2.1.1 ===== * Usability: objective = is the site efficient, memorable, .learnable * UX: subjective = how the user feels about the site, happy, frustrated, bored Good usability + good design = good UX Design for identified/profiled users. There may be more than one type of them. UX -- * Interface design * Usability * Content * Structure More recent term covering all aspects of web design, with a specific focus on what it is like to be a user of the site. 2.1.2 Navigation ================ * 2 questions * where am I ? * where can I go ? * 3 kinds * Hierarchical * Global: top level sections * Local: within the page * Cultural : choose the right one for a given culture. * As a user, know where you are * Breadcrumbs 2.1.3 What is here ? ==================== Wireframe typique: +-----------------------------------+ | Where am I | <----------- title +-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------+ | Where can I go ? | <----------------- nav tabs / pills +-----------------------------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | What is | | What is | | What is | | What is | <- content grid | here? | | here? | | here? | | here? | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ Beyond the F shape, eye tracking studies show that users also look for content that has white space around it: space makes it easier to find the page elements. 2.1.4 Accessibility =================== * Accessibility about all kinds of disabilities, including visual, auditory (multimedia), physical (interaction), speech (voice recognition), neurological * WAI @ W3C * Testing: simple method = use a text browser, e.g. extension Textize, ChromeVox * Simple mechanisms: * images: alt text, * text: headings, color contrast, resizable text * interaction: keyboard navigation * multimedia: captions Not only do accessible sites/apps provide access to disabled users, they're also easier for everyone. 2.1.5 Guidelines for design =========================== * Cognition / evidence principles = Edward Tufte: from the result * What is the information ? * How do we make the information clear ? * User-centric (centered) approach: from the audience * Who are our users ? * What do they want ? * How do they get the information ? * UX must be consistent, it's what makes things understandable. * The two approaches are sometimes in conflict, but they agree that UX is first: * before any code is written * consistent * WTF ? (What's This For ?) (sic) * You can judge a good design, by how long it takes to understand what it is about * most users visit a site looking for content * as the author, we should understand and clearly signpost the content * If you're looking at a site/app and are not sure what it means, it is a problem for the site * it may look good, but it's useless * Obfuscation vs simplicity * Tufte: the worst kind of designs are those that look like corporate annual reports: * confusing content * padded by generic imagery * not designed to be read by anyone * If there's a lot of text, but it's hard to infer any meaning from scanning it, maybe it's just padding. * Simpler sites are better: * What is it ? A news item, a product, a download... * Where can I get it ? => minimum number of clicks to get to content * Why is this here ? * If it's not helping users to do the above, cut it out. * Including colour! Why are you using colour ? "It's nice" is not a reason. * Colors bring confusion: use them sparingly. 2.1.6 Design examples ===================== * Skipping to simple conclusions, you get to the "standard" layout mentioned at http://www.novolume.co.uk/blog/all-websites-look-the-same/ * http://darkpatterns.org Quiz ==== What might fit in the cognition/evidence-based approach ? --------------------------------------------------------- | Telling where they are | Telling where they can go | Presenting clearly | Using eye tracking | Result | |:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:------------------:|:------------------:|:------:| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Yes | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |