Usability Characteristic: "Engaging"

The previous two posts saw examples of effective and efficient sites. This feature focuses on the "engaging" characteristic of a user interface.

An interface that's confusing or difficult to read; that fails to draw users into their tasks - generally fail in the "engaging" department from a functional aspect. Apart from this, an interface should be pleasant and satisfying to use, to qualify as engaging. Clearly, visual design and communication is the key here. The style, presentation, colors, fonts, graphic images, illustrations, etc. invoke immediate user reaction. Readability of content and clarity in interaction styles also matter a lot in an engaging relationship between the user and the site/application. Also, certain deterrent elements like an abstract image or an audio/video clip or a peel-away banner can add up to the engagement quotient.

At the risk of sounding repetitive about something painfully obvious - just like other usability characteristics, this aspect also demands that the design meet the expectations and needs of the people who must use the interface. In some ways, this post echoes some principles of the desirable philosophical dimension discussed in an earlier post.

Few examples:

• thomson reuters


• sap


• adidas


• sony style


• harley davidson


• accenture


• dell


• facebook


• google

Apparently, most well-known brands as above pay sincere attention to this aspect of usability - as an integral contributor towards brand loyalty and retention. A scientific approach towards achieving and measuring the engagement quotient is to conduct user satisfaction surveys and psychological interviews - aiming to gauge the patterns of user acceptance and user attitude. More detailed view of achieving this and other characteristics of usability will be discussed in a separate series of blog articles soon.

Please share your opinions.

Next topic: Error Tolerant User Interfaces.

Usability Characteristic: "Efficient"

Of the usability characteristics, effectiveness is often confused with efficiency; but they are not the same. Efficiency is concerned primarily with how quickly a task can be completed. Whereas effectiveness, as we saw in the last feature, concerns itself with completeness and accuracy of a task.

ISO 9241 defines efficiency as:

The total resources expended in a task.

Measurable parameters of efficiency are the number of mouse-clicks and keystrokes required or the total time on task. Layouts with visual elements that are designed with visible contrast, with proper text, and good logical placement - define clear user actions and choices, resulting in an efficient user interface. Also keyboard shortcuts, alternate menu navigational paths, and buttons all contribute towards efficiency.

The most common example of efficiency is the design and use of CTRL+C, CTRL+X, and CTRL+V in case of Windows - respectively the shortcut keys assigned to Copy, Cut, and Paste data. Though it may seem like portions of seconds or a few seconds saved while doing this operation, imagine the repeatability of these functions, which add up to a huge time-saving. Having FAQ sections on complex sites also lead to efficiency of use, where the recipe is to provide some quick answers/guidelines to common queries and doubts, rather than only keeping them embedded inside an ocean of content.

Few examples of efficiency:

• google


• godaddy


• northern light


• dropbox


• sofa


• gettyimages


• moneycontrol


• justdial

For sites and products to be more efficient, the focus in the iterative design process should be on the time taken for achieving the goal by the intended audience. It can be clicks, keystrokes, page views, search results...anything that has a quantifiable co-relation with time.

Thoughts?

Next 'E' to follow after this feature - Engaging.

Usability Characteristic: "Effective"

The first of the five usability characteristics - EFFECTIVE.

Effectiveness is measured by the completeness and the accuracy with which the intended users achieve their specific goals. The typical characteristics of an effective user interface are:

• clear terminology - in the user's language and appropriate to the task


• good, comprehensible choices on screen


• easy navigation; alternate means of navigating to an outcome, in complex situations (unfamiliar domain)


• quality user assistance/instructions

ATM machine and Calculator are perhaps two greatest examples of an "effective" system user interface.

Few web examples of effective design:

• eleven2


• enso


• finch


• amazon


• arstechnica


• mashable


• 37signals


• traffik


• wordpress


• readwriteweb


• crunchbase

The examples can continue to flow; but basically we need to appreciate the overlaps between various philosophical and practical dimensions of usability that are apparent in the examples. These are a blend of focusing on being effective, and striking some balance amongst other characteristics like useful, usable, findable, and so on.

Generally, usability and user-centered design is an iterative process and finding a balance between different characteristics for the specific design context is an important part of the user and task analysis. For sites and products that need to have greater emphasis on being effective, the iterative process should evaluate tasks for how accurately they are completed, and how often they produce errors.

More to continue as we move on to the second characteristic of usability in the next feature - Efficient.

The Five Es of Usability

PREAMBLE.

We saw the philosophical angle to various dimensions of usability in previous blog posts, with several examples. This series will focus on the practical dimensions - another, deeper view of the characteristics of usability: Whitney Quesenbery's Five Es of Usability. With examples, of course.

ISO 9241 defines usability as:

The effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments.

effectiveness: the accuracy and completeness with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments; efficiency: the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness of goals achieved; satisfaction: the comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users and other people affected by its use.



Extending the concept, and narrowing it down to fundamental elements, experts suggest the following five characteristics that are necessary to be met for the users of a product or a web site:

• Effective


• Efficient


• Engaging


• Error Tolerant


• Easy to Learn

Watch this space as we dig into each individual 'E' with some relevant examples.

Usability Dimension: "Valuable"

VALUABLE.

