|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: February 11, 2003 Homepage Real Estate Allocation (useit.com) -- "On average, sample sites evenly distributed valuable screen space between content, navigation, fluff, blank areas, and system overhead. Areas of user interest should occupy more than the current 39%." (Comments: I wonder how much the traffic from WebWord to useit.com is worth to Jakob. When I think about the reports and consulting he sells, I'll be my link to his site is probably worth a couple of bucks. What do you think?)
Reader Comments...
Here's a question. Hard to tell what it is, right? Doesn't do much for you, maybe. Certainly doesn't contribute to the user's understanding of the content. Must be that dreaded "fluff." Nonsense. NONSENSE! It establishes a mood; it, llike every other image I've ever placed in that slot, colors perception of the site's other "content" - which Jakob would presumably reduce to "words" - however subtly. RSS aggregators have their place. Some people, it's true, just want the facts. For everyone who likes the feeling that they are in some wise visiting a place, and for whom this feeling contributes markedly to a site's utility, the design *is* (part of) the content. Poor Jakob. What a cold universe he must occupy. Posted by: Adam on February 11, 2003 11:22 PM
I've gotten used to feeling like Jakob's articles are tied to sales pitches. I don't see anything groundbreaking from him anymore. I've read a couple not-so-enthuastic reviews of NNG events. Why bother? It's been at least two years since I used a Jakob article to support a design viewpoint within my organization. I think perhaps you're living in the past. He isn't the center of the usability world anymore and we should stop treating him like he is. Posted by: Beer Belly Bob on February 11, 2003 11:58 PM
I am currently reading a book which talks about a man who spent most of his life trying to measure happiness. If you look at the popularity (measured via google backlinks) you can see that the only popular alertbox article from recent times is "Top Ten Web-Design mistakes of 2002" at number 3. The next entry for 2002 is for "Harry Potter" at number 18. Here is some data regarding the 'salesiness' of Alertbox Articles. Links to NNGroup from Alertbox Articles: Links to 'outside sites' from Alertbox Articles: (these figures come from Usability Must Die)
Here are the "Text Content" scores for some homepages using using the "GetContentSize" tool built by Adrian Holovaty 52.93% ronz.blogspot.com
Let's vote to see who will be America's next Usability Idol. Both are responsible for sharing great usability research devoid of sales pitches. Posted by: Ratbert on February 12, 2003 12:43 PM
His recent book?!?!?!?! It is over 12 months old! Posted by: JB on February 12, 2003 01:17 PM
Areas of user interest should occupy more than the current 39%. Utter and complete *&%#$, and Nielsen backs this statement with... NOTHING AT ALL! Not only that, but he doesn't share how he came up with this 39% figure, so we can't check to see if it is total @(*&^ as well. Help us when Nielsen learns to write more sophisticated propaganda. What he's attempting to do so poorly is a basic propaganda tactic that he is far from mastering: + Identify a problem (or make one up if your audience is gullible enough) How many dupes will add entries to their weblogs on this Nielsen article without giving it the tiniest bit of thought that it's empty of information other than letting people know that Nielsen has another report for sale? Posted by: Ron Zeno on February 12, 2003 05:17 PM
I like sites that try to create a mood for me, and I appreciate good graphic design. I dislike using sites that don't look good to me. However, I get annoyed when I look at an article and spend a minute or more downloading a picture that tells me nothing about the content. (Note: this is not so frustrating on the Safari browser, which loads text first.) Although I know better, if I were to give Jakob the benefit of doubt, I would say that perhaps what he is referring to when he talks about fluff is poor design like that, rather than images and design that try to create a mood. His articles are designed to appeal to the people with money, not the people in the trenches doing actual work. People with money don't care about solutions, they just like to get riled up about things. Then they yell at the people in the trenches, and "back it up" with "hard evidence" from a "usability expert." Sigh.
