Usability Dimension: "Accessible"

ACCESSIBLE.

We discussed findable a couple of days back in our series of features on various dimensions of usability. We arrive at a lesser adopted yet very important aspect of "accessibility."

Wikipedia defines Web accessibility as the inclusive practice of making websites usable by people of all abilities and disabilities. All users should have access to information and functionality. For example, a good site/app with textual equivalents for images and with meaningful links would help blind users using text-to-speech software. Sufficiently large text/images or enlargeable makes it easier for users with poor sight to comprehend. Making hyperlinks prominent with underline and not just by a color change, would help color-blind users. Similarly, making clickable areas large enough would help users who cannot control mouse with precision. Users with dyslexia and learning difficulties would appreciate when content is presented in plain language and illustrated with instructional diagrams and animations.



If some practices are followed, all users in fact can be accommodated while not sacrificing the overall usability of the web site. The needs that accessibility aims to address include:

• Visual: Visual impairments - blindness, low vision, color blindness;


• Motor/Mobility: Difficulty/inability to use hands, muscle slowness, lack of muscle control;


• Auditory: Deafness, hard of hearing;


• Seizures: Caused by visual strobe or flashing effects;


• Cognitive/Intellectual: Developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, poor memory, lack of problem-solving and logic skills.

Few examples of almost accessible sites:

• texas a&m


• state of california


• enabled online


• one day films


• genasys


• einfach-fuer-alle


• open web


• keep austin beautiful


• hoehner music

This site exemplifies how web elements can be designed to be accessible. It puts forth the most common items together on one site that can make a site accessible. Things like: choosing a proper color contrast, alternative text for images, separating the structure (navigation, heading, subheading) and presentation (words, fonts, images), allowing users control over re-sizing of content, etc. For overall guidelines, please refer to: WCAG 2.0.

Just as our buildings have elevators and ramps, our web sites and products should be accessible to people with disabilities (10% of the population). Today's it's good business and ethical thing to do. Eventually, it will become the law.

Next dimension in line: Credible.

Usability Dimension: "Findable"

FINDABLE.

Fourth feature in our series: Dimensions of Usability. First three posts discussed the dimensions - useful, usable, and desirable.

Peter Morville says: "Findability precedes usability, in the alphabet and on the Web. You can't use what you can't find."

For your web site, there are two aspects of findability: how well your site can be found on the Internet, and how well information can be found on your site. While the former aspect is very important and concerns itself with concepts like search engine optimization and marketing techniques, we're going to restrict this feature to the latter aspect of findability. The issues that affect findability are: organization of the web site, representation of the user interface, web standards, user interaction, navigation, and content. Achieving a good design and score in these parameters would actually directly contribute to having a higher SEO too.

A standard way of measuring this dimension: "findable" for your web site is usability testing methodologies such as: Tree Testing or Reverse Card Sorting. It's all about focusing on the user's ability to identify and navigate  through your site/application to find and retrieve information and sources relevant to his needs. Things like: navigation, sub-navigation, placement of content, choice of words and phrases, information-flow, search functionality...contribute towards making your web site findable or not.

Few examples of highly findable sites:

• opera


• hbo


• chandra harvard


• fwa


• questacon


• ted


• brainpop


• penguin classics


• stimulus

Simply put, we must strive to design navigable web sites, products, and locatable objects, icons, user interface elements, so users can find what they need. Few things to keep in mind:

• avoid having no way of going back to home


• don't have illogically named links


• have consistent navigation across different pages


• don't have too many sub-navigation levels/hierarchy


• use breadcrumbs and sitemaps


• make states of hyperlinks different and noticeable

Next usability dimension topic: Accessible.

Usability Dimension: "Desirable"

DESIRABLE.

We saw few examples of useful and usable sites and applications. This feature is on "desirable".

"Form follows function" is an age old principle. Everyone is up for beauty. Good looks (form) works like a charm, in any industry, at times even at the expense of function. You may be witness to a great looking movie star, less on acting skills gather more fan following than an average looking, but great actor. Likewise, you would find a person going for a used car, more interested in examining the exterior/body of the car than the functional parts like engine. What about an architect paying more attention to colors and symmetrical dimensions in space, rather than focusing on the lifelines of the household system - electrical and plumbing lines?

Same applies to software and internet world. Not many achieve the balance of their site/app being desirable, at the same time high on usability: useful, usable, etc.

Few examples of beauty that doesn't work:

• verbatim


• creative with a k


• real casual


• jones...


• got milk?


• record tripping


• lego


• echo genesis


• incredibox


• there studio


• coca cola light


• google gravity


• on toyota's mind

If the primary function/industry of your web site is to convey beauty, one should design for beauty. Else, beauty should be a by-product, still essential, but not at the expense of functionality and ease of use. A desirable site may attract more visitors in the short-term, but the visitors are unlikely to revisit as they would find it difficult to achieve their desired goals; in which case, a more functional site will score in the long-term.

