Published: May 06, 2007 in articles » usability by Thomas Baekdal
One of the worst things you can do is to not design for real people and real content. It is obvious in the same way that you will freeze if you sit in a freezer. That, however, doesn't seem to stop people from making a mess of everything.
The "system look" is pretty simple to spot. It is where:
Note: If even one of these exists, then it looks like a system...
Below is an example of a system look from Cisco. It looks awful and it is not even remotely usable. Notice that the version number and the dates are all the same. Not to mention that they were too lazy to convert the file sizes into MB - what a waste of screen space.
A simple solution would be to simply rearrange the content (see below). Not only is it now much easier to read, the content has gotten space to breathe. The overall size more than 50% smaller (and there are plenty of room for more languages if needed).
Since all the files are almost the same size, there really isn't much point writing out all of them. Displaying the average size of 1.2 MB is much more usable.
So why do people make it look like systems? Well...
I know this, I am too. But there is a difference between being lazy but ingenious and lazy because you cannot be bothered.
The lazy-ingenious developers are the ones who see a problem and thinks "that looks like too much work" or "that takes too much effort" - end then develop a way to do the same in a much simpler way.
This is the kind of developer you want to be. Laziness is strength. It can motivate you to make great products. Some of the best inventors of all times were lazy and now we got cars, robotic vacuum cleaners, coffee makers, dishwashers, remote controls, iron free shirts, the internet, and much more.
But, the other kinds - the ones who are lazy because they cannot be bothered - are just being stupid. The Cisco download box above was done by lazy and stupid people. They focused on the wrong kind of laziness. They focused on short term results (which always means more work in the long run), and wasted not only their own time, but everyone's time.
Another problem is not having real data when making concepts and prototypes. Developers, AI professionals and designers create these fantastic systems, based on test scenarios - and it never works that way.
One example is Yahoo Music. They got a very good looking music player. It has a nice design and several nice technical features. It is a good product... But, they didn't design it with real data, and as a result the content doesn't fit.
In Yahoo's case this is particularly stupid because there is a lot of extra space available. They could have made the text wider, and there is even space enough to wrap it over two lines if necessary.
But, it is not just Yahoo Music that makes this mistake. Most gets into trouble when real data is added. This is because:
Not to mention that the amount test data is often very limited. It is never a problem when you have 10 categories to worry about in your design. But, once your system is introduce into the real world - and you got 1.000 categories - then it suddenly doesn't look or work the same any more.
Yet another problem is that we are blinded by our own environment and our brain. A file called "C760-in.r-MLS.44-7.bin" probably makes perfect sense to the people at Cisco.
And, it is not only developers that speak gibberish. Every profession has its own language, and in each case it is simpler for them to say things their way. Like when Dr. Susan Calvin was asked about her profession in the movie I-Robot.
She answers: "My general fields are advanced robotics and psychiatry, although I specialize in hardware-to-wetware interfaces in an effort to advance USR's robotic anthropomorphization program".
It makes perfect sense to her, but not to anyone else.
Remember the key to good language is not necessarily to write in simple terms - it largely depends on your target audience. E.g. if you make a system for doctors you need to speak their language (which seems to be half-Latin).
But, the language you need to use is in most cases not one you are comfortable with. If you cannot speak the language of your target audience, use simple words.
A system is usable when real people and real data work together effectively
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Jason, point taken - I agree with some of the things you wrote.
There is indeed often resource problems that causes people to make things the way Cisco did. I still think that it is stupid to do so - but it might not be the fault of the developer.
I also agree that there are some cases where my neat example doesn't fit the data. I too have been in situation where I have made a general interface, and found it to only fit 90% of the data. The dilemma you then face is: Do make a special interface for the remaining 10%, which is often resource intensive, or do use the general interface even though that isn't perfect...
I do not believe this to be the case with Cisco because every download box - no matter what you download - looks horrible. They, I think, made it look like a table that was the easiest way for them to do so (hence they where lazy again). They don't seem to have even been thinking about usability issues at all.
As for your other issues, then agree that you have valid points. People who download something from Cisco probably need these technical requirements.
- The link to Remote Office (in my example) wasn't meant to be a download link, but rather a link to the product so that read more about it (before downloading it). I am sorry for not pointing that out.
- I must admit that I, personally, never compare the file size stated on a website vs. the size of the file I download (I assumes that it works if I can start afterwards). But, I agree some IT people might have that need (especially people in IT-support)
- Similarly IT-support would need to know the exact file name, in order to compare that it is the right size. I, however, think that Cisco should rename the file into something humans could understand - e.g. "RemoteOffice-4.4.7-2003.6.17-US.bin". This way you would not have the need to compare file names (you can compare the version or the date).
The point of the article was not to devalue Cisco. I just used the example from their website because that was one of the worst I have seen for while.
The point of the article was to illustrate that you shouldn't make things look like a system, regardless of the circumstances. If people make it look like a system because of resource shortages, they are being more stupid than if they made it that way because they where lazy. They are then not only telling the world that they cannot manage their time and resources, but also that their customers are secondary to the business.
...and often the blame falls upon the developer when it is really the management whom we should be blamed.
I think I will write another article about this - and how you should manage your resource in a situation where you have to make thousands of files available in public.
Stay tuned, and thanks for your comment - I appreciate it :)
The Yahoo video example reminded me of one of my pet peeves (and many sites do this including YouTube) - truncating a line when the "..." added to show it has been truncated makes it longer than the original line. Don't hide two characters and add three different ones - code smarter!
