There will be no new posts here. I created a new blog with a new name and design. It has the same content as this one.

Please update your bookmarks. Have a nice day.

I spent some time searching the web for definitive answers on web page length and scrolling versus paging content and clicking. As I figured there weren’t any, but I did learn there is no definitive answer; content and users dictate best practices. Here are a few excerpts of “rules” I read:

1. Don’t split up related content un-logically. Related content should be kept together on the same page for uninterrupted flow. Arbitrary division of related content disorients people more than the act of clicking or scrolling.

2. File size and page load times should dictate how much stuff gets put on one page. Page content should facilitate quick load times. Recommended maximum page file size seems to be 50k.

3. If a web is well designed with visual clues, prudent use of space, subheads and good typography, and is structured into logical parts with not too much content, a page can be quit long and usable. Design plays an important role.

4. The hard and fast, old-school rules of lengths and click amounts have been proven inaccurate as usability data has been compiled over the past five years.

5. The key to getting users to scroll is how content is presented “above the fold”, in the visible part of the page, when it loads. Once they understand content lies below, they will follow.

6. If one is looking for a recommended web page length, 3-4 screen lengths was commonly cited as a maximum length.

7. Anchor tags (links jumping to a position on the same page), however useful, are often confusing to users since they can’t see the jump and loose all visual clues. If used, these should be denoted as such.

8. Horizontal scrolling is bad.

9. Proportional scrollbars, like a browser’s, help users determine how long the page is and should be used whenever possible.

I just read the essay by Edward R. Tufte, “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within.”

As an example of why not to use PowerPoint for technical reporting and presentations, he details its use by NASA in the analysis of the causes of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. His conclusion, and that of others, is NASA’s use of PowerPoint with its presentation limitations to communicate the data on the takeoff damage, while the spacecraft was still safe in space, grossly affected how it was interpreted by NASA management and thus resulted in the deaths of the Columbia astronauts. Powerful stuff.

Other examples of PPT’s inadequacies include showing statistical data in table format displayed as PPT slides (they are completely incomprehensible), the Gettysburg Address as a PPT presentation (pretty funny) and several references to business presentations of various purposes.

Several factors contribute to the skewing of information when using PowerPoint: limited space for meaningful test, segmentation of the message with slides, bulleted lists, hierarchical display of text, and useless phluff. Mr. Tufte continues to make the case that PowerPoint has a high signal to noise ratio, an extremely low transfer of information rate, dilution of information, and absurd style sheets, templates and effects. I can’t agree more. I hate PPT presentations and don’t use them myself. He favors text documents with paragraphs, sentences, diagrams and space to completely tell the story. I agree and by distributing handouts for meetings, people have something tangible to take away.

Put some creativity and effectiveness in your next presentation. Don’t use PowerPoint. I recommend this booklet for anyone needing some good reasons not to use the ubiquitous and dubious software – ever.

I saw this super simple technique on a site to tell humans from spamming apps:

Ask a question on your comment form like:  "six plus seven equals what?" and validate for the correct answer.

As technology presents us with more options for creating web sites, there seems to be two very different and contradictory directions site design is going. One is rich media driven, with Flash at its core, and the other is web standards stressing usability, accessibility and compatibility.

Well done, highly interactive, rich media sites are incredibly engaging, and the direction big money is pushing the web, but they are rarely standards compliant and often are bashed for poor usability and accessibility. These sites communicate their messages effectively to their intended audiences. Mission accomplished.

Web standards are based on are undeniably sound basic principles: separation of content, structure and presentation; and accessibility, usability and compatibility. For sites whose audience requires these benefits, web standards makes total sense. My problem with most compliant sites I see today is they are visually similar and boring. I read somewhere, someone describing them as decorated not designed. It’s true.

Enter stage left, common sense.

The reason all the standards compliant sites look similar is because it is very difficult to mark-up a web page that has an intricate design with many images and requires pixel level accuracy. This can be done in a fraction of the time using tables and spacer gifs, and render properly in all browsers. And besides, there are just as many hacks and workarounds in standards development as old school HTML.

Why use Flash in a self-gratuitous intro sequence, or fancy navigation menu that creates a technological obstacle to a site that doesn’t need the benefits of Flash anywhere else? Many a site has been built using Flash that can be just as good without it. This misuse is what has given Flash such a bad rap with the user centered design people.

Let’s not let the tail wag the dog. Making a site using web standards just for the sake of doing so, or using Flash where it is not needed are both equally inappropriate, especially at the expense of your client.

