Giving Users Some Credit

Advertisement

Websites are designed to be used by people of varying backgrounds, educations and technical levels. One of the challenges we face when designing for the Web is finding a way to create sites and applications that can be accessed by a widely disparate audience while avoiding the pitfall of sacrificing the quality of our work to cater to the dreaded ‘lowest common denominator.’

Users are Not Idiots

Even though it happens to me with some frequency, being told by a client that one of the requirements for their project is that it must be ‘idiot proof’ never fails to give me pause. The sentiment itself is offensive enough, but the concept also seems somewhat misguided to me. Do we really want to begin a project by assuming our site’s users are idiots?

Websites for Dummies

Creating designs that are intuitive and easy to use is something we should continually strive for if we want our sites and applications to be visited and used by as many people as possible. Ultimately, making those sites easy, as well as enjoyable, to use is a critical part of helping them be successful and it starts by abandoning outdated opinions on what users can, and cannot, understand. It starts by giving our users some credit and realizing that they are not ‘idiots.’

When Best Practices Go Bad

Anyone who has designed for the Web for a period of time has amassed a bank of best practices and favored solutions that they use in their work. In and of itself, this is a good thing, but the ever-changing nature of the Internet means that we have to continually evaluate these best practices to ensure they are still relevant. As Web users’ proficiency and technical comfort levels grow, we must abandon solutions that no longer help visitors use our sites, but instead may actually start to hinder their experience.

As a communication medium, the Web may still be the ‘new kid on the block,’ but let’s face it – the Internet isn’t new anymore. Web users are more advanced today then they were even a few years ago. This is great news for those of us who work on the Web! It means that we can continually push our work forward, but it also means that we not only have to be willing to embrace change, but that we need to be proactive in identifying when that change is necessary.

User Testing is Not Always the Answer

User Testing

There is no question that user testing is an invaluable part of the web design process, but any user testing we do for a project has limitations. Oftentimes, those limitations are due to budgetary and time constraints. This being the case, we focus our tests on key aspects of our projects where user input will help shape our decisions and positively impact the success of our design.

Since we often can’t evaluate and test every aspect of our project, some decisions will inevitably be driven by our best practices and favored solutions. If those practices are up to date and relevant, this isn’t a problem, but if they are outdated – well, I’m sure you can follow the line of reasoning here.

Out with the Old

While every Web designer’s collection of favored solutions will be different, here are a few examples of solutions whose time of relevancy has passed.

Are these relevant?

These specific examples were chosen because they are ones that I personally have purged from my own toolbox in the not so distant past, but also because they are practices I still see implemented on many newly-launched sites today. It makes me wonder if they were put in place as a conscious choice or if they are instead the product of once relevant best practices left unchecked for too long?

The Web Does Not Fold

Taken from newspapers’ practice of ensuring that lead stories and catchy headlines appear on the top half of the paper’s front page, this preoccupation with requiring Web content to appear ‘above the fold’ for all site visitors has been the enemy of whitespace and well organized layouts for far too long. Do not fear the scroll bar, browsers have them for a reason.

Life Below 600px
Paddy Donnelly’s article entitled Life Below 600px battles and debunks the long time web design myth that there is such thing as “above the fold.”

Content is king on the Web. The quality and usefulness of our site’s content will determine the success of our site, but the way we visually lay out that content and present it to our users also plays a major role in its effectiveness. Cramming lots of content into a too-small space, solely to ensure that users on even the smallest resolutions can see it without scrolling, damages not only the visual integrity of our design, but also our users’ ability to easily consume and process our site’s content. Would you rather be on a site whose content is well laid out with appropriate whitespace and formatting, but which requires you to scroll down to access some of that content, or would you choose a site that eliminates the need to scroll at the expense of readability and appropriate spacing?

We would never force the entire text of a book onto a single page just to eliminate the need to flip pages, so why do we worry about users having to scroll to access content that appears lower on our Web pages? Books have pages that must be turned in order to read the story and Web sites have content that must be scrolled to be seen. This is how these mediums work; let’s give our users some credit and realize that even if content doesn’t appear ‘above the fold,’ they will still be able to find it.

