Slashdot Mirror

Java in the 90s (Java applets) by Sun was probably the last serious attempt to break the application barrier. It didn't work, because Apple and Microsoft put in artificial hurdles, little incompatibilites and a vast number of platform-specific code.

Java would only work if there is infinite computing resources and the user experience delivered is perfect to everyone. This is the ideal case outcome. In a non-ideal world, It is almost impossible to deliver the matching user experience of all the native platforms that the Java code would run on, thus the fine tuning and minute adjustments in the APIs and HCI parts. These changes have eventually led to incompatibilities and performance bottlenecks that ultimately destroyed the write-once, run many claim.

I recall that I'd read somewhere the optimal line length was 95 characters.

Regardless, those limits are doubtlessly for text, not code. Code stays legible up to wide widths for a number of reasons. Not having to manage wrapped lines saves a lot of time and effort.

Ah, here we are: Reading Onscreen: The Effects of Line Length on Performance

In a word: bullshit.

Thanks to another poster for this link, but: The best available research suggests that users will read fastest if the line lengths are longer (up to 10 inches). If the line lengths are too short (e.g., two and a half inch columns), the line length probably will impede rapid reading. Users tend to prefer lines that are relatively short (about four inches).

Perhaps I should have added the qualifier to my suggestion of "sufficiently complex" reading material - I'll buy that parsing news columns targeted at sub-7th grade readers doesn't requires more than a quick vertical scan of the text to understand it. Know when I last bought a newspaper?

This does not explain why go widescreen for work. At reading distance those 80-90 degrees cover lines that are only 2-3 inches long, hence the multi-column layout of newspapers and articles that became standard over the last 100 years. Btw, newpapers are also just the opposite of widescreen...

Personally I hate reading even pdfs on a screen - by the time I zoom in enough to read effortlessly, two-column pages of text are already too wide.

Chapter 11, part 1 http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/chapter11.pdf (PDF 11MiB)

Black on white backround.

Studies noticing this started in 1956 (the last mentioned is from 2000).

Also, someone gave an explanation in one of the above post: dark backround tricks your pupils into opening more widly, loosing focus.

This is not directly a style guide, but a Federal (US) usability guide. http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf

Hopefully this helps.

usability.gov is a useful place to read up on how to maintain compatibility and accessability using up-to-date standards. Lots of interesting and informative design tips there, too, and it's surprising considering it's a .gov. Nice to see my federal taxes put to good use (or at least better than other purposes).

The gubment has set up a site for web site design...

www.usability.gov

could be useful

Actually, there are some rules to which many U.S. sites must comply, specified in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (summary).

By law, all government sites must comply with the guidelines described by Section 508, which are actually a subset of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. It is yet to be determined if organizations that receive federal monies must comply with Section 508; if so, that would affect a lot of pages.

The "New Rules for us to follow" aren't for us (they're for the National Cancer Institute), and they're not rules. They're not even guidelines in the corporate sense (where "guideline" is a synonym for "rule."). As stated here (the bold text is from the site):

This site does not represent NCI's official Web design guidelines or standards. Rather, it is a resource to help you identify what Web design and usability research/findings are available and how they apply to your Web site.

It's remarkable that each guideline has a "strength of evidence" icon showing whether the guideline has no evidence, or is based one expert opinion, or on usability tests, or on hypothesis testing. It's refreshing to see science in web design. The site is follows its own guidelines and has advice that could improve many web sites.

So, although the title of the link is inflammatory, the link itself is gold.

The "New Rules for us to follow" aren't for us (they're for the National Cancer Institute), and they're not rules. They're not even guidelines in the corporate sense (where "guideline" is a synonym for "rule."). As stated here (the bold text is from the site):

This site does not represent NCI's official Web design guidelines or standards. Rather, it is a resource to help you identify what Web design and usability research/findings are available and how they apply to your Web site.

It's remarkable that each guideline has a "strength of evidence" icon showing whether the guideline has no evidence, or is based one expert opinion, or on usability tests, or on hypothesis testing. It's refreshing to see science in web design. The site is follows its own guidelines and has advice that could improve many web sites.

So, although the title of the link is inflammatory, the link itself is gold.

The "New Rules for us to follow" aren't for us (they're for the National Cancer Institute), and they're not rules. They're not even guidelines in the corporate sense (where "guideline" is a synonym for "rule."). As stated here (the bold text is from the site):

This site does not represent NCI's official Web design guidelines or standards. Rather, it is a resource to help you identify what Web design and usability research/findings are available and how they apply to your Web site.

It's remarkable that each guideline has a "strength of evidence" icon showing whether the guideline has no evidence, or is based one expert opinion, or on usability tests, or on hypothesis testing. It's refreshing to see science in web design. The site is follows its own guidelines and has advice that could improve many web sites.

So, although the title of the link is inflammatory, the link itself is gold.

• bulleted lists don't use the <ul> tag. If they really wanted the kind of wrapping they got, they should have used the ul { list-style-position:inside; } rule
• oodles of font tags specifying the same thing. Why are they trying to maintain compatibility with Netscape 3 and IE 3? CSS killed those off ages ago.
• stupidest image map ever
• the font in their images hurts my eyes:)

The Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelinespage itself can hardly be called usable; I for once welcome individuality in design.

Seriously though, their navigation distracts and confuses the eye from the moment the page loads, makes finding relevant information time consuming (topics are scattered all over the page); even slashdot.org has better navigation; and I'm sure slashdot contains much more information to navigate through.

Could good guidelines add up to such a result?
Or commitetes simply aren't built to address something as personal as web viewing preferences?

Bring on the information, provide me content, organise it, tag it, and give it to me in a format I can eat; I'll lay it out by configuring my browser, thank you.

It's not the "government". It's the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Says so at the bottom of the Usability Guidelines page. If you aren't doing research on cancer using U.S. government money, they don't have any authority over you. So, relax, everyone.

Should have read this rule concerning picking the right headline on the govt's list.
;)

Case in point, "provide printing options." Any webhead worth her salt knows that providing a duplicate page just for printing is a waste of time and effort, when CSS can do it for you.

It seems they doesn't follow their own rules ...

Never you mind - the Government has come up with New Rules for us to follow
It clearly states on the website that they're guidelines, not rules.

Unless you've sat down and observed your interface getting tested with a usability professional or two who work with regular folks to see how the application works *in the real folks non-geek world* then you don't know what you're talking about.

Really, how can you argue with behavior-based experimental data that "this isn't how people behave"? Oh right - with unfounded 3l337 opinion.

Sure, there are other things we could do to better test usability - like have them spend a week or two with Gnome after this test, then test again to see how much they picked up.

but until you're doing testing with your own projects, until you appreciate that these are real people in the real world (that same world you think should use Linux as a desktop OS) then you're really missing the point.

cz

see www.usability.gov

IBM Ease of Use

The perennial Jakob Nielsen

Usability Professionals Association

Webword Usability Blog