Slashdot Mirror

...most computers spend most of their time idle anyways, and most application are idle waiting for inputs...

So in the once in a while heavy processing moment say in this case an HTML Render adding 1 second to the load in real life most people wont notice unless they are going back and forward button crazy

Actually, it's fairly well accepted that making a computer "feel" responsive is far more important to desktop users than increasing its throughput. For example, Ubuntu's desktop and server distributions have different kernel parameters targetted respectively to improve UI latency and throughput. For specifics on the web, check out Jacob Nielsen's site (he lists further references for HCI studies). The quickest way to make an application feel unusably slow is to block the UI while processing, so it is crucial that UI interaction either be very fast, or delegate its work to another thread/process.

It's perfectly fine to trade efficiency for simplicity, but UI latency is not the place to do that trade.

It is a big shame that so many people here seem to be eager to dismiss the book. Perhaps you forget to realize the fact that the MS Press edition was a thorougly updated and much reduced revision of the original. The original CL/DM was published in 1974, and at that time it truly must have been revolutionary! Its original format and style was inspired very much by the "Whole Earth Catalog" by Stewart Brand. The new edition in 1987 was not intended as an expression of new material or ideas (although it did mention Macs and PCs; also the creative - but by todays standards amateurish - use of MacDraw seems to permeate it) but to make the by then widely acknowledged work, which had been part of the foundation of hypertext studies for more than a decade, accessible to a wider audience, as the original edition was simply too rare. (The original was self-published, and I suspect the number of copies wasn't very large.)

I frankly no longer remember if I bought the MS Press Edition (1987) before or after I attended a course on Hypertext given at the CS department of the University of Aarhus in 1991 or so. (A course that was give by Randall Trigg, BTW. He wrote the first PhD thesis on hypertext, and participated in developing NoteCards at Xerox PARC.) Probably before. Revelation may be too strong a word, but reading it definitely came close! Absolutely inspiring!

In 1987 hypertext had just become so acceptable in academic circles that the first conference was held, at the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Ted Nelson was here recognized as the father of hypertext. I had the great fortune to be able to attend Ted Nelson's keynote at the CMF2006 conference in Aarhus last year, and though I don't agree with all of his ideas (not that anyone would care), I wouldn't hesitate to call him a brilliant thinker, maybe even a genius, and he's definitely not finished with contributing to the field. Many of the insights from that 1987 conference, as reflected in its proceedings, are still as valid as ever, and anyone who has read them will know that an abundance of criticism - but also a little praise - can be directed at a certain Tim Berners-Lee.

I just noticed that the Hypertext2007 conference took place last week in Manchester, UK. Ted Nelson was a keynote speaker, not surprisingly.

Considering CL/DM "stupid" or "overhyped" is far beyond absurd! And anyone calling Nelson a nutcase obviously has nothing to support such a description, and only demonstrates a total and pathetic lack of knowledge of the field of hypertext and the importance of Nelson's work. I suppose such a person would think of stuff like "XML", "AJAX" and "Web 2.0" as "cool", which only goes to show what a sad world we're living in.

-Lasse

As the eye-tracking studies done by Jakob Nielsen indicate, Users ignore anything that looks like an ad, quite effectively.

Advertisers do better with subtle text advertising that matches the user's interests than they do with big spammy rollovers, pop-ups and other advertising that has only succeeded at all because of the steady flow of inexperienced users to the internet.

usable information technology - http://www.useit.com/
any browser campaign - http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

Here's an article about one type of problem (not this exactly, but the same failure of interface behaving as expected -- even as seen by a very experienced user) that I've seen repeatedly in linux:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/dialog-box.html

Why listen to a man whose site looks like this:

http://www.useit.com/

Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant

If you want recent materials and not articles created years ago, you hit the "News" link in Google.

Talking about outdated content, this page was linked straight from Jacob's index page. I'll quote:

"Why This Site Has Almost No Graphics:
Download times rule the Web, and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps, Web pages can be no more than 3 KB ..."