Look Here to Read This Message

In my office, we have a Keuring coffee machine. Right on the front of the machine is a shiny, silver button that says ‘Brew.’ It doesn’t say ‘Press Here to Brew a Cup of Coffee,’ yet despite this lack of incredibly specific directions, it’s pretty easy to figure out what that button does and what I need to do to get myself a cup of Joe in the morning.

Keuring Coffee Machine

This same principal applies to the phrasing we use on anchors and buttons in our projects. At the end of a short teaser for a blog article or a news item, there is no need to have anchor text that reads: ‘Click here to read this full blog article.’ Something as simple as ‘Read more’ or perhaps, if you’re really in the mood to edit aggressively, just the word ‘More’ would be just as effective.

There are times where giving users some extra instruction on our site is necessary, but realizing when that level of instruction is required, and when it is simply overkill, is important. Give users some credit, the concept of hyperlinks is one they understand. Just like the nice, shiny button on the coffee machine makes it obvious that you need to press it to get your coffee, so can we visually style anchors and buttons so that even if we opt for text as simple as ‘More’, our users will understand what to do to access the additional content.

Open in a New Window

A common fear I hear from clients is that their customers will be unable to find their way back to their site if links to external sites or resources are clicked on. This fear inevitably prompts clients to request that those links be ‘popped in new windows.’

Thinking of the browsing experience as a linear timeline is a very simple concept to grasp. You start on one page, you click to another, and another and another. The ‘back’ and ‘forward’ buttons allow you to go in those respective directions on that linear timeline. You want to go back to the page you started from? Just click the back button until you get there!

Back Button
Most users know about the “Forward” and “Back” buttons. Take advantage of them!

The belief that this linear browsing experience is more difficult for users to understand than the ability to manage multiple windows or tabs is misguided. I’ve sat and watched users who are fairly comfortable with the Web struggle to understand multiple windows. I’ve seen them use the ‘back’ button, only to hit a wall when they get to the initial page that was opened in that new window/tab. What do they do next? In most cases, they type the original site’s URL into the address bar, opening up a second instance of the site, completely unaware that the original instance is still open in another window/tab.

Give users some credit. If they want to return to your website, they’ll find their way back to it and the easiest way for them to do that is to use the ‘back’ button.

Treat Others Like You Would Want to be Treated

This bit of advice is something that parents have been telling their children for many years and this piece of parental wisdom is perfectly relevant to how we deal with our site’s visitors.

No one wants to be treated like an ‘idiot,’ our site’s users included. The minute those users visit our site, our relationship with them begins. Let’s start that relationship off on the right note by designing sites and applications that make the user experience enjoyable. Let’s do this, in part, by treating those users with the respect they are due and giving them the credit they deserve. Their user experience, and the projects we design and develop, will be the better off for it.

Man

The End

↑ Back to top

Jeremy was born with six toes on each foot. The extra toes were removed before he was a year old, robbing him of any super-powers and ending his crime-fighting career before it even began. Unable to battle the forces of evil, he instead works as the Director of Web Development for the Providence, Rhode Island based Envision Technology Advisors and teaches website design at the University of Rhode Island. His portfolio and blog, at Pumpkin-King.com, is where he writes about all things Web design.

  1. 1

    Very informative article! I just can’t get enough of these single page post designs, they are out standing! Great design, great info 5/5!

    0
  2. 4

    When I was taking my programming course we were told that when coding a user information form you had to ask for city, state AND zip code. I asked why, since the zip code IS the city and state, do you need to get it all. Can’t you just ask for the zip and have a lookup table to fill-in the rest? No, I was told that there are people who don’t know their zip codes and you have to allow for the ignorant. Really? Do we really want to make the 99% of the people who DO know where they live do extra work to allow for the stupid? I don’t think so.

    0
    • 5

      Great example Ed! This article was really an eye-opener for me. It really drives the point home that we shouldn’t automatically treat our website users as idiots and that we should really think about some of the old best practices that may no longer be best anymore.

      0
    • 6

      I agree that you shouldn’t ‘dumb down’ your site to accommodate the most basic of users if it will be detrimental to other users – unless, of course, those basic users are your core market!

      No matter how ‘easy’ you make a site, there will always be those who find it confusing or are unable to use it. Oftentimes, we can compound this problem by trying to make is easy for everyone to use. By trying to accommodate everyone, we create a good experience for no one.

