2011-05-19
post/5621116304
Every morning, I push the STOP button on the handrail of a number 63 bus. It tells the driver I want to get off at the next stop.
I’m very fond of the button. It immediately radiates robustness: chunky yellow plastic on the red handrail. The command, STOP, is written in white capitals on red. There’s a depression to place my thumb into, with the raised pips of a Braille letter “S” to emphasize its intent for the partially sighted. When pushed, the button gives a quarter-inch of travel before stopping, with no trace of springiness; a dull mechanical ting rings out, and the driver pulls over at the next stop. […]
It’s immediately clear what to do with this button, and what the outcome of pushing it will be. It makes its usage and intent obvious.
This is a good button.
”Tom Armitage on Buttons - The Game Design of Everyday Things at Kill Screen.
This was particularly resonant given the truly atrocious way that Muni handles the same problem. A few buses have the same STOP button, but a majority of them (and all of the modern streetcars, along with most of the vintage ones) have pull-cords along the windows. The cords usually have a two to five second lag before the alarm sounds letting you know it’s actually been acknowledged, so often they ping repeatedly.
Meanwhile, unlike London’s simple “the doors are opened by the driver”, when you go to get off the bus, there are at least three different door-opening mechanisms.
Some buses have you pushing the door, others stepping down, and streetcars ask you to push a bar next to the door. Because each is different, each needs labels (often multiple labels, in inconsistent typefaces). Occasionally the door won’t open until the driver switches something, leading to cries of “Back door!” from frustrated passengers (or, more commonly, those watching someone who’s so tied up in being confused they don’t think to call).
You wouldn’t think you could get homesick for a simple button. You’d be wrong.
2010-02-11
RWW vs Facebook; users vs devs
Yesterday, ReadWriteWeb posted a vaguely interesting story about Facebook integrating with AIM, and were then shocked to find the comments overrun with people complaining about how the design had changed and they couldn’t log in. After two and a half pages of comments, Jolie O’Dell, a site admin posted this comment:
We’ve determined by looking at our traffic stats that people are doing Google searches for “facebook login” and coming upon RWW. They see the FB Connect button and assume that RWW is the “new Facebook.”
Sigh.
The Internet Is Hard.
It’s tempting just to post this with a “hah, look at the lusers” comment, but to their credit, the same admin started a reflective open thread:
How can we balance making the Web simple enough for all users while still creating tech cool enough to satisfy geeks like us? And who says either group - nerds or users - is “normal,” anyway?
Rather than answering that directly, I’d like to pull apart some of the differences between “user” and “dev” thinking that led to this happening.
Search vs bookmarks
Devs will usually have access to URLs, whether it be from their memory, from autocomplete (either of history (possibly via a Top Sites / Speed Dial page) or bookmarks). Users seem more likely to search, especially since browsers interpret things in the location bar as searches unless you’re careful.
Search engine sectioning
Most devs would skip the “news” section of the search results unless they were looking for news. Some users seem to click the first link, regardless of sectioning. After all, the link at the top worked before, and does again now. (I wonder if that applies even to ads?)
Doors vs walls
In my experience, devs are more likely to just try to access a page; if it then asks them to log in, they will. If there’s a site they use frequently, they’ll make sure they find and check the “remember me” box, ignoring the “shared computer” warnings; who’d use a computer someone else has?
In contrast, it seems that at least some users explicitly want to find the login page, rather than just waiting for the prompt. Perhaps that’s because they do regularly use shared computers; perhaps it’s because they switch accounts regularly (to see friends photos, perhaps?)
Want more evidence? Look at this list of Google autocomplete suggestions.
Reading site design
As mentioned in the RWW follow-up, ”Users don’t read your copy or look at your branding”. Devs might, but even then, RWW don’t have their site name in the <title>. However, they do have a Facebook-branded “connect” button, which is what the users were looking for (and, evidently found).
Numbers
As a comment on RWW by “a Facebook user” noted, “50% of Facebook users log in to the site daily. There are 450 million Facebook users total. 200 or so people Googled ’Facebook login,’ managed to click on a a news story, landed on this blog, and found the Facebook connect button and posted a comment”. For RWW, and for most dev-focussed sites, that amounts to a huge burst of traffic. For Facebook, it’s almost insignificant overspill.
In Summary
It’s easy to be cynical or dismissive; “look at those fools leaving comments”. Stepping back and considering how much difference there can be in how others view the web might be worthwhile, though.