In the world of user design foolishness, the worst by far are programs that interrupt you while typing with error windows, pop-ups or windows suddenly gaining focus. Internet Explorer, I am talking to you here, as well as every other program that pops up a brain-dead window demanding me to hit cancel or OK while I'm busy with more important things. It's like stopping the State of the Union address to change a lightbulb.

In addition, any web page that doesn't follow sensible usability guidelines becomes a real pain in the neck. I read Jakob Nielsen to avoid most of these pitfalls when I code or design.

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

Since you asked for only a single instance, then yes, look at useit.com, which consists of - wait for it - plain text.

Yes, look at useit.com. Specifically, look at the explanation for why the site is so plain. One of them is a remnant of older days (it's a decade-old design) and one of them is because it's his personal website and he isn't an artist. He explicitly says that the website doesn't follow his recommendations! I don't see how his website design is advocating no graphics and a monochrome colour scheme.

You know what? I don't like his site either. I've said as much in the past. And as you can see, even he says that his site could be better. But he's clearly chosen to maintain his website as a personal project, not as a showcase. As such, expecting him to comply with advice he gives to multi-discipline web design teams when he isn't even a professional web designer or working on it full time is unreasonable.

I'm not going to go digging through articles to prove a point, but I'll thank you to not accuse me of blindly repeating someone else's opinion.

Well I'm sorry, but I didn't think it was likely that you had actually read any of his work and still held those beliefs about him. To be honest, I still don't, especially when you won't point to anywhere where he actually advocates what you suggest. I took ten minutes to "go digging through articles" and found loads of places where he advocates using graphics.

his message seems to me to be that if you tip the scales 100% toward usability, you'll strip out the design and stick with plain text.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Counter-examples:

• Advocating a logo on every page and photos on product pages (even zoomable or rotatable photos in some cases)
• Aesthetics is one of the three main criteria for optimising a page layout
• If your content is boring, rewrite text to make it more compelling and hire a professional photographer to shoot better photos.
• Sometimes decisions must be made that will lower the design's usability quality, either because of limited time and budget or because of trade-offs with other desirable qualities.
• Use graphics to show real content, not just to decorate your homepage
• Use Meaningful Graphics. Images are powerful communicators when they show items of interest to users
• Animation and sound effects were positive design elements for children
• One of the simplest ways to improve product pages is to show better photographs. For the hero shot at the top of the page, show the most representative photo in a small size. Below that, offer several additional photos that show different angles and close-up details.
• A wall of text is deadly for an interactive experience. Intimidating. Boring. Painful to read.
• Credibility can be increased by high-quality graphics
• We did confirm that teens like cool-looking graphics and that they pay more attention to a website's visual appearance than adult users do.
• From his book Designing Web Usability: "There are also cases where the old saying "An image is wor

This is Jakob Nielsen, the self-proclaimed usability expert who gets flamed for having one of the most god-awful sites on the Web. Seriously, have a look at this dumping-ground-style piece of shit which we may presume ought to be a model for excellent usability:

http://www.useit.com/

Wow. I completely agree. I do admit that his site is useability is more important then design, but this is just horrible. You need to focus at least a little bit on design. Looks like he needs to update some of his content too. http://www.useit.com/about/nographics.html "and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps" Really???

Nielsen is a sellout and has no credibility. Shortly after releasing his "Flash is 99% bad" work, Nielsen took money from Macromedia, and suddenly it's not so bad:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html

Usability includes being able to access the content without using proprietary software, Jakob!

Uh, first, it's "Jakob", not "Jacon".

Second, Nielsen's site practices what he preaches: it's not overloaded with "pretty" crap, and is in fact quite usable, loads nearly instantly, is probably near-invulnerable to a slashdot-induced meltdown, can be worked from a cell phone, and most importantly, it organizes the content well and gets the user to the important content quickly.

That there are other, prettier ways of doing things does not detract from doing the important things well first.

The guy posting in yoda-speak doesn't seem to understand that "design" in the usability sense is not the same thing as "graphic design".

Hmm, hmm... So teaching us design, Jacob Nielsen wants. How embarassing, how embarassing.

