Perhaps if you told me a bit more about what the system is supposed to do, I might be able to help more. If you ask a question like "usability of email", I'd respond with an equally generic "make sure it contains all the info the user would need."

Posted by: MadMan on August 18, 2002 11:28 PM

 

MadMan, I can't say too much at this time. Instead, I am looking for generic references. Web pages, books, reports, and that sort of thing. I don't want to bother folks here until I do some research. I'd rather ask better questions...and I can't do that without doing some research.

I can be a little more specific. (1) Imagine that you just signed up for a web site like eBay. What information should come back to you? (2) Imagine that you just posted an item on eBay. What information should come back to you?

I can look at what eBay sends out now to get a clue about this, but again, I'd like some generic usability references on the topic of automated email messages. Does my request make more sense now?

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 19, 2002 12:33 AM

 

Some guidelines:

+ Content relevant to my interests (provides content value)
+ Good and up to date content (relevant)
+ Clear design grid (easy to scan and read)
+ Consistent and readbale fonts

I think www.zdnet.com do a nice job for the daily newsblasts.

May be some research on sites that focus more on email marketing and how they get the best results (this may have some cross over usability research)

Hope this helps.
- Daniel

Posted by: daniel on August 19, 2002 05:14 AM

 

I agree with John's point that it is hard to find much research on the use of automated emails.

The biggest problem with producing emails is that there are hundreds of ways of viewing an email, from command line to local email client to the web itself. This makes it pretty hard to design for.
I have had some absolutely ridiculous looking emails that arrive on my work Lotus Notes email, and colleagues have the same email and see it fine, just because their set-up is slightly different.

My guidelines would be:
- keep it simple
- plenty of white space
- let the user choose between text and HTML
- don't send them too often
- always give an easy option to opt-out
- make it as relevant and interesting as possible
- don't make it look too "automatic" (personally I delete this type of email on sight)

Posted by: si_ence on August 19, 2002 07:11 AM

 

I don't think I am even going to consider using HTML email. In my mind, plain text is definitely the way to go. There have been too many battles over HTML versus plain text.

HTML Versus Text: The Saga Continues

HTML v's Text email

etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 19, 2002 08:23 AM

 

John, maybe you could try this.

Posted by: Mac on August 19, 2002 08:32 AM

 

Usability testing is an important element. Could create a number of email mockup designs and see what your users notice etc From vertical response - www.verticalresponse.com:

"If you're looking to increase your email campaign success there are three simple words you'll want to remember...TEST, TEST, TEST!

When you "test" a variety of variables with your customer list you'll be able to get a better understanding as to what offers have performed well and which ones have not. This is a great way for you to fine-tune your email marketing campaigns and put only the best content in front of your recipient's eyes."

Posted by: daniel on August 19, 2002 08:48 AM

 

Mac, damn your eyes!

(I use this phrase once in a while, but I am not sure where I picked it up. Is it from a movie or a song? I did a netcheck on it, but didn't find anything satisfying.)

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 19, 2002 09:10 AM

 

Netcheck! Like it ... did a small search on google to assist but could not find anything useful. Well done Mac.

Posted by: daniel on August 19, 2002 09:20 AM

 

John, "damn your eyes" is most commonly associated with the song by Etta James, and you have used it in exactly the right context.

Posted by: Mac on August 19, 2002 10:10 AM

 

Ah, the power of the blog collective...

I recalled blogging about this a while back. Here are my thoughts and some links on email auto-responders:
Croc O' Lyle: Dead men don't read email - thoughts on usability of automated email responses

I mention in that post a discussion in the SIGIA-L list. Here's my email on that thread responding to someone who was saying that canned email responses were a sign of horrible user experience:

"I'm not saying I love auto-responses or anything, but I do think they have their value. One thing they are good for is letting the user know that their feedback/request was received. This is especially important when the request is sent from a web form. If for some reason the form doesn't work, there's no "bounce" message or anything to tell the user that the email or transmission failed. An auto-response is a small bit of "system status" back to the user. It can also be enhanced to include additional info like a tracking number, a phone number (if it's
an urgent request), etc.

In some ways, this is an example of how an online system can be "better than reality". When you send a snail mail letter, you have no idea if
or when it ever got there.

Obvious possible improvements:
- Let the user decide whether or not to get a confirmation.
- Don't use it for frequent or trivial types of requests -- that would really create inbox clutter.
- Provide an issue tracking # immediately on a confirmation screen and an on status screen where users can check status of their request.
This makes it pull vs. push.

Keep in mind that not all communication is of equal importance.

Even hold music has its purpose...(other than to provide material for comedians)"

Research, we don't need no stinking research! We have a usability guru!

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on August 19, 2002 11:04 AM

 

Lyle, rock on!

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 19, 2002 11:23 AM

 

I would classify that as an "auto-response," not a "canned response."

An auto response is an automated receipt.

A canned response is usually processed by a person, containing generic cut-and-paste text that serves as a feeble attempt to answer a user's question.

I always follow up a canned response with something like this: "Thanks for your canned response that does not even remotely pertain to the question I asked. If this is the level of customer service I can expect from your company, I will give my money to another business that is more engaged."

