Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Chris Butler

Chris Butler — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:01:39 GMT

I agree with the comments above in that search functionality needs to be implemented in a way that is more specific to the context (somewhere in between a basic text field + search button and an advanced search with every conceivable attribute for filtering). Many of the sites we (www.newfangled.com) build incorporate various searching and filtering tools throughout, in addition to site-wide search options. While many of these solutions are great (my favorite being a recent ajax advanced search tab that we did for directorship.com), I agree with Austin that the approach to how search results are presented could be improved upon as well. I think many users would appreciate categorized and flexible returns as apposed to a generic list.

Thanks for a great post!

Chris Butler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:44:48 GMT

Jamie, you make a really good point here. It would be interesting to survey UI decisions with an eye for geographic and cultural context and see what kinds of trends emerge. I think a microcosm of this question is already influential in UI design when we consider the various ‘types’ of users online (i.e. those that tend to browse using navigation vs. those that tend toward using search tools), so it’s not a significant jump to consider types on a larger scale as they regard to particular issues like search tools.

Chris Butler — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:11:24 GMT

Thanks to Milissa and Jeff for dealing with this topic! I’ve found that this becomes a major point of contention when working on a web project- especially in the context of planning for advertisement content. There emerges a major contradiction when the client wants to flood their sites with ads, yet is irate when site content ends up ‘below the fold!’ I added a link to this podcast next to the original ‘blasting the myth’ article link on a blog post I wrote recently on the topic, which you can read here: http://www.newfangled.com/getting_your_website_content_ab….

Chris Butler — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:17:41 GMT

Alexander,

This is a great overview of “Web 2.0,” which I have found to be more about adjusting expectations than any specific technological shift or trend in web development. Just a quick thought:

While the expectations are changing in response to new technical capabilities, I think there are a couple of factors that skew perception when it comes to establishing expectations for new projects. One significant factor is what I like to call the ‘Google curve,’ which is basically that users have great expectations for robust functionality at very little cost because Google has given us great tools (email, calendar, rss reader, blogging, etc.), not to mention industry standard search, at no immediately obvious cost. The trick is that we are now the worker bees filling the internet with ‘content’ for Google to index and serve ads on. When clients want similar functionality on their own websites, whether it is comprehensive and flexible search tools, blogs, etc., they are aghast when they realize that it will take time and money to build them.

The second factor is directly related in that it is all about money. The big shift that is still in process is the monetization of advertising models within the news, entertainment, and search industries. Until a standard is reached for advertising online, I think we’re all going to have an interesting time of gaining our footing when it comes to advising our clients. No doubt we’ll need to quickly adapt to any of the likely changes in that industry to come.

Semantic web, here we come!

Chris Butler — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:17:17 GMT

I like the point raised by Michael- that the community aspect of ‘web 2.0’ is not that simple to foster, especially in the corporate environment. There are many sites that utilize community tools to share knowledge with a variety of methods and certainly varying success. For example, LinkedIn uses its ‘Ask a Question’/’Answer a Question’ format to allow users to share knowledge and build an online reputation through evaluating whether answers were helpful to them. Similarly, this site allows users to gain reputation points over time as they post comments, as well as vote on other users’ comments. It’s a subtle, but effective, way to enhance commenting functionality with a valuation system.

I like these approaches over a more ‘popularity’ based system since it places the value in the information, rather than in the person, and see them as somewhat necessary in motivating users to participate despite not receiving payment for their time and effort.

Chris Butler — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:36:18 GMT

Alex,

You’re completely right that taking the knowledge-sharing and reputation-building models to a next step of monetization will probably not happen, at least not directly. However, I know that in the case of our company (Newfangled), building a strong reputation based upon expertise in areas beyond our bottom-line deliverables is critical. When we partner with an agency, one of the driving factors of that partnership is that they are trusting us to educate them and anticipate what technology adoptions and adjustments will be appropriate to their web strategy both now and in the future. While our knowledge of various technologies may or may not be germane to an individual agency’s needs, the breadth of it helps an agency to be confident that we are a solid partner to adopt. So, while there is no specific knowledge-sharing-to-revenue metric, we know anecdotally and intuitively that there is a correlation. This is why we encourage all of our clients to adopt strategies that utilize blogs and newsletters (inherently information-sharing tools) as a means of connecting with existing clients and “clients-to-be” in a clear, honest and flexible way. Financially, it may never be as measurable as ad systems or SEM, but it will definitely build solid business over time.

Thanks, also, for taking the time to thoughtfully respond to each comment! True, we’re not being paid, but we are being enriched.

Chris Butler — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:34:51 GMT

Alex,
I definitely agree with the distinction you draw. Our case is unique (and somewhat oblique in reference to the business-related points of your article), so in regard to info-sharing and reputation, you’re right that our model will not necessarily suit a company which needs to sync internal divisions on it’s Web 2.0 strategy. The agencies that we advise will likely ‘stumble upon’ these issues as they advise their clients on how to approach web strategy in a way that is best suited to their industries and/or business models (something we advise our clients on how to prepare for). I think Adam points out some of those other factors that might make adopting a new web strategy (in general) much easier said than done (multi-channel marketing plan implementation, legal ramifications of unsolicited editorial content, and the design impact of ad contracts, etc.) within that context.

