300, 50KB
Pop-Up Large – 550×480, 40KB
Superstitial – 800×600, fullscreen, 100KB
Floating Units – free sized, 40KB
Interstitial: 800×600, fullscreen, 50KB
Movie Ads: free sized
Expandable banners: free sized, 25KB
Tandem Ad: free sized, 40KB

Besides these formats are also classified the E-mail Ads and Sponsorship of websites. All these formats can be simple images, animated images such as GIFs or flash animations. There are different degrees of interactivity and the majority of them are very intrusive.

There are others ad formats less intrusive and perhaps more attractive from the user’s point of view that I will be presenting in my next posts: TextAds, AdWords, AdSense, Advergames, Hotsites, BlogAds and Sponsoring.