Posted by: Jack - Usability God on August 19, 2002 12:06 PM

 

Yes, it is a very basic check that should exist in any web forum software when HTML is enabled. MT should close all open HTML tags.

08:07 AM, Thursday.

Posted by: Jack - Italics are Beautiful on August 19, 2002 02:49 PM

 

Lyle's the man.

Autoresponders *are* important. They reassure the customer that if nothing else, somebody has at least received his or her email, and will hopefully act on it soon. It helps alleviate some of the anxiety people feel over whether their problems will be resolved.

For instance, say you wanted to take a bank loan. You put in your application, and you've heard that the process takes about 5-7 days. But you don't hear anything for 6 days and you start worrying. Now imagine that after the 2nd day, you get a letter from the bank saying that the initial scrutiny of your application is finished and the bank manager is now assesing your application. Don't you feel relieved that something is happening? That's the role an autoresponder plays.

My complaint with many a site is that they think an autoresponder is enough. Occasionally, the customer asks a question that takes longer than say 24-48 hours to answer. For instance, I may want to know when a certain out of print book would be available. The e-comm site probably needs a couple of weeks to check with their suppliers. I send my query, get an autoresponder, and then hear nothing for two weeks. I think that the CRM team at the site are idiots, even if they're doing their best to help me. What they should have done is send me another mail, explaining that the check would take two weeks, and why. At least then I know something is happening.

John, I still think your request is far too vague. Why? You can't have a generic "usability of autoresponses" guideline list.

This is so silly. Usability depends on so many things - context, what is being sent, who is the recipient, how critical is the email, etc. There is no "one size fits all". An autoresponse with an order confirmation is quite different to that of one sent to a person who is sending in a bug report about the site. If that weren't enough, it also depends upon which site it is. Amazon and EBay will obviously have different requirements of their sales confirmation mails.

Forget "usability" for the moment. The problem with most of these autoresponses is that they're poorly written most of the time. Often, critical information is missing. One of the popular e-comm sites here in India mentions the ordered items, but not the price at which you bought it. Sucks. It really is a problem with bad writing. And if anyone asks me for tips on "making content usable", I'll give him a knuckle sandwich. If you don't know how to write well, you can never make copy "usable". All the bulleted lists can't save you.

I stick to my original statement: "make sure it contains all the info the user would need." Beyond that, it's situation-specific.

PS: John, can you make this comment textarea bigger? Nuts like me type a lot here. ;)

Posted by: MadMan on August 19, 2002 04:26 PM

 

Hmmm... nobody seems to have noticed it, but I think Lyle is trying a Googlebomb so his name appears among the top links for "usability guru". This devious practice must be stopped. :P

Posted by: MadMan - the long lost brother of John S. Rhodes on August 19, 2002 04:31 PM

 

MadMan, I have started typing longer comments off-line with the intention of spell checking them. So I suppose I had better try and set up my British Dictionary so I don't have to ignore all the Americizations.

Posted by: Mac - The Postman Always Knocks Three Times on August 19, 2002 04:34 PM

 

And of course, no prizes for guessing who's #1 on Google for "usability guru". (Yes, I intentionally didn't link to the search.)

Posted by: MadMan - the guru of user experience gurus on August 19, 2002 04:38 PM

 

Here's a box. Here's you in the box. Break free boring search queries.

Search Google for usability guru -jakob and the first article is relevant.

Is a high priced usability 'Guru' a good investment?

Posted by: Jack - God's Advisor on August 19, 2002 06:43 PM

 

Madman, thou art perceptive...

I'm a usability guru, Madman's a usability guru, John's a usability guru, Keith's a usability guru...wouldn't you like to be a usability guru too?

(and yes, I shave my head and wear a guru costume)

Hmmm...maybe I'd rather be a "Usability Knight in in Shining Armor"...or "Usablity Master" or maybe a Prophet of Real Usability(tm)?

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on August 20, 2002 02:52 AM

 

Back on John's original topic:

Simple measures for me of an automate email's usefulness (not usability) are whether it:

a) tells me something that wasn't blatantly obvious prior to reading it (e.g. how to check an order's status)

b) is worth saving for future reference (e.g. as a receipt)?

For usability:

a) does my mind go numb reading it due to marketingese overload?

b) Is it short and to the point?

c) Does it point me to relevant web pages for more info rather than including everything I'd ever want to know right in the email?

d) Can I actually reply to it or is it an unfriendly "if you reply no human will ever read it" kind of message?

e) Is it an HTML email with a bunch of crap/spyware graphics thrown in that will require me to authenticate to the corporate firewall just to read the **&^$! thing?

f) Is it clear why I got the email in the first place?

Seems like the best tips are from the pros on online writing and marketing (Clickz, Wilsonweb, etc.)

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on August 20, 2002 03:05 AM

 

>I always follow up a canned response with >something like this: "Thanks for your canned >response that does not even remotely pertain to >the question I asked. If this is the level of >customer service I can expect from your company, >I will give my money to another business that is >more engaged."

Looks like someone has had a run-in with Yahoo. I've sent them an email a couple of times complaining about something and I would get a canned response from one of their guys telling me that I had to do certain things to get a feature to work, even when I had told them that I had done those things already. Too bad they didn't really pay attention to what they were "reading".

Posted by: Morris Cox on August 24, 2002 03:31 AM