Usability Notes - by Chris Baker

Why you might not want to "Friend" me on Facebook

Recently I had an exchange with a work colleague about Facebook - she'd seen me listed as "People you may know", and I'd seen here there too. A new etiquette issue of our times is whether "friending" someone on Facebook means crossing over from their professional life into their personal one, and whether that is an issue for them.  So neither of us had yet clicked the "Friending button". This is to do with my earlier theme of how Facebook and the like can break down the Chinese walls we like to have in our lives.

Some people mix their work and leisure circles freely on Facebook an its equivalents, others like to keep things separate. You can't tell before clicking "Friend" which camp this particular person is in (unless a person has set their Facebook privacy so that everyone can see what they do there, and there are good reasons you might not want to do that) .

My own practice is that LinkedIn, Twitter and this blog are where I publish my professional life, whereas my Facebook posts are about my hobbies, sometimes about my family, and about my sense of humour. Judged from my facebook account, I do not work at all: at least I rarely if ever discuss it.

That creates a stream that I don't mind people from my professional life seeing, but that I recognize will be utterly uninteresting to many of them. So I tend not to friend. It is not that there is anything on Facebook that professional colleagues should not see. I assume that posting on Facebook is Publishing - there is every chance that current or future clients will get to see it, so it is not the place for innermost secrets. But I don't want to bore. My professional and facebook networks DO overlap of course, but either with people who have "friended" me (I'm unlikely to turn down anyone I really know) or where I know, from non-work time with people (watercooler, lunches, pub etc.) that they aren't likely to mind exposure to my leisure interests.Or sene of humour. I don't see Facebook as an Inner Circle to which only special colleagues get promoted, just a different circle of people with a high tollerance of my leisure interests.

(Speaking of Circles, I am on that too, but have yet to take the time to understand it. Until then, I'm keeping quiet on it).

So - if you are a professional colleague of mine, see me as a "person you might know" on Facebook and are wondering whether to "friend" perhaps this will help you decide. If you are wondering why I don't "friend" you, this is probably the answer (i.e. nothing personal).

Google, Facebook, the mixed blessings of better-organized data

Google is consolidating it's Policies, and Facebook is continuing to roll out the new Timeline. Both developments could be seen as aiming to organize data better and so make things more convenient. Which sounds great, until you read things like:

"If you haven’t been keeping up with how Timeline will change your Facebook experience, then you are in for one heck of a surprise. As ReadWriteWeb so aptly states, “Timeline turns the profile into an illustrated, browsable history of a user’s entire life, with major milestones and little moments smartly chosen by Facebook’s algorithm.”

Prior to timeline, Facebook stalkers would have to manually sort through pages and pages of wall postings to find out the personal details of your Facebook activity. Timeline drastically simplifies this process."

From Facecrooks (a blog which monitors scams and nuisances that appear on Facebook)

And:

"By combining the wealth of personal data it already holds, Google is enhancing its ability to run targeted ads which allows it to compete with Facebook, which already shows ads based on a users’ interaction with brands.

For example, the blog post says Google will now be able to “provide reminders that you’re going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day.”

Not all users will be comfortable letting Google take such control over their lives, despite its claims that it is trying to “help you by sharing more of your information.”

Econsultancy; "New Google privacy policy shares user data across multiple products"

The theme is that better-organized data might not be "better" from the customers' point of view. Or at least might have a downside.

Apart from worrying about stalkers or Big Brother watching you, another hazard is the way that joining up the information can accidentally break down the Chinese walls that many people like to have in their lives. For example, Chris Nuttall, writing the in Financial Times, tasks of finding that his daughter is accidentally sending him a live feed of a photo shoot she was doing for a class project. Meanwhile, he's listening to Spotify and accidentally streaming a list of music he is hearing to his Facebook profile. ("Happily, I had been displaying my usual good taste in tunes, rather than indulging in the occasional guilty pleasures of 1970s prog rock."). Similarly, you could have your feed trumpeting "I just bought [insert item chosen for wife's birthday here] at Amazon". She might no longer be surprized. 

