Slashdot Mirror
Web 'Rules' Changing?
sempf writes "Lots of things have changed since we started this HTML. The IMAGE tag was a nice change, and multimedia with plugins like Flash provide a new look.
What interests me the most, however, is the change in two of the hallowed GUI 'Rules' - the three click rule and the 7 +/- 2 rule. The Three click rule (which states that any page in a site or function in an application should be accessible in three clicks) was just debunked by Josh Porter in an article called Debunking the Three Click Rule. The 7 +/- 2 rule states that a user should never be presented with more than 5-9 choices at any given point in the site or application. James Kalbach has an excellent article debunking that rule at Dr. Dobb's Journal.
Worried that there will be no more 'rules'? Never you mind - the Government has come up with New Rules for us to follow."
The thing about rules like "three clicks", is that they are based on the pre-bubble notion of buzzwords. That doesn't work anymore in the web design field. Now we have to provide tools that the customers want to have, and design stuff so that they can easily access it. Document trees, under the nice standards at w3 are what has really changed with the internet, and not to mention PHP, Perl and free db solutions like MySQL and the other guys.
If users are leaving after 12 clicks now, like it says in the article, that says something about the level of web-smarts of the average user. But what I see in these charts, is a kind of "split the difference" research insight.
For clicking, it's 50/50 that people will go on to get what they want. For the percentage of unsatisfied users, it's 50% who are unsatisfied, according to their research.
What they've said is: "Users weren't any more satisfied with shorter clickstreams than they were with longer clickstreams. The satisfaction of users doesn't depend on the number of clicks."
So that means that in the old days, people were getting used to the infrastructure of web surfing, and things that were far away were annoying people. Today, people are used to the web... some teens have grown up on it, and therefore people as a whole are used to it. Therefore, things like design style and presentation mean more than how far clicks are, and if they know they can get what they want by going there.
Unlike real life, the Internet has no rules, be it content, language, format, or organization. These rules are generally asserted to better help web designers (as there are some horrendously designed sites), but they are by no means written in stone. Follow what you think is best.
A blog like any other.
The 7 +/- 2 rule doesn't apply on this site. On any given page, there can be what seems like 50-100 links! :D
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.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
The "Three click rule" and the 7 +/- 2" rule are good rules for designing simple UIs (of which web pages can be considered a subset), but simple inspection can reveil the problem with this idea.
Suppose a UI were to scrupulously follow both rules. Then you would have a maximum number of choices of 9 ^ 3 = 729 choices. No more.
That may be great IF the number of choices you have is less than 729, and IF the choices can naturally be grouped in bunches of 9.
However, any complicated application may easily exceed this.
Moreover, people CAN deal with more than 7 choices, as long as the choices are somewhat related - Baskin Robins 31 flavors are all exactly that - "flavors". Imagine if a BR menu offered 31 choices of foods, drinks, plate colors, locations in the restaurant, server names, music, etc. ALL AT ONCE.
7 +/- 2 and 3 click are useful GUIDELINES. Just as saying "Using goto in C/C++ is generally a bad idea", or "pointing a loaded gun at any part of your body is a bad idea" are pretty good guidelines, there are times when you need violate them (e.g. error handling in the absence of exceptions, demonstrating a bullet-resistant vest, and designing a complicated piece of test equipment).
You should just use them AS GUIDELINES - "Hey, I really have a lot of items in this menu, perhaps I should take a break and see if I can come up with a different way to group them?"
www.eFax.com are spammers
1) Use as much stuff as you can. No matter how unnecessary it is, put it there. ...add your own.
2) If you plan creating something something, put a link to 'under construction' page with that thing's name. If you don't plan creating it, put that link anyway.
3) Put as many javascripts and plugin content as possible. Best if you make all navigation buttons using separate java applets, or the "enter" button with flash.
4) A right-click blocking script is a must.
5) Use freestyle HTML. No tag must be ever closed, let's see how the browser handles undocumented parameters, what about making up my own tags?
6) Never forget about "Make this page your homepage" button!
7) Graphics is everything. You may leave a 60x60px box for text content, but a huge background is essential. There should be at least half a megabyte of non-skippable intro in flash before the content proper.
8) Instead of creating thumbnails in your gallery, use height= and width= parameters on original, full-size images.
9) a href= is unfashionable. Use javascript to change pages.
10) It's highly desired to open the page in a new 'kiosk' style popup window. Let's force people to disable their evil popup-blocker software, nobody dares using buttons like "reload" or "back", only site-provided navigation is allowed!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I've just made the faux-pas of actually reading* the linked article that claimed that 3-click was debunked, and I don't agree.
/. karma. I promise I won't read the article ever ever ever again, so this should be a one-time problem for slashdotters, since obviously no-one else ever reads articles here.
The 3-click rule says info should be accessible within three clicks.
The article contesting this says they watched over 8000 user clicks, and most users clicked 25 times before 'giving up', when it appeared they were searching for stuff.
The gap that I see is in not more-deeply analyzing how the clicks of users related to depth-of-tree (i.e., 1-click from home, 2-clicks, or 3-clicks, etc.) or perceived website quality. It is possible that people spent 25 clicks wandering but resurfaced to 'home' several times in trying to find the proper 3-click path to their desired target.
My point is that truly debunking this concept would involve:
1 - looking for 'back to home' patterns in click streams.
2 - classifying users a few ways (Some people are too timid/stupid to use the 'back' button!)
3 - validating user satisfaction on usability of sites that honor/ignore the 3-click rule.
All the article does is prove that people are persistent, even in the face of crappy webpage design.
* - My apologies; I hope admitting that I read the article doesn't completely destroy my
I think as the web matures, these so called 'rules' will be rewritten. No hysterical 'end of rules' proclamations need be sounded.
The 3 click rule made more sense during the bubble when there was a glut of sites for every category. Or when there really wasn't a definitive site for any one purpose. When a person knows there are a multitude of sites they can look at, they are reluctant to go too deep on any one site. I can recall using 3-5 search engines every time I was looking for something. I would look at the first result page and then try another engine. Now I only hit Google, but I'll look as deep as I need to.
The 7+/-2 rule is based on a cognitive psychological idea first put forth in an article by George A. Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. In it he argues that the average person can really only hold about 5-9 things in immediate memory at one time.
I don't believe that is an internet design 'rule' that should be ignored, too many choices in one space will overwhelm your average users.
I just fired this off to the admins of the site:
.
----
Hi folks
I have a few comments about your useability guidelines, most notably the font recommendations found at http://usability.gov/guidelines/fonts.html
While I agree that a 10pt font is ideal for many people, I think it's totally inappropriate for a website to ever set this. Many people are using high resolution or high-DPI screens where 10pt is unreadable; many need larger fonts because of visual impairment; some may want smaller text, etc. Setting an explicit point size will override any preferences the user may have made in their client.
I have visually impaired users at work, and they find many websites apalling - I've had to set their browsers to ignore the website's font settings to make many sites useable. This is not a good situation for anybody, as the site designer uses font size and face as a significant cue for navigation and reading.
As such, I'd love to see you note on your useability guidelines that font sizes should only be set uding relative properties - the 'em' measure in CSS, the '%' measure in CSS, the 'larger'/'smaller' descriptive terms of CSS or the 'SIZE="+-n"' measures in the HTML <FONT> tag. CSS 'pt' or 'px' should never be used where accessability is a concern.
For an illustration of this problem, I suggest that you find a computer with a 19" monitor capable of at least 1600x1200 (or a 21" that can do 2048x1536) and try to use sites that are set to 10pt. Ideally find someone a bit older for this test. For even more fun, use an OS other than Windows that is not guaranteed to have access to the specific fonts the website designer previewed their site using.
Another issue I think well worth mentioning is the use of leading/kerning controls in CSS, especially combined with the use of absolute measurements. Setting the leading in type may well make things look very 'crisp' and 'professional' on the designer's screen, but often makes the content almost unreadable for people who don't have the same fonts, use large or small type, or otherwise differ from the configuration of the designer's test systems. Leading specified in 'px' or 'pt' is especially bad, as this causes each line of type to overlap when the font size is larger than that the page was designed for; it also causes lines to space out very annoyingly when using smaller type sizes. If leading must be specified, it should be expressed in relative measures like 'em' or percent, so that the leading scales with the type size.
One final comment: some sites, while designed to work with a range of type sizes, fall down severely when viewed with _extremely_ large type as is needed for someone who is partly blind. One of the staff at work has serious vision problems, and she finds that on many sites the columns do not expand with the type. If the type is large enough that only one word fits in each column, this is hard to read - but as words aren't broken, if the columns are a little narrower than type can overlap. This makes a site unuseable. Again, it's easily fixed - column and table sizes should be specified in relative measures such as 'em' or percent, never in pixels or point sizes.