There is a good example of one taking into account your idea.
Ubuntu, is a Linux OS for "Human Beings", however the download page was for any thing but normal Human... :-(
Many people reported the problem, I let you with this example of blog post: http://my.opera.com/usability/blog/show.dml/368756
Now Ubuntu has reacted to the problem and a new, easier web page for the download is proposed. In my opinion it is not perfect and needs to get even easier, but it is almost usable for most of the Human Beings out there. Check the new page: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
If you want more information on the new page and how to use it, there is an article in an online magazine: http://fullcirclemagazine.org/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item2
There you can download a PDF and page 14 you have some help with the new download page.
So Ubuntu had a "system" view of their download page prior to March 2007. They have now a more user one, aimed at real people. I will let you judge by yourself of it usability.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Dave, oh yes - good example!
Huygens, That is a great example, I didn't know about that. Thanks!
I really enjoy your thorough articles. After reading this article I couldn't agree more with the Cisco user interface example. It seems so typical to me.
Ironically, John Chambers (Cisco's CEO) is saying something that's very far from what you have described here:
"While we are very pleased with our continued growth, our communications and collaboration technologies are enabling the second phase of the Internet, or Web 2.0, which is redefining how people, companies and countries collaborate in ways never before realized."
Quote from GigaOm.
Very ironic that they say a lot, but to me, it's what they do that matters!
I really enjoy your articles because they're very insightful and I've learned a great deal about usability. However, I have to comment that they're not "user friendly" for people because the grammar is so poor.
I'll be the first to admit that my spelling and grammar are far from perfect and that's why I use a spelling/grammar check in Word before publishing.
Poor grammar can make reading an article a less-than-great experience for the user. Word obviously isn't perfect in grammar either but most of your errors are using the words "are" and "is." One (are) is for plural use and the latter is for singular use. Word definitely will catch those kind of errors.
The other thing about it is if you use this site in hopes of getting a job or recognition of some kind people would be less likely to hire you based on such poor grammar. That doesn't mean that all people would hesitate because I'm sure you're working, but some people for-sure would.
Anyway, those "are" my 2 cents ;-)
Excuse me... "kinds of errors"
Ironic, huh? :-) I added that part in after I had left the Word environment.
Writer, Project Manager and Interaction Designer
follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, or visit my website
Hi Ron, I appreciate your comment, and I can assure you that I try very hard to write well.
I am from Denmark and that means that English is not my primary language. I struggle with grammar and punctuations. English is not like Danish. The rules are different.
But, I do not really agree with you on the use-of-Word-part. Word is great. I use the latest version (Office 2007 Ultimate) to write my articles. And, I never - ever - publish an article with errors in them. If you take this article, you will find that Word thinks it is 100% error free.
That doesn't mean it is perfect - but it is at least as perfect as Word thinks it can be.
I also do two other things:
1: I always have a 24 hours waiting period between writing an article and editing it. I do this because I know that I cannot edit my own stuff, but with a 24 hours waiting period I can find at least some of the errors that I didn't detect the day before.
2: I always ask my computer to read aloud the article - using Windows' Narrator. This is a great way to find the little things, the missing words, the odd sentence, and many other things. Of course having a real human editor would be better, but I am not a billionaire :)
I am not saying that my articles are perfect - I know that they are not. But, I am doing my best, and I think I am getting better every time.
Anyway, thank you for your comment.
Ah.. since English is not your primary language I can 100% overlook the grammar :-)
I can't speak or write in any 2nd language so kudos to you.
I think this is a great article.
I really like the worked example for download. I understand the concerns of the commenter who noted that it won't work in all cases.
At iQ we always start with what we think is the best possible experience, and then using that as our "ideal best case", we make adjustments based on technical constraints. It's much better than the other tact which is "Start with a database dump, and then try to tidy it".
The whole article reminded my of what I wrote about the imaging program Gimp, and how unbelievable annoying it was to download...
http://destraynor.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/62-If-you-want-to-be-popular,-you-have-to-give-it-up-easy..html
Good work,
Des
Here is link that isn't broken up...
http://tinyurl.com/yrmuzo
Baekdal.com is (nearly) everywhere. Check out our social profiles:
FaceBook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
FriendFeed
Delicious
May 7
2007
Jason
I always enjoy your articles, but this one might have had more of an impact if you had avoided calling the people who designed or implemented the examples you gave "lazy and stupid". Cisco's website is very difficult to use (especially the file download process), but your redesign won't work in practice, and it has its own usability issues. More importantly, teams have resource constraints that contribute more to the final outcome than just laziness or stupidity.
Regarding your design, Cisco has thousands of files to make available, and they don't all fit into the neat organizational structure you came up with. There are often files from different releases in that table along with release notes. Then again, I suppose that speaks directly to your point about using real data. I'm sure that Cisco could do better, but so could you.
Some other issues:
- In your example, where does the "Remote Office" link take you? It can't cause you to download the file because you have to pick the right one for your country.
- How can I tell whether I've downloaded this particular file before if I can't see the name of the file?
- After I've downloaded the file, how can I tell whether it downloaded fully if I don't know the exact expected size?
In terms of the actual reason that a product looks like that, Cisco certainly could have spent more time on the visual design and usability of that part of the website. However, what is the value given the cost and complexity of some of the solutions? It looks to me like they've chosen the simplest approach to giving customers access to the thousands of files they have to distribute with a rather minimal additional burden on the end user. It could look better, but their money is probably better spent on improving the interface or performance of the actual router you have instead of the file download feature of the website.