      0
  3. 7

    You raise good points, treating users like idiots is the completely wrong mindset to have when designing a website… especially the user experience of the site. I have always been surprised when doing usability testing though, non-savvy users (most users) have a hard time figuring out their computer in general much less all sorts of different web pages.

    I don’t think making sites “idiot proof” is the right approach, but understanding that users are on the web despite the fact that they barely understand how to operate it is important. The facebook login debacle with Read Write Web is a perfect example. Those people are not idiots, they are just on unfamiliar territory.

    0
    • 8

      Great point Ross. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I’ve been a long time reader of your blog now and I just want to say that you are doing a great job! Keep up the good work. :D

      0
  4. 10

    Well done. This is a great article I could use as a reference for my next clients ;)

    0
  5. 13

    Very smart post Jeremy! The “open in a new window” part I like the best, as I am asked to do that often.

    Also, nice design Jad; simple, yet effective.

    Cheers

    0
  6. 16

    Hi everyone,

    Very good points, interesting take on the topic.

    Ref: “When good practices go bad”
    I think it’s our desire to choose the safe way that makes good practices go bad. Reiteration, choosing what seems to work for everybody all the time, scratching the surface of implementing excellent design principles in your work… That’s the problem.

    Ref: “Idiot proof design”
    I hope this is not the underlying assumption for choosing a simple and clear structure/ message. It could work well, if you assume that focusing on what’s essential to the user. But it will work against you if you think you design for people who don’t really get what you’re doing.

    This is a post that can actually ignite some controversial debates…

    Kate

    0
    • 17

      Thanks for your comments.

      I agree that choosing the ‘safe way’ is often what makes our Best Practice go bad. If it has worked in the past, it’s easy to take it for granted and assume that is how it should be done. We just keep doing it rather than trying to innovate or find a better way.

      In terms of ‘Idiot Proof Design’ – this is far different than making something easy to use. Something that is simple and clear is well designed, my point is actually about making something LESS simple and elegant because we feel the need to add unnecessary instructions and such, simply because we think our users are not advanced enough to understand how to use our site.

      0
  7. 18

    Random Passer-by

    August 18, 2010 2:11 am

    I hate to say this, but easy for you to say.

    My last job was with a “social network” set up by a guy in his 60s. _Every_ link had a ‘Click here to’ attached to it. Every check-box had a ‘click within the box.’

    What really got to me was the ‘Invite a friend’ feature. This got extended to friends and family. And then he realized that it wasn’t inclusive enough. So, the invite page had a paragraph on the lines of ‘Invite your friends, family, relatives, parents, grandparents, co-workers, colleagues…’

    His target user-base? People in the 15 to 25 age-group.

    0
    • 19

      It’s actually not easy for me to say at all. I struggle with the same type of clients and comments that you describe in your comment above. When clients ask me for these things, I explain to them why they may not be in the best interest of the site or the user experience. I try to offer alternatives that will meet the clients needs without sacrificing the quality of the site or the user experience.

      Do I always succeed? Of course not! But the first step in being able to explain to your clients why every link doesn’t need to say ‘Click here to’ is to identify and accept those reasons yourself and apply those best practices to your other work.

      If you are able to logically explain the situation to a client and show them examples of where your alternative suggestion is working for someone else, you will find that all but the most stubborn, pig-headed clients will accept your expertise.

      0
      • 20

        Ah yes… the stubborn, pig-headed one. Describes him perfectly, if you add daft to the mix.

        It took an entire day for us to convince him that trying a viral campaign was not the same as installing a virus on people’s computers. And after we thought he’d understood the concept, he pestered us for a week asking us when we’d be setting the virus loose.

        Oh, well… there was a recession on. Had to hold on to the job as long as possible.

        0
      • 21

        He thought viral campaign meant sending a virus, ouch. I never heard that one before.

        0
  8. 22

    I really enjoyed this post. The thing what designers and clients should worry about mainly is the quality of the content, how compelling it is, and of course how well it blends in with the layout and overall design. Like you, I find that ux designers have started to dispel the notion that users/visitors will be too lazy to scroll down or rely on their intuition and common sense for navigation. Although I do think some helpful indicators along the page are imperative when trying to lure the visitor to notice something, overuse of this could easily distract me, at least, when I’m skimming through a god-knows-how-long article for some valuable information. Subtlety really is key.