Surely there’s common ground and a practical approach. Sites should be developed based on their purpose and intended audience. If that demographic can use and enjoy the site, fine. Others outside of that group are not important. Writers write books to a certain audience. Movie directors make movies that are not for everyone. Web producers should have that right too and not be criticized.

Choose the technology or methodology carefully based on the benefits of its use and the cost of using it. Each project has specific requirements and they should dictate the most suitable way to go, not personal preference, or trends.

...I'd say so. MGM Grand

The first site I saw like this - where the viewer is immersed in a photo-heavy environment - was a Vodaphone site a couple years ago. Since then there have been several notable ones, but this site has great scene transitions and video with a lot of cool after effects. 

They've used a conventional navigation menu in addition to the clock-like one to improve usability, but it seems if the clock-like one was better designed they could have gotten by with just that interface alone.

TypeCulture Academic Resource - a directory, archive and educational aid for design students, educators and professionals who are seeking information about type; its history, manufacture, use and artistic significance.

Information architecture, communication, graphic design and presentation, Mr. Tufte is the man. Whether your a Graphic Designer, or a Project Manager his knowledge will help you. Check out the Ask E.T. section to learn more.

on Squidoo

When and Where
Monsanto on Friday, November 10, 2006 from 8:00a.m. - 5:00p.m. The conference is filling up fast. Only 100 participants allowed to register.

How Much
$30 before July 31st and $45 after August 1st. All proceeds from registration fees are used to fund conference logistics. The conference continues to be maintained by a "grassroots" organization -- all planning, coordination, presentations, etc. are done by user experience practitioners for user experience practitioners.

Keynote Speaker
Dirk Knemeyer. Dirk will be presenting "The Future of Digital Product Design."

Interactive Poster Session
New this year -- a poster that will be created by participants during the conference. We'll provide a space for you to share your favorite research, technique, and tool sites and we'll publish it after the conference for all attendees.

Click for Agenda

Registration
When you register for this year's conference, you'll be asked to complete a section with your personal information. You'll then be asked to pre-select the sessions you would like to attend. This allows UX06 to ensure that they have the proper facility arrangements for each presentation. Spaces will fill up fast, so register as early as possible to ensure you get to attend the sessions of your choice.

After you complete registration, you'll see a link to PayPal. A special thanks to Gateway CHI for kindly offering their PayPal account as a way for us to collect registration fees. Your registration payment is a separate step and can only be completed by using a PayPal account that is either linked to your bank account or by using your credit card to pay your registration fee.

All proceeds from registration fees are used to fund conference logistics, meals, etc. If you cancel your registration, your fee WILL NOT be refunded. Registration for STLUX06 is open now through November 1st. Register by July 31st to receive the Early Registration discount. For security reasons, no on-site registration will be allowed; if you want to attend, you must register by the November 1 deadline. Register using the link below: (a big thank you to Maritz for the very generous donation of their registration tool)

https://www.meetinghq.com/group/101005647?wslid=attendee

Questions?
Jennifer Ruffino
jennifer.ruffino@monsanto.com
314-694-4649

I’ve been a member of LinkedIn for over a year. Although the idea of an exclusive way to make business connections seems great, I have some reservations about the idea of exclusivity and accuracy. The concept of endorsing someone, a mini testimonial, is totally self-serving. How can that lend credibility to one’s self-described professional abilities?

The social fabric created in LinkedIn - the ability to see who is linked to whom and the degrees of separation - is interesting, but what real purpose does it have? I guess it allows one to use someone to gain access to someone else - a connection pimp. I haven’t really connected with anyone via an existing connection and I view this site and my participation as an experiment and don’t have any expectations. Only time will tell if this virtual network has validity.

If you are a member, contact (mail at jamesbielefeldt dot com) me, let’s get connected.

Truer words were never spoken. Great post by Seth Godin.

There have always been good resources for JavaScript online. But recently there’s been some robust libraries created and made available that do everything from animation to AJAX. These libraries are ways for novice developers to quickly implement complex JavaScript functionality into sites while adhering to good programming rules.

One problem with some of these libraries, if used in their entirety, is the file size they can add to a web page. Often it is best to just incorporate the code that does what you need and delete the rest – if you know how to do that. Here are a few of the most popular.

Script.aculo.us    

“script.aculo.us provides you with easy-to-use, compatible and, ultimately, totally cool JavaScript libraries to make your web sites and web applications fly, Web 2.0 style.”

jQuery   

“jQuery is a new type of Javascript library. It is not a huge, bloated, framework promising the best in AJAX - nor is just a set of needlessly complex enhancements - jQuery is designed to change the way that you write Javascript.”