Apple had a study done on the use of large monitors as well. The results are here. Jakob Nielson didn't like the methodology, but still explained some of the productivity impacts.

Basically, figure out how much what you want costs, and then argue that it makes you x% more productive where x is a percent of your salary higher than the cost of what you want. Then it becomes a cost-saving measure.

Given the title of the "paper" and given that he knows how to use references, he could at least admit which luminary in the field of HCI he has stolen the idea from.

"So you're opposed to people talking to other people on the airplane too huh? Seriously, its irrelevant that the person is using a cell-phone. The experience is the same so far as you are concerned is the same as if they were talking to someone in-person."

Can you elaborate? People generally find mobile phone conversations to be more annoying than in-person conversations between two strangers; it's been scientifically documented. I'm not sure where you're going with your statement that the experience is the same -- it's that difference in the experience that's responsible for the additional annoyance.

So basically, what they're saying is that headlines have to make sense out of context? It's good practice. With printed headlines, you just need to move your eyes down a bit to read the article or look at a picture if the headline isn't immediately obvious. On the Web, it's a lot more effort (comparatively, clicking a mouse is much more effort than moving your eyes). On a number of occasions, I've clicked an unclear headline only to find that it was about something completely unrelated to what I expected.

In any case, this isn't new. In 1998, usability type Jakob Nielsen said that Web headlines and the like need to be clear.

So basically, what they're saying is that headlines have to make sense out of context? It's good practice. With printed headlines, you just need to move your eyes down a bit to read the article or look at a picture if the headline isn't immediately obvious. On the Web, it's a lot more effort (comparatively, clicking a mouse is much more effort than moving your eyes). On a number of occasions, I've clicked an unclear headline only to find that it was about something completely unrelated to what I expected.

In any case, this isn't new. In 1998, usability type Jakob Nielsen said that Web headlines and the like need to be clear.

Obviously you only play tiny violins - you don't make or try to sell them. It's also obvious that you never have tried to sell anything else, either.

Marketing is a perfectly good, perfectly legitimate use of email, pal. For example, see some of Jakob Nielsen's usability reports on email marketing newsletters (e.g., this one).

Real, non-spam, emails of this sort are optional. Don't sign up for them, and don't bitch about them.

I'm trying to get a small business going, and we offer an email newsletter. If people ask for it, it will be a fantastic way to keep in touch with our customers. If they don't, or if they unsubscribe, then that's fine.

Meanwhile, I do subscribe to marketing emails from companies with products or services I'm interested in staying abreast of. And if I tire of them, I unsubscribe. I also get hundreds of spams a day, for which I, like many others, have bought software to help filter the crap out.

But there's a difference between spam and legit emails. Spam sucks, no argument. But that doesn't mean nobody should use email for any commercial or marketing purposes.

That's the problem. this world is full of stupid people.

I cannot believe that no one has designed a remote control code for true POWER ON, POWER OFF signals, rather than a POWER FLIP signal.

Or they could have at least designed damn hifi stuff to power cycle on a short press, but turn ON, if pressed > 1500ms

Simple design, great results. Now dont get me started on the R-Tard designed chinese brand stuff, tiny play buttons, grrrr dont
you guys there know how to design? At least copy Sonys remotes for gods sake. Stop making fricking small play buttons. Oh and
stop calling Screen Ratio Change buttons ARC, when you have room to put text "RATIO" there, as you already have buttons called "SOUND" which
swap between diff modes. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040607.html

But the better they get at copying the Windows look and feel, the less reason there is to switch.

So your assumption is that Linux's different UI is one of the reasons which would motivate someone to switch from MS Windows to Linux?

If it has the "same" UI as Windows, then the UI ceases to be a reason to switch?

Well, I did not switch for this reason (and frankly don't think anyone switches to Linux because of it's UI). On the contrary. I thought and felt that the UI differences were more of a challenge against my decision to switch than an incentive. I knew that I would have a lot of learning and readjusting to do, having used Windows and DOS for so long.

At the end, in my case, the UI differences weren't much of a barrier, since I had some experience with an other UI (had used OS/2) and was well motivated by the freemdoms of the GPL and the absence of a license fee. Actually learning a new UI that has it's own virtues was actually fun for me.

