WebWord.com > WebWord Weblog Archive


If you want to know when new content is added to the site,
subscribe to the WebWord.com Usability Newsletter!

WebWord Weblog Entry


Previous entry: "2-April-2002 -- Top Research Laboratories in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "2-April-2002 -- Free XML tools and software"

04/02/2002 Entry: "2-April-2002 -- Vincent Flanders' Two-Minute Offense"

Vincent Flanders' Two-Minute Offense -- "The Two-Minute Offense Web Usability Exercise is my version of football's two-minute offense. You get two minutes to look at a site and discover its flaws before it disappears. Then jot down your comments in the form and submit them. You'll be shown a page when you'll see what I found wrong in two minutes and a list of what you found wrong. You can then print the page for future reference. Another way to look at this exercise is it's like speed chess. You've got to make your moves quickly." (Comments: I tried this and it was kind of fun. However, I can't say that I totally understand it.)

Replies: 6 comments

Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but I found many more issues than were in Vincent's list.

A couple suggestions for this test...

1) Vincent should spend half an hour and come up with a laundry list of issues (stack the deck). Bowl us over with things to think about.

2) Test us with a better design, not this Flash stuff that is such an obvious mess. Make it a much harder test.

My analogy for this test would not be football or chess. It would be Boggle.

But either way, Vincent has presented this test as a challenge between himself and his readers. With Vincent's short list, his readers may go away feeling they've bested him. Vincent should always win, assuming he's presented this test to make a point. As is, the only thing I walk away with is a feeling that I'm a more savvy designer than Vincent.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 04/03/2002 11:25 AM EST

Not all usability problems are related to first use a.k.a the "first two minute impression". Many can be subtle but important issues that crop up only when you observe real users at work. For example, an extra key stroke or mouse click to complete an action may not be serious in an application that's used infrequently, but if it's something like software for a supermarket checkout and billing system, in which the user performs the same actions hundreds and perhaps thousands of times in a day, you bet it makes a difference.

Flanders' system is largely a pointless exercise. Two minutes is hardly enough time to evaluate all aspects of a site. Take an e-commerce book store site for instance. Is two minutes enough to identify problems with the IA, the search facility, the registration process, the checkout process, the help system, the customer service, the quality of the content on the site, and various other factors that make a site successful?

Sure, you might find some obvious flaws i.e., the usual suspects: load time, home page design, location of nav bars, etc. This is also more likely given that the site is in a category called "The daily sucker". But that's all it is - a test to see who's learnt Uncle Jakob's "guidelines" by heart. It will also be restricted to the home page, which is all you can really critique in *two* minutes!

Average game, but little real world use.

Posted by MadMan @ 04/03/2002 02:12 PM EST

Not all usability problems are related to first use a.k.a the "first two minute impression". Many can be subtle but important issues that crop up only when you observe real users at work. For example, an extra key stroke or mouse click to complete an action may not be serious in an application that's used infrequently, but if it's something like software for a supermarket checkout and billing system, in which the user performs the same actions hundreds and perhaps thousands of times in a day, you bet it makes a difference.

Flanders' system is largely a pointless exercise. Two minutes is hardly enough time to evaluate all aspects of a site. Take an e-commerce book store site for instance. Is two minutes enough to identify problems with the IA, the search facility, the registration process, the checkout process, the help system, the customer service, the quality of the content on the site, and various other factors that make a site successful?

Sure, you might find some obvious flaws i.e., the usual suspects: load time, home page design, location of nav bars, etc. This is also more likely given that the site is in a category called "The daily sucker". But that's all it is - a test to see who's learnt Uncle Jakob's "guidelines" by heart. It will also be restricted to the home page, which is all you can really critique in *two* minutes!

Average game, but little real world use.

Posted by MadMan @ 04/03/2002 02:12 PM EST

It's a nice little gimmick, and may well get people involved who would've otherwise not bothered considering the issues, but I hope it doesn't just end up pushing the crude checklist approach to Web design that many 'gurus' encourage. Good IA/UI/design takes time and involves a wide range of skills; checklists and buzzwords can do a lot of harm if they're oversold.

Is the whole feature in beta? In under 2 minutes I spotted things like "Click the stopwatch to go to the start of the critique process" (why not give me a link there instead of that pointless text leading me back up the page to click on the heading? This is basic stuff), the poorly matted heading image, broken links and failed validation (pretty bad when you're proudly displaying a W3C button); these things Suck and need Fixing.

Posted by Matt Round @ 04/03/2002 03:37 PM EST

It's a nice little gimmick, and may well get people involved who would've otherwise not bothered considering the issues, but I hope it doesn't just end up pushing the crude checklist approach to Web design that many 'gurus' encourage. Good IA/UI/design takes time and involves a wide range of skills; checklists and buzzwords can do a lot of harm if they're oversold.

Is the whole feature in beta? In under 2 minutes I spotted things like "Click the stopwatch to go to the start of the critique process" (why not give me a link there instead of that pointless text leading me back up the page to click on the heading? This is basic stuff), the poorly matted heading image, broken links and failed validation (pretty bad when you're proudly displaying a W3C button); these things Suck and need Fixing.

Posted by Matt Round @ 04/03/2002 03:38 PM EST

I love checklists.

OK, granted, there isn't a checklist that can fully assess a web site, unless it's exceedingly long and detailed, or very broad with room for more-specific hand-written comments. But that's beside the point.

Check lists raise awareness among designers about common issues so that the issues are avoided in the first place. Don't look at check lists as a failed corrective device, but as a positive preventive tool. When I read about an issue in a check list (or other article) again and again, the correct design concept eventually gets into my skull.

More importantly, when one of your coworkers beats the drum to establish a bad design precedent, it's fun to throw a stack of "top ten design mistakes" from a Jakob and a dozen other pundits at him and point out how many times his ideas show up in the lists.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 04/03/2002 04:32 PM EST

Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
Newsletter Archive | Services | Interviews | About WebWord.com

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

 


URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/

©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved.
Do not reproduce or redistribute any material from this document,
in whole or in part, without explicit written permission from WebWord.com.