Ah, but my blog scores a whopping 72% on the text content measure! You're right, Mac, it is an odd measure -- droning text (like on my blog) increases scores, while links which are short and to the point decrease scores (that is, the ratio of text within the href tag to the href tag itself... hmmm, use short url's!!) OK, but the intent of this measure is good — it's kind of a value to page weight ratio that is being sought. (But we all know what Samuel Johnson didn't say about intentions.) Posted by: frank on February 12, 2003 07:26 PM
"No vanity can more justly incur contempt and indignation than that which boasts of negligence and hurry." - Samuel Johnson As the "Magic Guidelines" "un-design" movement gains followers it sows the seeds of its own destruction. I am already hearing people talk about the banality and sameness of sites on our intranet. Lowest Common Denominator does not rule. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 13, 2003 03:43 AM
Adam, I see your "top space" as a chance to draw a breath. For me, it acts as a moat between your views and the rest of the world, not acting as a barrier but more as a .............. pause. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 13, 2003 03:45 AM
Why, thank you, sir; then you receive it in precisely the intent & desire with which it is offered. &c. Posted by: Adam on February 13, 2003 07:57 AM
I don't mind the top blank space, but the ocean pic is rather distressing. It conveys a range of ideas:
I then wonder what "V-2" stands for and wonder if it's a reference to Hitler's V-2 rockets. Oy! Posted by: Huh? on February 13, 2003 11:18 AM
Not sure John would be delighted by this thread's gradual evolution into Let's Critique My Site - and yes, I know it's my fault for having seemingly kicked it off - but http://www.v-2.org/about.php#name Posted by: Adam on February 13, 2003 06:54 PM
Tasteless. Posted by: OMG on February 14, 2003 09:31 AM
what is? Posted by: Brillat-Savarin on February 14, 2003 10:33 AM
In my opinion it is tasteless to name a web site after a weapon Hitler used to murder people. V-2 rockets are real weapons of destruction and death. Tasteless. Posted by: OMG on February 14, 2003 11:54 AM
OMG - I publish a site with "Must Die" in the title, but my intention isn't to be tasteless or offensive. I would try to look at the content of a site before you decide it is tasteless. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 14, 2003 01:35 PM
Mac, would you say the same thing if my domain was auschwitz-web.org? It's all a matter of degrees. Your "must die" is obviously in jest and/or humorous. The intention in the name is clear whether I read your site or not. Whereas, V-2 has a specific historical context. I could disclaim that my web site isn't about the Auschwitz death camp, and hey, you should lighten up. Read my site before you criticize! Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. Regardless of content, naming a site after a Nazi death weapon is tasteless. Posted by: OMG on February 14, 2003 05:08 PM
Useless interjection: Why is a Nazi death weapon any worse than a regular death weapon? A weapon of death is a weapon of death, Nazi or otherwise. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on February 14, 2003 07:25 PM
The appropriate place for that comment would have been a mail to me. It's not that I mind the challenge - I welcome it, you're the first person in almost three years now who's raised what I thought would have been an obvious point - but I reiterate that this is Webword, and there are other and better things to discuss here. The site is not named in homage to a "Nazi death weapon," for crying out loud. *Gravity's Rainbow* is about nothing if not connectedness, with all things ultimately leading to the mysterious Rocket 00000. A fitting name for a site "whose purpose is to make connections." You may want to see http://www.hyperarts.com/pynchon/gravity/ if you genuinely care. Posted by: Adam on February 14, 2003 09:33 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a domain name is just a domain name. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on February 15, 2003 08:39 AM
"The site is not named in homage" He wasn't making that claim. I think he thinks that choosing that name is tasteless, irregardless of your intentions. People with a strong knowledge of history are the people most likely to take objection... I doubt many people are informed enough to be offended. Posted by: Cracky on February 17, 2003 05:29 PM
On V-2 as a name... I've been reading Adam's blog for quite some time, and considered whether v-2 was a reference to the rocket, and didn't think so. I figured it was more likely a reference to "version 2" -- call me a techie. It doesn't matter a whit to me to find out that it is a reference to a rocket. Then again I wouldn't care if it was called poisongas.com or nuke.org either. Some names are meant to be intruiging and a departure from a literal interpretation. E.g. Amazon.com, Monster.com, Yahoo!, Excite Adam's clearly built his own personal brand into and around v-2.org -- a name is a name, but a brand goes deeper than that. I worked on a dot com site called Rooster.com once...it wasn't about poultry. Research after 6 months showed it was a very strong new brand in the agriculture industry and it still has very strong name recognition - of course the Rooster's dead now, but that's another story. Did I say a good name doesn't guarantee success? Worth mentioning that too I guess. :) Topic: Poor usability as a "real weapon of destruction and death." Bad HCI-Sci-fi flick: The Flash Monster versus the v-2 rockets of Kajagoogoo Feel free to discuss either one amongst yourselves... Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on February 19, 2003 01:37 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |