There are an increasing number of websites dispensing with a link to “Home” in their primary navigation in favour of the company/site logo linking to the homepage. The logic behind this approach appears to be the belief that all users understand that the logo provides a link back to a website’s homepage and to save space.

Our experience of observing user behaviour suggests that a significant number of users will fail to return to the home page when the site logo is the only means of doing so (aside from the browser “back” button of course). Using the logo as a link to the homepage is not a bad thing; we actually recommend it especially as it is optimal from an accessibility perspective. However, it should not provide the sole means of navigating back to home.

It is difficult to argue that reserving a permanent spot for “Home” in a website’s primary navigation takes up an unreasonable amount of real estate which could be used for other navigation options. After all it is only four characters and “Home” plays a crucial role in in-site navigation, with many users treating a website’s homepage as a base which they return to between tasks.

If you must write help documentation, ensure it is needed. And actually helpful.

In testing recently, we came across a user behaviour that was challenging, not so much in itself but more so for its impact on the category and how it needed to be taken into consideration during website development.

Taste.com.au Recipe

One of our Clients was in development of a website that targeted aspiring cooks. In a nutshell, they wanted to confirm that their planned website was in line with user needs, and also that they were on the right track with the specific functionality that had been developed.  We used focus groups and moderated one-on-one user testing on the project.

During the focus groups, the importance of search became very clear. As mentioned above, this in itself was hardly ground breaking. The intriguing bit however was how much search engines (and by default, Google) had become the de facto homepage for this particular category. User behaviour was to go to Google and search some aspect of cooking, and to proceed to the websites recommended in the natural search results. The use of Google was so much a part of the process that the users were nearly universally unable to name any of the websites which were dominant (by traffic counts) in the category. The users knew the sites only by the pages that they had linked to via Google, which tended to be deep within the individual sites.

The behaviour was so prevalent that it became clear that our Client would need to rethink their homepage design and information architecture. Specifically, they had designed the site so that some of the core features were only clearly visible from the homepage, and were less easily accessed via the individual pages of the site. Understanding the user behaviour in this category led us to recommend to the client that they rethink their content pages, and consider how each one was effectively the ‘homepage’ of their site for most users. They needed to reconsider how to dial up the site’s branding, and how they could introduce some of the other features of the site (which had only previously been available on the site’s homepage) to the users without getting in the way of the core purpose for the users’ visit.

“We shouldn’t assume that the general viewing public is an idiot”

Joshua Davis (via InspireUX)

This week we came across this tweet:

There is some lively debate about the actual existence of the pagefold on websites (see http://www.thereisnopagefold.com/).  The main arguments as far as I can tell, is that the pagefold does not apply to the web because, unlike the physical world where a newspaper fold applies to all readers, online users can view pages in a variety of screen resolutions which alter the placement of the fold and there is a scroll bar on most websites to find more content.

My take is a little more pragmatic;

When we observe users in labs, time and time again we see some people not using the scroll bar.  While good designs help to avoid this, it does happen.  As such we recommend to our clients that they present key information (not all content) above the page fold in common screen resolution formats (eg. 1024 by 768).

Whilst I agree that we should think about websites outside of the newspaper paradigm I do believe that talking about the fold encourages website owners to think about the placement of key information on the page to make it easier for users to undertake key activities.

What do you think?

There are some serious coffee drinkers in the UsabilityOne office, and a number of us are fairly fussy about our coffees too. So when our new coffee machine arrived we were keen to fiddle with the settings and configure it just the way we like it.

Several weeks later, we still haven’t worked out how to do that. We do know how to change the language on the menu though.

When designing an interface, design for the most likely and frequent activities your users will undertake.

Mapping applications are a great way to present your contact information, particularly when your company has multiple stores or locations. However, if executed poorly they can actually add to the difficulty of you customers finding your stores. The following are some important design considerations when presenting information with a map.

Take care when starting on a map at the country level as the only way to find locations. Maps like the one below typically rely on visitors zooming and panning controls of that particular mapping application, something not all users are familiar with. Forcing visitors to use the map to drill-down from a country to suburb level can also be time consuming and error prone. When testing the example below, participants who were experienced with using online maps took an average of 19 mouse movements to locate the South Melbourne store.

Users like to be given options so they can choose a means of interaction that suits them best. Some users prefer drilling down using a map, others do not. Displaying alternatives to the map, such as a postcode search or state selection, allows users to choose the option that best meets their needs.

Below is a good example where users are given flexible choices in locating their nearest store. They can enter their postcode for an exact match, drill-down by state or interact with the map. The state selector still gives users an overview of locations, but eliminates extensive zooming on the map from the country level.