An important thing here is that the need for privacy is contextual in a subtle way - you might usually be fine with Amazon boasting of your custom, but not for presents. You might be usually fine with your network knowing what music you are listening to, but not if you're kindly allowing your kid sister to use your computer and she's on a Hannah Montana binge. You might be fine with Facebook "knowing" you're gay (i.e. this being pretty easily inferred from your "likes" and posts) but you might prefer that to be none of your work colleagues' business.

Note added 29 Jan 2012: The Onion just covered much the same ground, but satirically: "Google Responds To Privacy Concerns With Unsettlingly Specific Apology"

Pet hates - automated jollity

One for the Pet Hates series. It's become fashionable to be a bit wacky or  matey in marketing communications to customers. But this is a bit risky, as you don't know what mood thery're in.

So in this example, the response email to an order I placed tells me how excited the autoresponder is to get my business (blue ring in the image below). "It's all rather exciting, isn't it?", burbles the autoresponder. Thrilled to the core of its little processors, it is, no doubt. So obviously very false. Harmless enough, perhaps, but I'm really not in the mood for this kind of thing right now, so it comes over  irritating.

In an "oops - it could so easily happen to you" item, I'm addressed as "Dear Other Baker" (arrowed red  in the image). Probably not because they have a customer called Baker already. More likely because the puldown for the title field did not have the choice of "Dr". (I applied for a credit card when I'd recently got my PhD, put "Dr" onthe form thinking that might help, and am stuck with it now...) A bit surprising perhaps that the Title pulldown does not accommodate "Dr", but it's not a design failure: the "Other" value in that title  pulldown opens up a field in which unanticipated titles can be entered. There are of course very many possible titles that humans adopt (Brigadeer, Captain, Princess, Guru...), and some people are very particular about being allowed to use the correct title.  So a free text field is arguably better than some humungous pulldown of all known options: if you truly wish to be addressed as "Jedi Master" on the delivery  label of your goods, then the free text field can accommodate your wish. So the design is sensible, but it looks like something went wrong in populating the field from the value I gave.

Alternatively the company thinks I am one of the Others, a race of creatures from the "Song of Fire and Ice" fantasy series by George R R Martin (appeared on TV as "Game of Thrones". But this seems unlikely, as I have never knowingly killed anyone with a crystal sword and then magically re-animated them as zombie servants.

Nice usability ideas - Glooo contact form

So here's the opposite to the "Pet Hates" series - ideas that I see in use and think are neat.

Glooo.co.uk  would be happy if you filled their contact form (assuming you want to contact them about something sensible, I suppose). But people don't like filling out contact forms. So Glooo head their form with a  big bold statement "Less than 2% of visitors will fill in the form below". We all would like to be in the top 2% (ideally in the Wall Street sense, perhaps, but you've got to start somewhere....). My guess is that it works, and in any case it is amusing...

Usability pet hates - secret password rules

Pet usability hate number one - sites that have restrictions on password choice, but don't tell you what the restrictions are. In this case I invented a nice secure password, entered it twice and then was told on submission that the site only does weaker passwords. I don't believe that using special characters is so outrageously unusual as to be something the designers shouldn't have anticipated! Sometime you also see secret rules that passwords must be a minimum length. I think it would be better if any such rules were either unnecessary (so that customers can be protected by the strongest passwords that would work for them), or at least explained before data entry!

Can't say this is the number one hate in terms of things I hate MOST, it's just the first one to come along. Maybe I'll find more "Pet hates" over time. I'm not going to provide links to the sites in question - I don't want to join the "nyah, nyah, ne nyah, nyah your site is rubbish" school of usability writing.

Sorry, no hard and fast rules in UX

"People want me to give hard and fast rules: don't show more than X menu items; don't write more than Y words per page; nothing should be more than Z clicks from the homepage. Sadly, UI design doesn't work that way. Usability questions seldom have a single answer. Rather, they are qualitative issues that specify the direction and nature of inevitable design tradeoffs."

Jakob Nielsen, as part of a post about the additional challenges of usability for mobile devices (my italics).

How long will users stay on your web page?