    What I do like is a new phenomenon of services like Google images and Facebook that make use of Javascript to enrich the navigation. When you scroll down they load the rest of the content through ajax so you can avoid the “show me more posts” button (and looking for it, which is again time consuming). I usually like this, and it shows the designer really cared about the user and ensured reading would be seamless.

    Trusting the user even more, Flickr and ffffound let you use the arrow keys in your keyboard to navigate between images/posts. I’ve quite frankly gotten used to this and often I try to use it in other online galleries where it unfortunately seldom works. Nonetheless, I think UX is undergoing transformation these days, users are becoming more aware of design, and designers are becoming more aware of the user’s needs.

    0
  9. 24

    Well said!!! It all seems like such common sense, but it really can be a struggle to convince people. In my work I’ve mostly conquered the fold issue and can usually keep them from throwing everything in their warehouse on the front page. I tackled “click here” by writing Don’t say “click here.” Include your links in context. Most people seem to understand that when it’s explained to them. But the “opening links in new tabs” issue is still a battle. I wrote a post about that as well and the debate continued in the comments.

    I think unwieldy drop-down menus would be next on my list. All too often it seems that people cram massive lists of links into drop-downs as a substitute for bad site organization. Cheers!

    0
    • 25
    • 26

      Yes, drop down lists are another best practices that we may be able to purge!

      I often find that clients want their users to be able to access EVERY page on the site from the top level navigation – hence the need for drop down or fly-out menus, some with multiple levels of sub-links.

      The reality is that site users rarely spend enough time to make the ‘perfect decision’ and drill down to find the exact page they need. They instead make a series of small decisions, clicking what feels right and looking to make another click and another and another until they get what they need. A well organized information structure and easy to use/find links on subpages/categories of the site can prove far more effective than an unwieldy drop down menu.

      This is often how I explain this to clients and how I have been able to purge this from my own toolbox.

      Thanks for the great feedback and for bringing up another ‘best practices’ who time has come!

      0
      • 27

        Jeremy, yes, that’s exactly the problem. Someone once told them that every page should be only one click away from the home page. But what you describe is what I’ve found to be true as well. If they have too many choices it is harder to tell what page they really want so they end up making more clicks. So I use a strategy like yours and explain that I like to create clear sections for the site that users can easily distinguish from one another. Then these sections can have secondary menus that guide/funnel them down to the info they really want. This is also helpful if people land on an internal page first, because then they can clearly see where they are in the site.

        0
  10. 28

    Nice Article. Thanks

    Best Regards
    Rupam (@xhobdo)

    0
  11. 29

    Ok, I don’t mean to sound like a cynic here but does anyone remember the RWW and Facebook episode that happened a couple of months back (http://www.uxmag.com/short-news/these-are-your-users-read-and-be-horrified).

    Well designing for the smart asses is simple, and it is very easy to assume that the “idiots” or “dumbs” as you like to say are very little in your user base. However, I would assume people reading RWW and using Facebook are web literates and even they ended up being so confused when googling “Facebook Login” landed them on RWW they did not have the slightest idea of what hit them.

    I would recall another incident. Remember how many sites especially Microsoft Help sites have real pictures of dialog boxes that will open when you are to install something. Often they have words like Run, Save As (action clicks) and the image is complete without any roughing the edges and all. Now I as a user and designer know that it is an image but I swear I have seen even PhD graduates who use computers all day clicking on that image stupidly thinking it is the actual dialog box. Would you call them Idiots?

    Designing with such a huge assumption is not really going into the complexities of design. Once again not starting a flame war, but that is what I honestly feel.

    0
    • 30

      Thanks for your comments.

      No matter how ‘easy’ you make something, there will always be users who find it confusing and have trouble with it. The point is to understand your user base and give them some credit if it is due to them!

      If you assess your user base and come to the determination that they need the extra direction or instructions and hand-holding, that is fine! At least you did some research and made a conscious decision, instead of falling back on a best practice simply because it’s how you ‘always do it.’