As with all features of your site; design your mapping feature so that the user can use it as they wish. Offering multiple ways to interact with the feature means users will be able to find one that best suits them.

The process was slower than I had expected it to be, but the real crunch came at the point of making a payment; my credit card signature needed to be assessed by the self-serve assistant.  It was apparent after a moment or two of scratching my head and looking about like a idiot, that it was I (rather than the system) that was required to notify an assistant that they were required to complete this transaction.  As the assistant was busy attending other customers I had to wait, for what seemed a long time, for my turn.  This seemed completely counter-productive.

I have used my credit card in a number of other comparative self-serve systems recently including car park and public transport ticketing machines.  In these instances signature validation was not required.  Of course, Woollies level of security with signature assessment is a notch above these systems, however, this experience for a first time user will undoubtably put many off from self-serving again.

When you consider how vital credit cards are for self-serve transitional purchasing, surely some revision is required to aid consumer adoption of the service?  I would encourage Woollies to consider one of the following:

FAQs are an old feature of the web, that have somehow outlasted most of their peers. Whilst we have (mostly) done away with animated GIFs, embedded MIDIs and scrolling text, the FAQ section is still appearing on sites 26 years after they were first introduced.

Whilst age alone is not a reason to stop using something, there are many reasons that implementing FAQs on your site is detrimental to the user experience.

Frequently asked? Really?

Do you have an FAQ section on your site? If so, have a look at what is listed there right now.

Are these really the most frequently asked questions from your users? How did you collect them? How many times do your users ask a question before you classify it as ‘frequently asked’?

In our experience, FAQs are actually not Frequently Asked Questions. Instead, FAQs are used for a number of different purposes. Often sites use FAQs as somewhere to put the questions they want their users to ask. Other times it is a place for information architects to put any content that didn’t fit anywhere else on the site. Neither benefits users.

If the content is something that you want users to see, don’t wait for them to go looking for it. It is a big risk to put any important information under an FAQ label, as many user will never look there, preferring instead to look under more descriptive labels.

If the content you are placing within FAQ is content that didn’t have a home elsewhere, perhaps you need to question its place on the website at all. All site content should be developed around the goal of answering users questions before they knew they had something to ask. If any content does not fit into this process, then what purpose is it serving. Anything important enough to put on the site should be important enough to have its own place on the site.

Why do I have to ask you?

So perhaps the content in your FAQ is actually a list of frequent questions from your customers. The next question you have to ask yourself is: why are they asking?

Imagine you run a corner store. If every second customer asked you where the butter was, would you not move the butter to somewhere easier to find?

Or if you ran a cafe and customers frequently asked whether you had soy milk. Would you add soy milk to your menu?

Websites are not different. If you really are receiving frequent questions from your users, something is wrong. When designing a site structure and content, the focus should be on answering users’ questions before they knew they had something to ask. Imagine, for every user who bothered to look up your contact details and get in touch to ask something, many more would have taken the easier route of just going to your competitor.

FAQ. The internet equivalent of a lean-to

During user testing, we recieve constant feedback from users about their thoughts on FAQ. Many refuse to use them, citing past experiences of seeing a page of unrelated, unuseful information. Others prefer to follow more descriptive links and labels, thinking that the site design should put them on the right path. Some users, and a larger group than you may expect, simpy have no idea what FAQs are; it’s not uncommon to hear users say “Facks? What’s that?”.

Regardless of whether they are used or not, FAQs always have the look of tacked on content. Something that wasn’t part of the original design. User either choose to avoid them, sticking instead to the more polished original structure, or venture in and find themselves stepping on a rusty nail or falling through a broken floorboard.

So rather than seeing FAQs as somewhere to put questions and answer, try viewing your entire site as frequently answering questions.

Thanks to everybody who came last night to our World Usability Day event. We had a lot of fun and hope you did too.

Some discussions were held around what trends we will be seeing in the coming year. Most of these seem to be technology driven, and many will present interesting usability challenges as designers face the task of building new experience types around these new possibilities.

Some of the key topics discussed focused around:

• Mobile web – How to face the challenge of disparate handset specs, smaller screen and distracted users? When is a pared down mobile version of the site the better choice, or can new high resolution handset allow users to easily use standard sites?
• Location awareness – This is a feature we expect to see a lot more of in the next twelve months, and how designers approach its implementation will be very interesting

There seemed to be a few points of disagreement amongst the audience, so as promised we’ve opened up this page to continue the discussion. Feel free to put your usability predictions in the comments area below. What trends in research and design do you think we will see emerging over the coming months?