The received wisdom is that users don't hang around long on a web page, so you'd better get it to load quickly and then capture their attention immediately.

Some recent research by Liu et al, and discussed in an article by Jakob Nielsen, offers some more insight (and a big statistical study to back these up).  As you'd expect, users make a quick decision - in maybe 10 secs or less - and then move on or stay. The longer they stay, the more likely they are to stay some more: the probability of them leaving drops pretty exponentially.

Statistically, the pattern follows The Weibull Hazard Function, a concept from reliability engineering. The pattern follows a "negative aging distribution". You would get the same results by asking "how likely is a given component in a machine to fail" when the quality of the components is highly variable (so that, the longer this particular component has been reliable, the more likely that it is one of the good ones off the line and will keep functioning). If the manufacturer had better QA in this hardware example, then the componets would begin to follow a "positive aging function" instead - they are all as well made as each other, and so the probability of failure simply rises over time due to wear and tear.

 

UI design - taking "no" for an answer

From time to time, I get the following pop-up about an online backup system which, as it happens, does not interest me. The options it gives me are "Remind me later" and "Activate Trial". There's no obvious "No Thanks" button. I guess there is a balance: an obvious No Thanks allows people to opt out first time, who might otherwise eventually have decided to give the system a try. But on the other hand, being driven down a path that suits the vendor and not me is nearly as irritating as those switcheroo buttons I blogged about in a WinZip nag screen.

Update 15 June 2011 -

Aha, I am now being offerred an exit - a "Do not remind me again" option is now appearing ....

 

Reviewing your unwritten plan

How often do you join a project and find that the documentation tells you all you want to know? Yep - never works completely for me, either. In "Your Crucial - and Unwritten - Plan"  (Linda Hill & Kent Lineback - Harvard Business Review) the authors give one important reason for this - our written plans are rapidly supplemented or superceded by a  constantly evolving unwritten plan. It' not just that most of us don't make the time to update our written plans at every twist and turn - the unwritten plan is a different beast altogether:

In sum, a written plan covers only those portions of your thinking that are clear, specific, focused, thought-through, and ready to go public as a formal (and often official) document bearing the title "Plan." Unwritten plans consist of your and your group's thoughts — ranging from vague hunches to roughly-written ideas — about the future and how all of you will create it. Formal, written plans are prepared at key points, while unwritten plans are living, dynamic possibilities that constantly change as you learn more from experience and carry on discussions with your people and network.

(From Your Crucial - and Unwritten - Plan  (Linda Hill & Kent Lineback - Harvard Business Review, 10 May 2011)

In that case, I was thinking, a key point is to take time to review and evaluate your own unwritten plan. Writing the darned thing down, while time-consuming, might help - it allows you and others to critique it, and allows one to step back from it. The unwritten plan can readily become one that is obsessed by the next milestone, or fatally discounts a certain risk or suffers from other forms of myopia. But a periodic write-up may not be the whole solution - vague feelings of unease about something can be too nebulous or personal to put into a formal plan (especially if it is to be shared), but can be a really useful indication of trouble ahead. Time out to think about things seems the only way to review the unwritten plan - hard to achieve in today's busy working lives (I used to find my cycle ride to work or a lunchtime walk very useful for this).

 

iPads users in meetings - we can see when you're slacking

On April 3rd, I enjoyed - Tablets to cure our smartphone sicknesses. By Lucy Kellaway (Financial Times).

Discussing the recent decision to allow tablet computers such as the iPad into the UK Parliament, Lucy Kellaway says:

...unlike other gadgets, the iPad is not actually meeting-unfriendly. That is because the screen sits flat on the table and is large enough to give everyone a good view of what you are up to. If MPs wish to shop for groceries, they will have to do so in the public eye. Even e-mailing on an iPad is an unpleasantly exposing activity. The same is not true of a laptop – where the lid affords a certain privacy.

Seems that this theory was recently tested to destruction in a different parliament, the Indonesian one, where a member recently resigned after being filmed watching  explicit videos on his computer during a parliamentary session.

With just one week between these events, that might be a record for theories about an tablet computer being backed up by some evidence :-)