I think Steve Krug is successful at pointing out his principles because he explains them well, and also gives examples to show the reader exactly what he means. I find him credible because he clearly shows that he knows what he is talking about when he backs himself up. While I was reading, I was constantly saying "Oh yea, that's so true." Most of what he has to say really is commonsense, and he explains that anyone can understand web usability. In his Introduction he says, "It's not rocket surgery....Like a lot of common sense, though, it's not necessarily obvious until after someone's pointed it out to you" (5). And Krug is just the guy to point it out to us.
"Don't make me think." These four words seem simple, but they mean so much when it comes to designing a webpage. When I'm on a webpage, I don't want to have to do any unnecessary work. If a webpage makes me feel overwhelmed and/or frustrated, chances are I'm never going to use it again. Design can be simple and still be visually appealing. I'm even a fan of making something original or unique (which was one of my groups rules in our Good, Bad, Ugly assignment). But being creative doesn't mean doing something so outrageous or different that you confuse your audience. Standards and conventions are still important because people like to feel like they know what they're doing or they know where they are. You will end up alienating your audience if you ignore some of the vital conventions that Krug points out in chapter 3, "Conventions are your friends" and chapter 6, "Web navigation conventions."
Noise is another principle Krug discusses. When there's too much going on, it's easy to become overwhelmed. You waste time asking yourself where you should start first. I understand there are some webpage’s that have a lot of important information they need to get to their audience, but there are also ways to design and organize that information so it's user-friendly (you can make tabs or sections, you can space things out, you can introduce stories and have a link to read more instead of making the whole thing available, etc.) An organization that I think does a good and bad job at organizing its webpage is the Public Relations Society of America. This is one of those websites that has a ton of information, but it is relatively easy to navigate around. Some good things about the design include:
- Each "chunk" of information is broken up into clearly defined areas.
- No happy talk (that I have noticed anyway).
- No unnecessary instructions.
- Sections with sub-sections (you can click on just the section header for general information, or go to a sub-section if you have a more specific idea of what you're looking for).
- Site ID is located in the upper left corner, and is clickable to bring the user back to the Home page (and there's also a Home link that can be clicked).
- Search option for those who don't want to browse.
- Page names (although they could stand out a bit more).
- Good use of breadcrumbs. (Home > Awards > Individual Awards > PR Professional of the Year Award).
- Navigation box on the left hand side of the page.
Here are some negative aspects of the webpage that I've noticed:
- Could use a better visual hierarchy.
- Could be more obvious about what’s clickable.
- Could use a "you are here" indicator (maybe the section you're in could be highlighted or have some way of making it stand out once its clicked).
- It's a little noisy. Unless you know specifically what you're looking for, there's a lot going on and many things to click on--you might not know where to start.
Did you look at Weber's online text yet?
ReplyDeleteI agree, for being so packed with information, it's pretty easy to navigate. Krug's principles do seem to be common sense. Did you read any further to his section on home pages? That was a little more complicated, I thought.
I'm surprised that PRSA site isn't in Krug's book for what not to do, haha. I would say it is very noisy; everything on the page at first glance seems to be a link. Where would I go?
ReplyDeleteI feel like reading Krug's book was like taking a class on film then watching a movie. No matter how hard I try, I'm going to be analyzing a web page/movie to the point where it's no longer fun to surf or watch.
I liked your comment that "But being creative doesn't mean doing something so outrageous or different that you confuse your audience. Standards and conventions are still important because people like to feel like they know what they're doing or they know where they are." - Many people learn a little html, become fascinated with what they can do and completely forget their end user. Breaking out of norms does confuse the audience. You can have fresh, original ideas that get ignored because the format wasn't right. It didn't provide enough 'anchors' and the user got lost or worse - the user is pissed off because the web design didn't seem to take them seriously.
ReplyDeleteRachel,
ReplyDeleteI really like all the points you noted about Krug's reading! I think the most impressive part of the book was it's innate credibility as we have all experienced the same things on the internet. I also really like the example you used. My question is if you had to redesign the site would you follow Krug's rules and fix all the problems you found? Would you try and do something original but simple? just curious =)
-Thanks!
Beckah
I, too, think the example here is well-chosen and the analysis strong. I like the connection you made to your Good/Bad/Ugly assignment and your focus on rhetorical context and audience.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Chris that analytic readings like this one can take the joy out of participation in media forms? I used to feel that way when I was in school, but then I learned how to *make* media forms and that's when the analytic ability turned joyful again. It was because the analysis became productive, rather than just a matter of deconstructing things and leaving them in a giant messy pile of parts.