Nevertheless, I generally regard UIs that need active learning to use as a barrier to technology adoption. (I.e. except when the challenge is fun.)

Therefore, UI similarities with Windows are not a virtue, but a chosen tactic to lower the difference barrier that can avert switchers. (And that doesn't mean Linux does not have UI features/virtues that I use and I miss when I have to use Windows at work. It has and I do.)

Therefore, having the "same" UI doesn't mean one less reason to switch, nor is it considered a virtue.

____________________

On the other hand, if aliens started mimicking the Windows Start button and UI on their systems, UseIt.com wouldn't have much to "complain" about Usability in the Movies and the UIs in the movies would be a lot more dull :-)

Replying myself here, I missed the link to their article.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/981115.html

Have read a little of the article... and it does not look not very serious.

"The screen and the mouse are both 2D devices, so we don't get true 3D unless we strap on weird head-gear and buy expensive bats (flying mice)"

Im sure there is easy ways of controlling a cursor in 3D (I would love someone point me in that direction), using the mice and the Keyboard.

Also, the miss the giroscopic devices, that can map movement in 3d if im not mistaken, and can be as simple as a small ball that fits in your hand. (or a remote control).

Its seems bit discouraging, without the need for it.

Does anyone else question why we are taking user interface advice from a guy whose website looks like it was designed in notepad?

Top 10 Usability Bloopers in the Movies:

1. The Hero Can Immediately Use Any UI: All movie stars know how to use alien UIs
2. Time Travelers Can Use Current Designs: Someone from 500 years from now being able to use DOS? Someone from 500 years ago using Windows?
3. The 3D [Gesture-based] UI: "3D is for demos. 2D is for work."
4. Integration is Easy, Data Interoperates: "Microsoft Works"
5. Access Denied / Access Granted: Why tell them "Access Granted" in equally the same font/color/size as DENIED?
6. Big Fonts: HUGE Fonts = Unrealistic UI + Eyestrain
7. Star Trek's Talking Computer: Harder to specify in words vs. a 3D interface
8. Remote Manipulators (Waldo Controls): Car remote control via a cell phone: high speed control, and accurate? BS
9. You've Got Mail is Always Good News: Never any spam in the movies
10. "This is Unix, It's Easy": Case in point: The kid in Jurassic Park haxing teh Unix. 'nuff said.

From http://www.useit.com/alertbox/film-ui-bloopers.htm l

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the implication that hardware infrastructure and network reliability trumps usability. For me, a site that is designed badly or behaves badly on the browser side is a greater offense than a site that loads a little slower than most.

Ah, but you're not in the server hardware business. From the business name, it sounds like the guy you were quoting (whose company commissioned the study) is in exactly that business.

Navigation is but a portion of layout. Other studies have shown that the brain subconsciously identifies all the major areas of a web page (header, navigation, main content, ancillary content) in 1/20 of a second after the page loads, and that the common practice of placing navigation/secondary content a left-hand column causes people to ignore anything in the right-side column (a phenomenon known as "right side blindness"), because people have learned that most of the time, what's in the right-hand column is less related (if it's relevant at all) to their task at hand... typically third party banners or other cruft.

In one of the few articles worth reading on UseIT in recent years, Jakob Nielsen describes the results of their eye-tracking studies into how users read web pages as an "F" shape. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when you look at some real pages with the eye-tracking data, you see a combination of several effects: the user typically scans across for selected lines (headings?) but less so as they get further down the page, scans the left side of the main column and any extra column to the left (usually menus?), and will also focus on obviously relevant boxes to the right (shopping carts? menus?). IMHO it's worth a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

I hope that the conclusion is that modern, CSS driven, user-centric designs are less stress inducing than bloated, image-laden table layouts, but I get the feeling that the reseearchers aren't prepared to commit to saying it.