Yahoo! User Interface Library 

“The Yahoo! User Interface (YUI) Library is a set of utilities and controls, written in JavaScript, for building richly interactive web applications using techniques such as DOM scripting, DHTML and AJAX. The YUI Library also includes several core CSS resources.”

Interesting online viewing from Flash In The Can.

GMunk | Joshua Davis & Stephan Sagmeister | Ben Fry

Reality TV on the Internet

Although I think the site is boring and could use more interactivity, it's an interesting concept and innovative. More and more, TV is coming online. In this case, Brawny has spent so much attention on producing the video segments, which are done pretty well, interactivity the web offers is not capitalized upon. The vote contest is minimal. RSS, why? Obligatory sign up and a mega map download round out the site. They could have done several interactive things:

• Stop the video and ask the viewer to participate. Real TV is dying to do this.
• “Your Ideal Brawny Man” contest - have people create a profile to win something.
• Some sort of game like – an ideal Brawny man would, a, b or c…
• Maybe something to advertise the strength or absorption of the towel – How many pine cones will a wet towel hold up? How many cans of beer will a roll soak up?

The cast of characters is cliché and presentation campy, no pun intended. The meterosexual Brawny Man is kind of creeping me out, but at the same time reminds me of Jeff Probst.

Cutting edge technology, Flash steaming video and big bandwidth, is providing the Internet viewer bigger and better experiences each day and this site pushes that envelope regardless of its advertising and brand building effectiveness.

The two most common ways to price interactive work are Fixed Price and Time & Materials. Each method has its pros and cons that greatly affect the buyer and seller of the services.

Fixed Price

Fixed Price is popular with ad agencies and communications firms doing interactive work. It’s how they have traditionally priced their services and is client friendly, because with Fixed Price the risk to produce the job, at the quoted price, lies with the seller. When pricing a project this way it is imperative that the project’s requirements are determined and the scope is tightly controlled. Any complications, rework, or excessive man-hours because of underestimating required time, unseen issues, or inexperience are the cost of the seller. The only time the price is usually renegotiated is when the requirements change, or the buyer requests a change of scope.

When calculating a Fixed Price estimate is it important to figure in contingencies for the unknowns and potential problems, in addition to a profit margin. Counting just man-hours usually means an unprofitable situation. There are several ways to include these cushions: applying a multiplier, padding hours, and adding a risk contingency cost based on project requirements are a few.

Time & Materials

Because of the difficulty of gathering requirements and establishing a detailed project scope, Time & Materials is how most IT companies price their services. This method puts the risk on the buyer to get the project completed within their budget and can be unfavorable in competitive environments, or unacceptable in RFPs. An estimate with a price range is usually proffered with the proposal/contract. Initial estimates can range in excess of +/- 25%. Most buyers like the price to be accurately estimated, but this arrangement is more flexible than Fixed Price. Additional estimates are often given as requirements become available, or as work is completed. Any changes are simply billed when they are incurred.

Do not mix the two methods. Real problems arise when a solid price is quoted in a proposal/contract that has been calculated using Time & Materials formulas. Even if you plan to bill using Time & Material costs, it rarely adds up and the initial price quote is all the buyer cares about.

Each method is effective when used appropriately. Rather than always pricing work the same way, let the market and project dictate which method is best.

The Photo District News Photo Annual offers work from some of the finest photographers in the biz today.

I’m working on several projects for a corporation to improve different processes centered on their web development efforts: better proposals, better cost estimating, better cost reporting, and standardization of workflows.

Each of these assignments is independent on one level, but also interrelated on another. Herein lies the rub. Every time I make progress, a meeting is required to communicate my findings – emails don’t get replied to; phone calls are out of the question; if it isn’t in Outlook it doesn’t exist. At every meeting a new caveat is introduced eradicating any realized progress.

Should Sue be involved? You need to double check that with Bill. That’s not how we do it. That won’t work. Isn’t that related to John’s initiative?

Maybe Sue should be involved but she is way too busy already. Bill didn’t reply to my emails and after three weeks I guess he doesn’t care. I know that’s not how you do it. Your way isn’t good. That’s why I’m suggesting a different approach. Let’s try it to see if it “won’t work”. Yes it is related to John’s initiative, but what’s the chance of accomplishing anything by getting more people involved?

All I hear is “We want change, but only if we don’t have to change or do anything”

Typical corporate grid lock. A small smart company tries things out, changes constantly, accepts failure, adjusts and moves on. There is a lesson here. By tackling issues one at a time, whether related or not, incremental change can happen and results realized much faster and painlessly than forming a committee, having umpteen meetings and waiting on everyone and their brother to weigh in. Assume the risk and go for it.