Skip introduction & navigation

Web Design | Views & Rants | Reviews | Contact | Links | About

I finally bit the bullet and started the weblog. I can’t guarantee it will be updated every day, but I will update it as frequently as possible.

Friday 30th November

Just when you thought this year was as bad as it could get.…

They weren’t products of the 60s, they invented the 60s.

Peter Sissons

Thursday 29th November

I’ve referred to Jakob Neilsen from time to time in the web design articles here. That is not because, as some people occasionally seem to think, I think every pronouncement he makes is some sort of sacred law. I do think that some of his points are very much worth listening to, because they basically are pure common sense (strangely very uncommon among many designers of web pages).

For those who have not heard of Neilsen, he is the major proponent of usability — i.e. the notion that what matters in a web site is that the user can actually use it without difficulty. He is, naturally, the Enemy for those designers who want design considerations to be paramount.

While much of Nielsen’s approach is common sense — the notion that if you play around with link colours you are risking making your site unusable is pretty unarguable, particularly if you encounter one of the sites where a braino leads to both the links and the page background being blue — he does sometimes fail to see the dividing line which separates sense from insanity. In one infamous column he basically said that all sites should look the same:

Websites must tone down their individual appearance and distinct design in all ways:

• visual design
• terminology and labeling
• interaction design and workflow
• information architecture

Why? So that users don’t have to learn new tricks at each site:

Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know.

This, of course, is a complete non sequitur. Obviously if a site completely disregards everything which makes the Web work — say it makes the background colour quite similar to the text colour and makes links indistinguishable from the rest of the text — then it will be difficult for many users to get anywhere there (and they will sod off accordingly), but that doesn’t mean that a site which takes basic usability into account and does something a little different will drive users away. In fact, just from listening to what people say to me, I get the impression that a little freshness in design on a site makes people feel quite well-disposed towards it.

Neilsen being such a huge figure in the web design world, commanding fees of thousands of dollars for appearances (seriously), there are a few sites out there taking the piss. For example, here is a direct parody by August Bourré of that Alertbox column:

Websites must adhere to distinct rules I decide on to make them exactly the same in all ways:

• visual design
• terminology and labeling
• interaction design and workflow
• information architecture
• anything else I think of when the complaining designers flame me for this

These changes are driven by four different trends that all lead me [and only me] to one conclusion:

1. August’s Law of the Internet Useless Experience

Users spend most of their time on other people’s ugly sites. This means that users prefer your site to work just like those stupid, ugly, brainless hampster-dance sites that are so popular.

On the homepage of Neilsen’s site there is a plug for his books:

Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity

"the most important book on web publishing yet to appear" (SlashDot)

"should [...] be read by any executive with responsibility for managing online operations" (Business Week)

On the homepage of Bourré’s spoof site.…

Designing Web Uselessness: The Practice of Conformity

Business Weak review: "should [...] be read by any idiot with too much time on their hands"

Chicago Tribunal review: "August Bourré knows less about what makes Web sites work than anyone else on the planet"

Slashwrist (two reviews): "the least important book on web publishing yet to appear" & "poorly researched, senseless, and totally off the mark [...] impressively vague and incomprehensable"

Neilsen is well known for being no big fan of graphics on web pages, and his own site has a note explaining why he uses almost no graphics (download times and his own lack of skill in designing graphics) — so it was a delight to see this page entitled Graphic appears on web usability guru’s hompage.

Usability Sucks uses Flash — which Neilsen understandably loathes — to mercilessly take the piss out of him. I particularly like the "Jake reviews Magritte" page.

But if you are finding your head spinning after reading some of the less sane Neilsen last words on web design, probably the best starting point is {USEITorLOSEIT}, which provides links to various Neilsen mocking sites and pages. This includes the Jakob desktop — a 1024×768 image of Jakob in extreme (eek!) closeup with the caption: he knows if you’ve been bad or good. At least this is the version without the added nasal hair; that’s out there somewhere, and it’s not something you want to see when you have just eaten.

Wednesday 28th November

First thing: don’t be surprised if this isn’t uploaded today — or tomorrow for that matter.

Why? Well, I’m working on a Windows box at the moment, and everything is taking so much longer to do because of that. I’ve used computers running MS-DOS, AmigaDOS, MacOS, Windows 3/3.1 and Windows 95/98. (Actually, a couple of other OSes too — but not so extensively.) Believe me when I say that Windows 95/98 are much the worst of the lot.

I could go on and on and on and on about specifics, but I won’t. The problem, basically, is that Windows always seem to think it knows better than the user. I have never come across an instance of that being true, but the OS’s attempts to second-guess really get in the way.