      Are there times when it is appropriate to pop a new window for a link (personally, I still pop PDFs in new windows/tabs) or add additional anchor text? Of course there is, but making that decision based on the individual situation and not as a global one-size-fits-all solution is what I am arguing for.

      And in all fairness, using sites like Facebook and Microsoft Help as examples is a little too easy. Those are HUGE sites with massive user bases, so of course they will include large numbers of those ‘lowest common denominator’ users. What may be necessary for sites of that size with a user base as varied as they have is a whole different ballgame. Most of us are not designing sites whose primary, or even secondary, audience is comprised of such varied levels of Web knowledge – and even if you are working on a site like that, the argument to assess your user’s abilities, give them credit and make decisions based on those findings is still is a valid one.

      Thanks again for expressing your point of view and adding to this discussion!

      0
    • 31

      Yes, hundreds of people commented on RWW’s post asking for login help, but that shouldn’t indicate that all users of either Facebook or RWW thought that RWW’s post was an official Facebook post. In fact, I think it’s safe to assume that for each user who commented on the post, there were dozens, if not hundreds, who did understand. And that’s the key: if you’re designing based on the assumption that your users are idiots, you’re doing a disservice to the majority of your users who aren’t. (Not only are you making them feel like you think they’re idiots, but in many cases the “idiot-proof” designs are actually harder to navigate for sophisticated users.

      The other factor here is the Pareto principle. There is not a direct correlation between input and output when you “idiot-proof” a design: like Pareto says, you’re putting 80% of your work into 20% of your output. By cutting out the 20% output – the appeal to the lowest common denominator – you’re reducing your workload by a huge chunk, which is time that you can spend doing other things. (If you’re selling this to a client, it’s time that you can spend Implementing Awesome Features.)

      There’s a common misconception among clients that you want to capture everybody. You really don’t. You want to capture the best people for your content, and make everybody else want to be the best people for your content. The people who don’t meet all of your criteria will latch onto the criteria they do meet anyway. Spending active effort to capture anybody else is disproportionately expensive in time, effort, and capital.

      0
      • 32

        “There’s a common misconception among clients that you want to capture everybody. You really don’t. You want to capture the best people for your content, and make everybody else want to be the best people for your content. ”

        Wonderfully well said.

        Excellent comment!

        0
  12. 33

    Great article!

    But I do have a question about the Open in a new Window issue. First of all, there should be a “Open in new Tab” feature instead of new window. Most browsers use tabs these days.

    But in my browsing experience I find more comfortable to navigate in a new tab (or window) when I go to a external site. Most of the time when I navigate to external pages in, for example, a blog post, the external page is related or in context with the “original” read. So I want to come back to the original post easily.

    I say easily because it happens far to often that a page is redirected and when you use the back button, you get to the “redirect page” witch redirects you to the one you just came from.

    So to conclude, use target=”_self” for internal pages, and target=”_blank” for external pages. But maybe it’s just me being a intensive browser user?

    regards
    Peter Goes

    0
  13. 36

    Great post! I agree with with all that you covered. It’s hard to balance this stuff sometimes.

    0
  14. 37

    I love this article and the way it’s laid out – great job guys :)

    I would say that scrolling down a page and turning a page in a book aren’t comparable at all. Turning a page would be equivalent to clicking a link to go to another page, surely? If anything that analogy invalidates your argument because books tend to be standard sizes, rather than being massive in height/length – broadsheet newspapers would be a better example.

    I worked in ecommerce for quite a while and heat mapping software tended to show that the most clicked areas were above the fold – but since most people think that all the most important stuff should be above the fold, then it could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Would like to see some studies on this!

    0
    • 38

      Your suggestion is well taken. My point wasn’t to say that books and Web sites are exactly the same, but more to suggest that in order to enjoy the story told in a book, pages must be turned and in order to enjoy the story/content on a Web page, the page may have to be scrolled. The mediums are certainly different, but they each has a way of being consumed and we shouldn’t shy away from using the scrollbar any more than a book publisher would shy away from adding the necessary number of pages.

      0
  15. 39

    Fantastic article …

    0
  16. 40

    Hi, very good article. I have to say that your argument about not to open the external links in new window is that I’ve been missing. I always say to my client, that the user who want to open link in new tab or window will just do it. We don’t and shouldn’t do it for them.