The 7th and last feature in the series of Usability Dimensions. For earlier features, kindly follow the following links: useful, usable, desirable, findable, accessible, and credible.

Depending on the specific case, all previously discussed dimensions need to be balanced in varying degrees, and not treated as mutually exclusive. However, the aspect of "valuable" is commonsensical and must. On one hand, it should relate to and contribute towards the company's ROI. On the other hand, it should also equate itself to ROE (User's Return on Experience). The user-interface design of your site or product should in effect result into one or more of measurable and sustainable benefits like:

• increase in sales


• increase in operational efficiency


• increase in productivity


• decrease in operational/maintenance costs


• re-use of existing components and infrastructure


• increase in brand awareness/networking outreach

This makes your site/product valuable. Only "shared" value (between Business community and User community) is the key to long term sustainability. I'm struggling to list down the examples of "valuable" websites, primarily because the "value" can be really diverse based on specific businesses, specific user community etc. For example, Technical Developers may find technology forum sites really valuable, much different than a teenager finding value in gaming or music sites, and so on. I'll attempt to list down few generic valuable sites that most end-consumers today from any category, qualification, or industry would not live without. Yes, it's easy to guess a few at least...as they would definitely echo your own choice too.

Here goes:

• google (Need I give a link for you to navigate?)


• youtube


• wikipedia


• facebook


• gmail (Isn't this a new term for email?)


• ebay


• linkedin

I encourage you to share your views and few more additions to the list, as comments to this post.

In conclusion, our sites and products must deliver value to the customers and sponsors. For non-profits, the user experience must advance the mission; for profits, it must contribute to the bottom line and provide customer delight.

Watch this space for more example-oriented features (please expect some overlaps in discussion points) through another series of the Five-Es of Usability - another view of usability dimensions: Effective, Efficient, Engaging, Error Tolerant, Easy to Learn.

Usability Dimension: "Credible"

CREDIBLE.

Sixth feature in the series of dimensions of usability.

Stanford's Persuasive Technology Lab investigates topics such as:

• what causes people to believe (or not believe) what they find on the web


• what strategies do users employ in evaluating the credibility of online resources


• what contextual and design factors influence these assessments and strategies


• how and why are credibility evaluation processes on the web different from those made in face-to-face human interaction, or in offline contexts

What makes your web site, your product more credible than others? We should focus on and understand the design and visualization elements that influence whether users trust and believe what we tell them.

I personally trust online presence that are sincere and honest representation of products, services, whatever is out there. A polished content/representation that's simply too perfect, coming from the desk of a copywriter or a marketer - is a complete turn-off and introduces a bias. I tend to stay away from companies, whose sites claim to do it all, have the most flattering testimonials from "unnamed" sources, and have impeccable language splashed - all of which usually is in complete contrast to the imperfect human owner. We should avoid pretense in all context. Credibility cannot be faked, cannot be purchased. A sincere, honest approach that's consistent, even if with flaws, would inspire much more trust and a following that lasts long, if not forever.

Lately, blogs as a platform are being used more for promotion of products or services of a company. Hence, the level of trust is taking a dive, since lesser and lesser blogs are in a non-commercial and honest writing form. A company, whose blog is more about thought-leadership, building awareness, or sharing knowledge, is bound to come across as credible. I'll in near future dedicate a specific feature on "usability of a blog" - where the attempt will be to extrapolate this example and cover more aspects with examples.

Few credibility guidelines:

• proof of a company: about us/contact details page


• explanation of how sensitive data will be used (credit card, phone numbers, email, etc.)


• proof of third-party evidence of your product/service quality (testimonials)


• professional design


• regular site updates, keeping it fresh and alive


• avoidance of errors and coming soon...

The above guidelines - are they enough to establish credibility in today's time of gazillion channels flooded with untrustworthy content mostly? We should do more. We should create valuable, useful and honest content, whether it be in form of articles, reviews, guides, white papers, blog entries or forum posts. We should keep marketing messages out of our content; add them separately, and keep them separate. Ditto with advertisements and videos. We should link out to other credible web sites from our site - probably the best way to establish the existence of your own company - by linking to other sites that reference you. Like press articles, affiliation listings, professional membership details, directory listings, etc. Here's a link to a slightly old presentation from Stanford about Web Credibility.

Few Non-Credible examples:

• shards of glass


• flik fx


• ucsofa


• guinea worm


• clones-r-us


• driver's license


• vampires & zombies

Likewise, there are tons of examples of credible sites; large corporations like: Google, SAP, IBM, Microsoft, Sony, ICICI Bank, and many many more. We should however be cautious of site-clones of these big brands; there's usually some obvious give-away in recognizing the fake from genuine. Web 2.0 trend has added discredit to noble initiatives such as Wikipedia and Ask.com - since any user can submit/edit any information on these platforms, regardless of the quality and authenticity of their sources. In that respect, both "Wikipedia" and "Ask" fall under the category of Non-credible sites.

In conclusion, what you do categorically does not matter. It's all about being there, being honest, being accountable, personally. Putting yourself upfront, writing the site in your own words, making your own promises, one-on-one. This way, you separate yourself from all competitors.

Watch this space for a feature on the last dimension: Valuable.

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.