I hope they wouldn't. After all, why should a user see any difference at all between CSS-driven and table-layout-driven sites, if the tools are used to generate the same effect? (Please don't tell me the research is really about accessibility, which is the only compelling reason I have so far seen for moving to CSS if you have an existing table-based layout on your site that works acceptably. The rest is mostly hype IME, usually proposed by people with a vested interest.)

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the implication that hardware infrastructure and network reliability trumps usability. For me, a site that is designed badly or behaves badly on the browser side is a greater offense than a site that loads a little slower than most.

Ah, but you're not in the server hardware business. From the business name, it sounds like the guy you were quoting (whose company commissioned the study) is in exactly that business.

Navigation is but a portion of layout. Other studies have shown that the brain subconsciously identifies all the major areas of a web page (header, navigation, main content, ancillary content) in 1/20 of a second after the page loads, and that the common practice of placing navigation/secondary content a left-hand column causes people to ignore anything in the right-side column (a phenomenon known as "right side blindness"), because people have learned that most of the time, what's in the right-hand column is less related (if it's relevant at all) to their task at hand... typically third party banners or other cruft.

In one of the few articles worth reading on UseIT in recent years, Jakob Nielsen describes the results of their eye-tracking studies into how users read web pages as an "F" shape. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when you look at some real pages with the eye-tracking data, you see a combination of several effects: the user typically scans across for selected lines (headings?) but less so as they get further down the page, scans the left side of the main column and any extra column to the left (usually menus?), and will also focus on obviously relevant boxes to the right (shopping carts? menus?). IMHO it's worth a read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

I hope that the conclusion is that modern, CSS driven, user-centric designs are less stress inducing than bloated, image-laden table layouts, but I get the feeling that the reseearchers aren't prepared to commit to saying it.

I hope they wouldn't. After all, why should a user see any difference at all between CSS-driven and table-layout-driven sites, if the tools are used to generate the same effect? (Please don't tell me the research is really about accessibility, which is the only compelling reason I have so far seen for moving to CSS if you have an existing table-based layout on your site that works acceptably. The rest is mostly hype IME, usually proposed by people with a vested interest.)

Whoa. That's some advanced sheot!

It's hard-core science, too. Look at the scientifical results:

The report stated, "Some changes in muscle tension were quite dramatic While this was happening, the participants faces also tensed visibly, with the teeth clenched together and the muscles around the mouth becoming taught. These are physically uncomfortable situations that reduce concentration and increase feelings of anger."

I'm surprised that nobody has ever done anything like this before!

This is already a problem to some extent - Nielsen wrote about this in 2k4.

Perhaps Microsoft is trying to kick-start a trend to make it fashionable to use complex software. It would sure be a whole lot easier than re-designing windows and office to have a simpler user interface. The bonus is of course that it will only boost the appeal of Linux! (well, there are more things you can configure) Perhaps more relevant than this unhelpful article would be Jakob Neilsen's recent post on Progressive Disclosure

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/progressive-disclosu re.html

"Progressive Disclosure" summary:

Just show the few most used things, for advanced users it is simple to pass
that area to more complex items "hidden". Like the format used for Google.

So the great Don | Jakob split on design? Like Sunni and Shia, or the reformation and
the pope I expect a huge division in design theology.

"Currently, the minimum goal for response times should therefore be to get pages to users in no more than ten seconds, since that's the limit of people's ability to keep their attention focused while waiting." - Jakob Nielsen March 1st 1007 - Source: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703a.html

Loading times have always been a factor. Instant is usually better imo :-D

The (somewhat controversial) web-usability expert, Jakob Nielsen, has had much to say about response times. From his 1994 book, Usability Engineering, he states, "10 seconds is about the limit for keeping the user's attention focused on the dialogue." (reference: http://www.useit.com/papers/responsetime.html). You may have heard of him through his 2000 book, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. There has been a lot he has written that, in light of new methodologies, still makes good sense/practice.

So, basically any page with frames containing other pages is evil now?

The one bright point is that splash screens and Flash intros are almost extinct. They are so bad that even the most clueless Web designers won't recommend them, even though a few (even more clueless) clients continue to request them.