    0
  17. 41

    I see this in a different way. Idiots are ones who cannot think.

    I assume my users should not think twice about their navigation in my website. You are allowed to intrigue them with the content but not with your website design. I assume that’s what they mean by ‘idiot proof’.

    Reg the back button, the user has to remember the web address which may not be easy for most of them if the website has a complex name.

    0
  18. 42

    This is AWESOME!!! A great help for newbies in web design indeed. I love the way you present the content, very visually appealing and it captures every detail of information you want the readers to digest.

    The statement “quality and usefulness of our site’s content will determine the success of our site” is very true concern for all websites. The more untimely the content is the more it gets visitors thus a major plus plus in the sites success meter.

    Thanks for this insights and I’ve learned a handful in just one sitting.
    Hope to read a lot from the author soon. ^_^

    0
    • 43

      Very happy to have helped and thankful for the opportunity to contribute to DesignInformer!

      If you enjoyed my writing on this article, be sure to check out my own site at pumpkin-king.com for more of my thoughts on Web design.

      0
  19. 44

    Opening in a New Window.

    A lot of users dedicate one of their “extra” mouse buttons to a “open in new tab” button so that they can click on a link and open that in a new tab, thus eliminating the need to specify a link to open in a new window.

    That or they can right click the link and specify it to do just this. All “modern” browsers have this functionality. Let users browse your site and the web, the way THEY want to.

    0
    • 45

      I agree 100%. Unfortunately, most users don’t know that they have the ability to right click and choose the destination on the link they are accessing. This functionality is known to more advanced users – those who tend to get annoyed when you take the browsing experience out of their hands and, as you said, refuse all them to “browse your site and the web, they way THEY want to.”

      So my argument was that opening in new tabs/windows can confuse users – but the other argument against this practice is that for the users it doesn’t confuse (advanced users), it may instead just piss them off!

      Either way – not a good user experience!

      0
    • 46

      Hmm working with my Wacom tablet and MacbookPro trackpad don’t supply my with spare buttons. So I stick with right clicking :)
      But you are right, everybody have his/her own way of surfing the web.

      0
  20. 47

    I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far. The quality of the comments I have been reading have been incredible and I can’t wait to read some more!

    0
  21. 48

    Nice article – great principles, including the usability version of the “Golden Rule!”

    Thanks!

    0
  22. 49

    This reminds me of how annoying it is to get requests from print designers to double bank the copy on a site, or remove widows and orphans….it’s a website not a brochure.

    0
  23. 50

    Definitely, users are not idiots. Nice read.

    0
  24. 51

    I gave this article to my Project Manager to read. He told me “Jeremy is a baby. Look at his bio. How can you take this guy seriously?”

    I laughed my guts out on him and ignored him… :D

    Awesome article Jeremy… I am by your side… loved it… :D

    Will keep this in mind as I am designing my own website right now…

    0
    • 52

      Thank you so much. That just made my day!

      I am thrilled to hear that you enjoyed the article and had a reason to laugh at your Project Manager.

      My work here is done!

      0
  25. 53

    A very informative article, Jeremy! Seriously, no one would be like to treated as an idiot. Everyone has atleast a bit of common sense to perform tasks.

    I really liked the design and the way the points were presented. Also, the best points were the last three, esp. opening sites in a new tab. Thanks!

    0
  26. 54

    A really good and informative article, I agree with everything here but I am ashamed to say that I was one of those people who made external links open in new windows. I won’t be doing it anymore though (I never assumed my users were stupid, it was just a habit I kept when I worked for a web agency).

    0
    • 55

      This is the exact point of this article. Doing something like opening links in new windows simply because it’s always th way you’ve done it is what I am suggesting needs to change. Every method has a purpose and a time when it will be relevent, but be sure to question when that time is and when you need to break free from those outdated ‘favored solutions’.

      Glad you enjoyed the article – thanks!

      0
  27. 56

    Well, what more can I say? Nothing. I absolutely agree with your thoughts! Users are not idiots. Sometimes they’re more internet-geek that ourselves so, why we have to consider them idiots? I think that is ended the time where Internet was an unknown place where newbie users where crawling in the dark… in these days almost everyone know how Internet works and how to use a website. Thanks, Jad.

