I've actually heard participants in usability labs make comments like "Why are they wasting my time?" A web site actually projects the extent to which we value our customers' time.

Posted by: Frank on August 8, 2002 07:31 AM

 

I have a hard time wading through the propaganda in the article. If the author is trying to convey useful information, I'm having trouble finding it.

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 8, 2002 11:09 AM

 

I had a hard time just reading the article. Who thought up that godawful colour scheme?

Posted by: Jim Truman on August 8, 2002 02:04 PM

 

Ron, I like this part of the artcle...

"Think about the last time you praised a company to a friend or associate. You
probably used words like, “professional,” “easy to work with,” “capable,” and “on the ball.” Wouldn’t we like all the firms we do business with to have those attributes? Are people who visit your website left with the impression that your firm is on the ball?"

...because it gets at usability without using fancy language. The plain language appeals to me and I would guess that it appeals to many others. The one thing that doesn't fit is that the article seems to basic for the audience.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 8, 2002 09:55 PM

 

Propaganda level: Very High (Lots of nice, agreeable sound-bites; lots of generalities; bits of information we've seen before; great tie-ins to his book and consulting business)

Propaganda quality: High (Good, but its unclear what audience he is targeting. Ironic for a marketing consultant.)

Information quality: Low (Judging from the article, usability is obviously not his forte.)

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 8, 2002 11:35 PM

 

I love Ron's rating scale for articles. I'm slowly becoming a fan of his blog too. As a fellow cynic, it's most refreshing to see that somebody sees a propoganda piece for what it is.

What's worse than a propoganda piece?

A clueless propoganda piece.

Posted by: MadMan on August 9, 2002 01:35 AM

 

And using local terms like "Brand Central Station" (I suppose it's a mutation of "Grand Central Station") when you're writing for a global audience is just wrong. I once read an article on Builder.com (or builder.com.com if you will - wtf?) that had the title Automatic for the user. Unless you're an REM fan (which I'm not), you wouldn't "get it".

Article titles must stand the test of time. Using examples from pop culture is "cute" at the time but will people remember it 5 years from now? To see how widespread this bad practice is, just search on Google for Oops they did it again.

BAD idea. Not everyone in India or South Africa or Norway will know what "Grand Central Station" is. And 5 years from now, Britney may no longer be around (something for which I pray every day.)

Article titles must be intelligent, not cute.

Posted by: MadMan on August 9, 2002 02:15 AM

 

For MadMan:
Brand on the Run
Mr Brandy Man
Brand's Lullaby
Star Spangled Brander
Stand By Your Brand
All The Young Brands
Brandemian Rhapsody

Posted by: Mac on August 13, 2002 08:59 AM