That's not misleading at all -- you're just misunderstanding. OpenLaszlo applications certainly are "AJAX". AJAX stands for: "Asynchronous JavaScript and XML". That's exactly what OpenLaszlo is, whether it's running on Flash or the web browser. OpenLaszlo was "AJAX" long before the term was coined.

Before AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) had a name, there was Laszlo Systems, a software tools developer using AJAX-like methods along with with Macromedia's Flash player to deliver richer Web experiences. David Temkin tells us why he chose the Flash player as a platform. Laszlo went open source and chose IBM's Common Public License as it was flexible enough to fit their needs without curbing commercial use.

Now can you find anything at all misleading about the announcement, once you understand the standard definition of the terms? You told me privately that you were misled into believing that 1) there was a new production ready product available and 2) there were new demos ready now. I can find nothing in the announcement or web pages that states or implies any of that, so you're just making it up, and reacting to your own straw man misunderstandings. Don't blame other people for your own poor reading comprehension.

Who are you to say that I am not entitled to post an announcement about an open source project on Slashdot? Who else shares your unique "school of thought" that nobody should announce anything until beta?

Let's get back to your original argument that open source projects should not post announcements before they're in beta. Why not? Says who? What are the positive advantages of that? How do they outweight the horrible negative consequences of stifling development and supressing community participation?

What do you have against Linux and every other open source project? You don't seem to understand the first and most important thing about open source software development, and that's colaboration and communication. Operating in secret until beta, as you suggest, is totally against those principles.

-Don

To address the question "Is OpenLaszlo AJAX?", here's something I wrote a while ago (before OpenLaszlo's DHTML support was announced): OpenLaszlo Makes Full Blown AJAX Apps on Flash :

The fact that Flash is commonly used for ads, and that those ads annoy everyone and cause many people to hate Flash, doesn't detract from the high quality user interfaces that you can build with it, if you use it for good instead of evil.

Since usability guru Jakob Nielson wrote Flash: 99% Bad in 2000, a lot has changed about Flash. He worked with Macromedia to improve Flash's usability, and he sells a report with 117 design guidelines for Flash usability. So yes, it is possible to develop usable applications in Flash.

OpenLaszlo is an open source language and set of tools for developing full fledged rich web applications, which are compiled into SWF files that run on the Flash player. Laszlo/Flash is presently much more capable of implementing high quality cross platform user interfaces than dynamic AJAX/HTML/SVG currently is.

Laszlo is a high level XML and JavaScript based programming language. It's independent of Flash in the same way that GCC is independent of the Intel instruction set and Windows runtime, because they both compile a higher level language, and can target other runtimes and instruction sets.

Currently Flash is the most practical, so that's what Laszlo supports initially, but it can be retargeted to other runtimes like SVG, XUL, Java or Avalon, once they grow up and mature. But right now Flash is the best way to go, because of i

Without a doubt this is the Internet's worst web site.

It's not nearly as bad as Jakob Neilsen's site.

I'm using a 1680x1050 monitor, and I personally have no problem with Tufte's website. If you've got a huge high-resolution monitor, you're pretty foolish to be browsing with your windows maximised. With the window open to about 2/3 the width of the screen, the content fits perfectly.

The absolute *worst* UI paradigm that has plagued the computing world for the past decade is the maximize button. Ever since multitasking was supported at the OS level, we've had the marvelous ability to work on more than one thing at a time. I don't spread every page of my newspaper out across the kitchen table when I read it. Why should I do the same for my web pages?

Apple was smart to have left it out of OS X, and Microsoft should have left it out of Win95, or killed it with XP. For the first week, it's annoying to drag the corners of the windows around, until you realize how much more productive you can be by having two pieces of work side-by-side. Heck, even for single-tasking, multiple windows are great. If I'm writing a research paper on Shakespeare, I can have a copy of Hamlet open right alongside the paper for quick reference and easy quotations.

Of course, those 14" 1600x1200 laptop screens *are* a problem, because they make text and images unbearably tiny. Apple's the first (mainstream) vendor to tackle this issue head-on, and the next version of OS X should be resolution-independent, which should open the door for smaller, higher-resolution screens that won't kill our eyesight.