    0
    • 57

      Well, I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying that “almost everyone know how Internet works and how to use a website.” There are still MANY people out there that are not computer or Internet savvy – but what I suggest you do is identify whether this group is your primary, or even secondary, audience when you are designing a site. If your site and services are geared towards very unititated Web users, then it certainly makes sense to treat them accordingly, but if your audience does not include this demographic, then don’t dumb down the user experience to accomodate them.

      The Web isn’t new, but there are still plenty of people to whom it is a strange, scary place. Just realize when you are designing for them and when you are not.

      0
  28. 58

    What a brilliant post! I do feel that as freelancers, designers, developers it is our responsibility to educate clients and users every time we have a chance, so that web technologies become more democratic and we all can benefit from them.

    The better clients understand web, the more services you can render.

    Thanks for posting

    0
  29. 59

    Thanks for the article , i agreed with most of the point. but i have alot of concerns here

    1- for the fold issue, we have made alot of user testing on this case. still your call to action should be above the fold. to grap user attention directly without making the users scroll and wonder! this will increase the conversion ratio alot.

    2- typing more words into links instead of just “more”. will not annoy the user as you mentioned
    comparing between coffee machine and website have no mean for me. rich links contents considered as a conversation between website and search engine’s spider

    Thanks for the article again , i really enjoyed it :)

    0
    • 60

      I absolutely agree that your main message or key call-to-action should appear high on a page’s layout, which will very likely get it above the fold, but when you try to cram your secondary and tertiary messages above-the-fold as well, that is when your design starts to break down.

      In terms of link/anchor text, I am not referring to keyword rich anchors to help with rankings. I am referring to buttons and teaser-style links where you are simply adding extra words to make it super obvious what that button/link does.

      If you are adding keywords to your links for SEO reasons, and those extra words still keep your content readable, then go for it! If, however, you are simply adding instructions because you think users won’t understand how to use the links if you do not, then it’s time to rethink your approach.

      Thanks for your comments!

      0
  30. 62

    Great pithy article. I like challenging the assumptions about the fold. I think it’s a bit more nuanced though as previous commenter suggested. There may need to be more than a vertical scroll bar to get users to scroll. I.e., you’re absolutely right that users are willing to scroll, but whatever it is that appears above the scroll needs to clue them into that. In my organization many sites end up with primary navigation below the fold!

    Now if you can only debunk the three-clicks to to get to any content myth.

    0
  31. 63

    Great article and def worth the time to read. (I also appreciated how you broke up the post with the visual “tools” and pictures)

    I will admit I’m a fan of having links open in a new window, though realize it may not be “important”. I totally agree with you on the “above” the fold. :-)

    0
    • 64

      My point is more that it is not necessary to use this method solely to accommodate inexperienced users because, from what I have seen, new windows are harder to handle than a normal, linear flow.

      If you like the new windows approach, then use it because you like it and that is the experience you want to create.

      0
  32. 65

    Nice article but very nice design. Good Job Jad!

    0
  33. 66

    Excellent article! I struggle with clients more frequently than I’d like to admit who want buttons to say things like “CLICK HERE TO _______”.

    0
    • 67

      I’ve actually use the example of the coffee machine that I use in this article with clients when the ask for buttons that say ‘Click here to…’

      Personally, I’ve been pretty successful when using this example and have been able to show clients that the extra instructions are simply not necessary.

      0
  34. 68

    I agree with most of your points but I am reading your post on an iPad through flipboard so in many ways the web does fold now. The ability to read snapshots of information and then read the whole thing really is changing the way I think about design. I design and program elearning courses and sites like flyp media and igizmo combine with the iPad allow the “old design” rules to come back in a much stronger way. I think we need to stop thinking about above the fold if the information is just presented in a linear format, but still gets information that way?

    0
    • 69

      Tyus,

      You really made a point here. My experience with using an iPad – whether for browsing or for other cool apps I could find on it – was definitely mindblowing. Flipboard is absolutely wonderful. I can’t stop but wonder how come it feels so natural to flip, fold, magnify, slide and squeeze snapshots and clouds of information with your fingers. I believe designing interfaces for touchscreen devices is challenging and beautiful. I am not sure if the rules of design stay the same. When it comes to tablet PCs, I feel one needs to pay attention to the kinetic experience one gets from interacting with an interface.