Typical user echoes the following while using any of the above sites:

"where do i look?" "where do i click?" "what do i do?" "how long does this take to load?" "where's the navigation?" "how do i scroll?"

The sad part about these sites is that there's undoubted creativity and plenty of ideas that's gone into the concept and production. But, like most real things, a tool is no good unless you can figure out how to use it. There are multiple ways the sites fail to function. It can be visual clutter, slow loading time, navigation issues, archiving issues, visibility/scrolling issues, etc. Instead, direct the users to certain sections/pages of the site; make your navigation clear; make menus and icons self-explanatory; use proper contrast ratio for higher visibility; and have a clear "call-to-action". More...

Few brands like: Sony, Apple, Microsoft - achieve form without sacrificing function.

Watch this space for the next usability dimension: Findable.

Usability (Dilbert)

Usability Dimension: "Usable"

USABLE.

Last feature discussed few examples and theories about a useful interface. This feature will focus on "usable" aspect of user interfaces. Often, we focus too much on our sites and applications being functionally useful and perfect; also making it very desirable and attractive, but losing focus on the vital concept: ease of use. One reason maybe because the interface-centered methods and perspectives of human-computer interaction do not address all dimensions of website/product design.

Of all dimensions of usability, usable is perhaps one of the closest attributes that is a direct contribution towards user productivity gains. Ease of use minimizes:

• erroneous actions


• need of training


• time spent on tasks

A useful and simple website is going to yield more repeat traffic in long term, even if it's not good to look at.

Few examples of a good balance between "useful" and "usable" and not categorically "desirable":

• gmail


• ebay


• youtube


• wikipedia


• amazon


• imdb


• myspace

The above list, you shall agree consists of few of the most used internet sites and these belong to this category of being usable and useful, but not visually appealing or desirable.  A couple more examples of relatively unknown sites that are "ugly" and still work like a charm because of being usable:

• Plenty of Fish - a very plain looking website that offers a free online dating service much like Match.com (but without the subscription fee). There is nothing specifically impressive about the website that stands out, in fact the site is actually rather ugly. A second look at the website on its reported earnings revealed that it brings in over $10,000 from Adsense – in one day. For those of you counting, that is $300,000 per month and nearly one million dollars in just three months.
  (borrowed from this site)


• Ryanair - audible gasps are possible when you see this site, for its ugly nature. However, Ryanair experiences online bookings to the tune of several millions a year.

Not making your interfaces usable is not a mistake, but outright blunder. Remember, if one of your users gets lost trying to navigate your website, check out of your web store, or finding simple contact information, then you unnecessarily are increasing the chances that this user will simply leave. This particular aspect of usability is best not kept optional. It is a must.

Watch this space as we discuss the next usability dimension: Desirable.

Usability Dimension: "Useful"

USEFUL.

It may be observed that when a website or product is usable, but not useful, it's unlikely to get off the ground. Useful is what generates the interest, serves a need, scratches an itch. Often useful can do without being usable. If your website page has large content that is "useful" for the user making an informed decision/action, you may have to sacrifice on the usability by allowing horizontal/vertical scroll and pop-up/navigation elements. Another standard usability principle suggests alphabetical order of drop-down menus, which is usable in nature, as the users can do without additional cognitive load in narrowing down their choice of action. However, if an unsorted but prioritized menu items are presented to the users based on the most useful options presented first; the system might prove to be more useful after all.

Few Examples of Useful but Low on Overall Usability:

• ecademy


• Most Torrent / Freeware Download sites


• craigslist


• experts-exchange


• only batteries


• flickr


• salesforce (App not Website)


• exactitudes


• igluski

As usability and UI practitioners, we cannot be content to paint within the lines drawn by customers and the known patterns of usability. We must courageously and creatively question the usefulness of the system and functionalities and the user interface elements. Thus, we seek to apply our deep knowledge of craft and medium to define innovative solutions that are more useful.

Watch this space for examples of next usability dimension: Usable.

Dimensions of Usability

Is it more important for your website/product to be desirable or accessible? How about usable or credible? The truth is, it depends on your unique balance of 'context', 'content', and 'users' - and the required trade-offs are better made explicitly than unconsciously or subconsciously.

We'll attempt to discuss and exemplify various aspects and dimensions of usability and user experience - that should be actively considered for the visualization of our brand, product, website, etc. In a series of blog articles, we'll discuss the following dimensions of user interfaces, singularly:

• useful


• usable


• desirable


• findable


• accessible


• credible


• valuable

Watch this space as we explore the topics with appropriate examples.