Part of this, which does warrant separate mention, is that Microsoft seem to imagine that each "type" of file will be used in only one program — so opening a file in other programs can be very clunky. Dragging the file icon on to the program’s icon doesn’t work. Dragging it into an open program window may work or may not, and there is no way of knowing until you try. That leaves the much slower approaches of using the contextual menu and "Open with..." or the program’s open dialogue.

This alone is making everything take much longer than it would in a decently designed OS. (And no, it isn’t because of unfamiliarity with the OS. The first time I saw MacOS, I was flummoxed by some things — for all of five minutes, and then I realised this had been well designed and I should stop trying to find a difficult way to do things.)

So I found some welcome amusement this week at Microsith. If you have a browser which can disable pop-ups, I recommend enabling them for the full Microsith experience.

Of course, there is some decent software for Windows. If you are even thinking of creating Web pages and you run Windows, get HTML-Kit — it’s a fairly well-designed (within the constraints of the Multiple Document Interface, the suckiest part of Windows IMHO) HTML editor which includes an intrinsic FTP client that’s good enough to entice me away (some of the time at least) from the standalone one I’ve been using. It’s not as nice as BBEdit for the Mac, but it’s pretty good.

I’d bet that someone is already thinking that Windows 95/98 may suck, but if I switched to XP I’d find things were much better. Yeah, right. As things stand at the moment I can be quite clear about one thing: I will not install XP on any machine, and in fact if I came into the possession of a machine with XP pre-installed I would be inclined to wipe it and install Windows 98 (I happen to have an entirely legal Win98 CD-ROM which isn’t installed on anything) — assuming, of course, I didn’t go for another OS altogether. (Think penguins.… )

It isn’t because this new bloat of Windows will run v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y on anything but the newest hardware — this has been true of every new release of Windows, it would be surprising if it weren’t true of XP. It isn’t because of the reports of recurrent popups pushing Microsoft services and products — although that is a big disincentive.

No, it’s because of the marvellous (I wish there were a <sarcasm> tag in HTML!) new feature: product activation. Here is how it works:

If you’ve ever upgraded a Windows OS, you’re probably used to entering a lengthy CD key, or code, to install new Microsoft software. But if you buy XP off the shelf, you’ll go through another compulsory step called activation. Most PC vendors who preinstall XP will have completed this task for you. Activation isn’t the same as registration (which asks you to provide personal info to Microsoft), but you must complete activation within 30 days of installation, or the OS will stop working. While we understand the intent, it’s a slightly annoying roadblock.

The activation antipiracy step prevents you from installing XP on more than one computer, and it’s a bit of a nuisance, especially if you don’t have an Internet connection set up. Online activation is painless, but the telephone method takes 10 minutes or longer and involves reading and typing about 100 digits. The activation scheme checks the IDs of 10 different hardware components to create a special code for your PC. If your hard drive dies or you change your network interface card or reconfigure more than 5 of these components in your system, you’ll have to reactivate your copy of XP. Reactivation is a relatively painless process in which you must call Microsoft, explain your situation, and get a new activation number—not difficult, but it could prove annoying.

I find it quite mindboggling how Microsoft has managed to lobotomise some PC-centric computer journalists. It isn’t a slightly annoying roadblock, it isn’t something which could prove annoying; annoying is the fact that the OS is configured to push Microsoft software, to favour companies associated with Microsoft over other companies. This activation business is a whole new level.

Look: I go out and buy XP off the shelf. I install it. This is a perfectly legal copy of Windows, installed on one machine. I still have to activate it, though. If I have an ISP account, I suppose that’s not too bad, but if for whatever reason I don’t have Internet access, that means a ten-minute phone call and typing in 100 digits. That is not a minor annoyance, that is absolutely infuriating — why the hell should I have to shell out money on a phone call to Microsoft so that I can use software I have already paid for?

Once it’s activated, why should I have to, again, pay money out to call Microsoft to get permission to use (the, it bears repeating, totally legal installation of) Windows XP if I’ve installed some new hardware, or if I’ve partitioned the hard drive, or had to replace the hard drive?

Could prove annoying? You think?

I have, of course, totally ignored one little fact. What are the chances, do you think, of actually getting through to Microsoft the first time you try? Or the second? Has anyone reading this ever got through to any sort of technical support line on the first go?

Think it’s a minor annoyance? Read this:

I got the automatic update alert saying they had an important kernel update just for me, and instead of thinking, yeah, sure you have and cancelling I thought, that’s nice, and installed it. Drunk? Must have been. The machine - which, dammit, I had actually activated - immediately went into BSOD on boot mode, and stayed there. Trying a repair got me an installation which decided it hadn’t been activated, and which furthermore wouldn’t work at all unless I activated it now. So I did, and it turned out to barely work at all anyway - it kept trying to reinstall apps from screwy paths, and was just about usable if you didn’t mind clicking cancel about six times every time an install process popped up.