Chris Butler — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:21:41 GMT

Yaniv,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this book, which sounds like it would be worth reading. Despite being completely reliant upon email, I think we’re still figuring it out- and clumsily at that! There are times when I’ve received hundreds of emails a day, and at that volume it is easy to let go of any etiquette standards you may have had at one point. But, as you rightly point out, paying attention to the detail of your words- even the order of your recipient list (something I’ve never considered but probably will now)- is worth the extra time it takes. I recently wrote a quick blog post (you can read it here: http://www.newfangled.com/spammy_emails) about what I called ‘spammy’ emails, which was mostly a gripe about some of the points you made (every email being urgent, sign-off lines, too-much-information signatures, etc.), and have made an update to it linking to and recommending this article. What are your thoughts (and does the book touch on this) about email signatures?

Chris Butler — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:58:10 GMT

Yaniv, I am in full agreement on keeping signatures light and definitely free of graphics. I’m interested in the example you mentioned of the office manager. I wonder, does he include the full signature on every email if they are replies in a long thread? My guess is that a long signature might grow more annoying if it appears with every reply in a longer string. Thanks for your response. CB

Chris Butler — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:36 GMT

Alex,

I happened to find this after reading your other article on Otlet from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/science/17mund.html?pag…)- thanks for shedding some light on such a visionary individual, especially in light of the current movement towards a semantic web.

For the sake of conversation, here’s a link to the biographical documentary on Otlet hosted by the Internet Archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/paulotlet/

Chris

Chris Butler — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:36:01 GMT

Holger,

I enjoyed your article very much, and appreciate the depth with which you have began to deal with the subject. In particular, I appreciated how your “lines of work” diagram indicated several phases of prototyping. This is something that I have found to be critical to a successful project as it takes into account the media by which team members communicate most effectively, as well as that which is most effective for providing a preliminary user experience prior to any real development. While some team members may find a paper prototype the most effective means to communicate initially, a functional, interactive prototype that is accessible in a collaborative environment is much more suitable for beginning to actually experience the decisions that have been made by the team so far. And, in response to your question (“Is it just one who is responsible or is it the team which is in charge of UXD-P?”), clearly a well-rounded team is needed, but also one that has some hierarchy for the sake of accountability. As they say, speed of the leader, speed of the team.

In response to Marcel’s comments about preliminary business analysis, I couldn’t agree more. My firm has added a recommended strategic review to our project anatomy, as we’ve been burned many times by constantly evolving requirements that disrupt the progress of a project and expand its scope to an unsustainable degree. This is especially important for any company that plans to actually do business online (as opposed to having a simple online presence or an application not related to their primary product or service). While we’ve found that those clients with already successful operations tend to reach success online more easily than those without a proven track record, it is never a guarantee that a business will work both on and offline using the same plan and resources. As Marcel notes, evaluating these concerns prior to any other project planning is a critical but often overlooked step.

Chris

Chris Butler — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:38 GMT

Alex and Aaron,

Thanks for a thorough look at this subject. I agree that the system used for rating should be created with the particular product or service in mind, as there are variables appropriate to one that will not be appropriate to others. This is one reason why the effort of the reviewer, especially whether he or she has taken the time to write clear and comprehensive comments in addition to any numeric rating system that is available, is so important to the person viewing the rating later. As you noted, one customer may give a product a low rating due to a particular expectation he or she had for it, while another may give the same product a high rating based upon a completely different expectation. Having access to comments or an explanation helps the prospective customer discern the importance of certain reviews to his or her decision.

One “genre” of rating systems for which this idea is applicable is the dining-related ratings site (like yelp.com or foodbuzz.com). I’ve often noted that I might read a disparaging review that gives low marks for having a limited menu and think, “that sounds like my kind of place- why would someone consider a limited menu a bad thing?” Interestingly, many users only need one not-so-good dining experience to prompt them to submit a negative review, whereas positive reviews might come from long-time loyal customers. Given that any restaurant’s service can be affected by many unpredictable factors, a measured reviewer should take into consideration whether it is their first visit, whether their order was a specialty of the restaurant, the experience of the waiter, etc. Thankfully, most websites dedicated to rating particular services would have considered specific attributes (i.e. wait time, menu scope, wait staff, etc. for restaurants, as apposed to format, page count, dimensions, etc. for books) in order to make sure that the overall presentation of any given business/product is, in general, accurate. As you mentioned, this can become a problem on sites like ebay.com, where the user is in full control over the portrayal of what is being sold. Perhaps Amazon.com has found a good fusion in this regard in the way it allows users to sell used versions of books already in their inventory?

Chris