      0
    • 70

      Tyus,

      Flipboard does not bring back the fold, it is just presenting a summary of an article. The same way that blog posts and RSS feeds are sometimes truncated. You cannot design to fit more content onto flipboard. It chooses how much to display (I’m sure you know this). Overall the iPad has eliminated the need to design “above the fold” more than any other device released before. There is no fold on the iPad like on a regular computer screen. When you switch it to portrait orientation you can see a lot more of the webpage, and scrolling and zooming is so fast and easy that pretty much everyone will see the entire contents of the page at least briefly.

      If you are referring to designing desktop or native apps, where the UI needs to fit within the minimum screen size, then yes, that is an entirely different puzzle to solve, and you do need to really think how the interface can be organized to fit and function intuitively.

      Bryan

      0
      • 71

        I just began using an iPad myself and it feels so natural to ‘scroll’ the page by simply using your fingers – but the fact is that you are still ‘scrolling’.

        Regardless of what deice you are using, the issue is less about scrolling and more about cramming too much stuff in a too small area.

        I often tell clients that if they don’t want the page to scroll, they need to put less stuff on it. If they will allow me to simplify the design and really streamline the content, then we can reduce page height for sure.

        Reduce page height by reducing the stuff on the page, not by cramming it all together, eliminating any white space or reducing the font size to 8px.

        0
  35. 72

    This is a great article.

    Yes, it is very important that we give users some credit. These are all excellent points. Where we are today, if a user can’t figure out how to get around a site, it isn’t that the links need to say “click here”, it’s that the site was designed poorly. An interface should be designed so that users are able to understand how to use it without written instructions for every little step.

    This site’s layout has really come a long way since I first visited it. I like the layout of the posts like this.

    Bryan

    0
  36. 73

    ‘Read more’ is terrible from a usability point of view – especially for those using screen-readers and other tools that jump between the links on the page. Links always need to be ‘stand-alone’ – so you can see what they are without reading the text around them. Works for lazy people scanning the page too.

    0
    • 74

      If you are concerned with screen readers, a good solution is to write out the full text ‘Learn more about Web site design’ (or whatever the article is about) as the anchor text, but wrap everything BUT the learn more in a tag. You can then style the span as a block level element and use a negative text indent to wipe it from the visual view of the screen.

      This method gets the short ‘learn more’ text for those viewing the site on a visual level, but for those with screen readers, it gives them the full text that they need.

      0
  37. 75

    I agree with a lot of the comments the design of the site is really enjoyable to use and view, fantastic execution.
    The article is really great and notice this a lot too where designs become redundant but some are too worried to change as this may affect them somehow.
    Also like the note on opening new windows which is such a valid point, Thanks!

    0
  38. 76

    Great points for web sites specifically, but still applicable to almost any customer service situation.

    I work in print advertising and it is *so* frustrating the way many small business owners want their ads to assume that their customers are the stupidest people in the world. Yes, the ad should be clear, but your customers know to dial “1″ before the area code. They know that the sale you’re advertising in this week’s paper is for the year 2010 and not some other year, because this is a 2010 paper. They understand that a sandwich is a refreshment, you don’t have to tell them.

    0
  39. 78

    I have to totally agree about the new window situation! I was thinking about that exact issue earlier and how frustraiting it is, even for me, when I click on a link and have a new window pop up.

    Everyone gets so precious about their site, they don’t ever want users to leave it, totally fogetting that it’s a great big web world out there and users may want to move on. And when it does come time for a user to leave it’s like fine, you can leave if you wanna, but we’re staying right here in the background!

    Imagine if my tv split into 2 screens when I choose another channel, ala Back to the Future. That’s one prediction I hope the film doesn’t get right!

    0

Leave a Comment

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic! Please keep in mind that comments are moderated and rel="nofollow" is in use. So, please do not use a spammy keyword or a domain as your name, or else it will be deleted. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation instead. Thanks for dropping by!

↑ Back to top