Unfortunately, certain buggy web browsers - such as many versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer - have severly broken CSS implementations that make this more difficult than it should be. It is still possible to design good sites that work well even for people who need or prefer different type sizes, however - and I think this is an important thing to encourage.
As monitor resolutions get higher and computer use even more universal, this will no doubt become more of an issue.
I'd love to hear your comments on these suggestions.
Craig Ringer
That's why it's a good idea reuse the same graphics as much as possible on many pages of a web site, e.g., place a banner that identifies your company at the top of each page. Modem users will already have the graphics in their cache, and won't have to wait for them to load again.
What really frustrates me is sites like Apple's, where you can't even tell what's on the page or how to navigate it until you wait for a megabyte of jpegs to load. Thirty three-second clicks is heaven. Three thirty-second clicks is hell.
Find free books.
It is true that Google replaced Yahoo as THE search engine.
It could well have succeded because it lacks all that crap on the front page.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
It is absolutely traceable to better GUI design. Old style cockpits were full of gauges that had to be scanned, constantly, always checking temperature gauges and a zillion things which almost always had the proper readings and did not change, scan the instruments, scan outside, scan the instruments, scan outside ... boring as hell scanning those gauges, because they were almost always showing what they should have been ... can you spell repetitive? boring?
Glass cockpits and HOTAS, Hands On Throttle And Stick, changed everything. The computer monitored instrumentation, and only showed what was out of spec, and alerted you when that happened. HOTAS meant doing everything from the two controls, stick and throttle. No more moving your hands from the primary flight controls to reach for one of dozens of toggle switches and dials which all looked the same, while pulling 5Gs and still trying to scan all those round gauges and track the situation outside and look where your fingers were.
I knew a retired air force pilot who had flown patched up MiGs collected from battlefields, who said the biggest difference between planes of the same era was that the US planes had HOTAS and glass cockpits, and the Russians still had round gauages and toggle switches. Even if the Russian got on the tail of a US fighter, he had to reach up or over while pulling Gs, trying to reach the arming and firing switches and having to do it quick with one of his hands which really should have stayed on the throttle and stick because he was in combat, but no, so he lost a bit of maneuvering while the American was doing it all with ease because his hands were on the controls that mattered and his eyes were outside the cockpit instead of scanning dozens of round gauges.
*That* is a classic GUI redesign.
Infuriate left and right
James Kalbach's article points out how poorly understood the "7 +/- 2" "rule" is in general, but he seems to ignore that since its publication in 1956 psychologists have learned quite a bit about this "limitation" on information processing abilities. His suggestions are old news on this front and, instead of debunking 7 +/- 2, confirm its importance.
Let's start off with an example from where the research was perhaps first applied -- telephone numbers (George Miller, the researcher who "discovered" this number, worked for Bell Labs). US telephone numbers, since 1947, have followed the 3-3-4 format: 3 numbers for the area code, 3 for the exchange and 4 for the line number. Add the 1 in front of any number for dialing long distance and you've got an 11-number sequence. Does this violate the 7 +/- 2 "rule"? Not really, for a number of reasons:
Given these factors, a local phone number can have a demand on your STM as little a 5 "bits" of data for a local call. Still, you might think that with auto-dial features of phones these days, does this format really matter anymore? Well, maybe not to the technology in our phones that stores the information for us, or to the telephone switching technology that accepts and routes and connects our calls, but if someone gives you a phone number to remember you'll have a much easier time of it if you at least recognize the area code, even if all you need to do is walk to the phone and dial (as opposed to memorizing it). That 3-3-4 pattern helps us cluster the data and retain it in STM longer than if we'd try to hold a ten-digit sequence without any clustering or recognizable pattern.
The point being that 7 +/- 2 is not a design "rule" that has anything to do with the underlying technology but, rather, how human brains work. Kalbach and others either have forgotten or never knew that the "7 +/- 2" pieces of info have nothing to do with what the technology can handle and everything to do with what one person can juggle in STM while trying to do something meaningful with that info.
Chunking or clustering data is something we do naturally, without conscious effort, to reduce demands on our information processing. Use of cultural conventions (like requiring the 1 for long distance) that everyone familiar with a task can learn can also reduce these demands. By reducing these demands, you can help people