welterweightUX

True story: In 2008, we were conducting a usability lab for a client on the outskirts of Chicago. While the computers and cameras were getting wired and fired up, we expressed concerns about the framing of content on the client’s site. “There’s too much text, all of it badly structured. Users want to scan,” we said, “They want to make it though quickly. They want bullet points.”

For most normal people (no, readers, you & I are not normal people), web content and its structure is pretty ho-hum. It’s likely to inspire yawns and glazed-over eyes. And that’s what happened to our clients.

Then the tests began. Most of the users got lost in the sea of words on the screen—to the degree that they had trouble completing tasks—, but they didn’t have the words to identify exactly what exactly was confusing them.

Then, several participants in, one of the testers said, “This is too much text. I wish the important stuff was listed in bullet points.”

Honest to god. My heart melted like ice cream in August sun.

And guess what happened during the debrief? Our clients got it. From the mouths of babes, and all that… That’s what it took to make it sink in, not some egg-heady UXers telling them so. It took a real user begging for simple dots to break things up into logical, easily digestible chunks.

The best part of this story is that I now have a real anecdote to tell clients. I can say, “Users want bullet points—here’s how I know…”

In closing:

• Bullet points?
• Bullet points.
• Three cheers for bullet points!
• Huzzah.
• (Guh, lame, I know.)

Anti-redesign
There’s been a lot written lately about shirking comprehensive site redesigns in favor of slower, incremental roll outs of enhancements.

The reasons for this are simple: You can be nimbly reactionary. You can test out a concept outside the usability lab (which has has its inherent awkwardness) to see how it performs. If it does well, you can sit on it. Or better, refine it further to make it even better. If it fails, you can scrap it, start from scratch, then roll out something altogether new.

And then continue the circle.

I’m an advocate of this. It makes sense. Keeps you on your toes and honest about the fact that good enough can always be improved.

A different idea altogether…
A few weeks ago, I was the website of a local optician, Optix on Downer. I’m not sure how long their site has been live, but if you look at it, you’ll notice the following image in the left gutter near the page footer:

When you click it, you get the old site. Strange, eh? But interesting.

Part of me likes this idea. It says: Visitor, we know we may have thrown you a wrench by changing stuff around on you, but we like you, so we’ve provided you with an out to get back to the site you’re used to.

Part of me hates this idea. It says: Visitor, you’re a stodgy, unchanging beast. We want to make you happy with our new site, but you’re awfully hard to please. Also, we know there’s something wrong with this new site, so here’s an out. Feel free to never take the time to explore this new thing we spent so much time and money developing. We’re not going to make enhancements anyway.

Pros and cons of offering an out
Optix almost certainly doesn’t have a dedicated web department who can review analytics, do heuristic reviews, or use the bevy of other techniques out there to determine what’s failing and respond to it.

They’ve come up with an interesting approach to the full redesign, by allowing visitors to access the older, possibly more familiar site. But by doing this, they’re making new users ask too many questions: What am I missing on this new site that was on the old one? Do I have to troll that one, too, in order to find the info I’m looking for?

The new site has crisp, concise content, a sensible content architecture, and is pretty dapper looking to boot. Optix should be happy with how they’ve evolved and not focus on continually paying homage to the flashy dinosaur wreckage of their past.

The truth is, sometimes a full, significant redesign makes sense. I feel kind of icky saying that, but I guess occasionally you need to come face-to-face with the alteratives before you can face the facts.