Create your own web 2.0 BS at http://www.emptybottle.org/bullshit/
It's been 4 years since the term 'Web 2.0' became popular and I still hear critiques that it doesn't mean anything. Common arguments include 'nothing new', 'not based on a new technology', 'just a trend/bubble' or 'just a marketing buzzword'. Here I am, taking a stand by telling you why Web 2.0 isn't just another buzz or bubble, why Web 2.0 became and is common wisdom and why Web 2.0 should actually matter to you. Call it differently if you feel thrown off by the marketing jargon but have a peak at Scott Berkun's extraordinary take on web 2.0:
"We have always been collaborative. Always been social. It’s in our genes and it’s what we have evolved to do well. Good technologies enhance our natural abilities, give us useful artificial ones, and help us to get more of what we want from life. Web 2.0 and social media make the process of collaboration and developing relationships more fun, efficient, powerful and meaningful."
Web 2.0 is a Transition
Web 2.0 is neither a trend nor a revolution, Web 2.0 is the transition from
proprietary web applications to open services platforms
monolithic releases to perpetual beta
publishing to participation
static content to syndication
directories (taxonomy) to tagging (folksonomy).
...
Add to this list by sending me a comment.
Web 2.0 is Power to the People
Web 2.0 is software that gets better the more people use it! Sites like del.icio.us, Flickr, eBay or Amazon base their success on the use and contributions by their users. Social networking sites measure their success by the involvment of their participants.
Trust your Users! Now that is what I really love! Wikipedia is probably the ultimate example of an experiment of trust, content creation through the user community - yes, it works! Amazon's reviews distinguish them from other online bookstores like Barnes and Nobles that work with exactly the same data stores, just Amazon makes use of suggestions, ratings and other statistics to enhance their search results and create a basis of trust. Same holds true for eBay's reputation system or Googles PageRank.
Some rights reserved! Share, Remix, Reuse - Legally. 'Hacking' and 'Mixing' (creating mash-ups) is crucial for creative work and probably the single-most important movement of our time, thanks Creative Commons.
You control your own data! Syndicate, add, upload, tag, allow, deny, connect! It's about you and your data, with all its benefits, dangers and responsibilities, but wonderfully powerful
Web 2.0 is the Next Generation
I don't mean the next generation of technology, as a matter of fact none of the key technologies XHTML & CSS, DOM manipulation, XML & XSLT, XMLHttpRequest and JavaScript is new. I mean the Next Generation of Users, the Net Gen. It is no surprise to me that the flagship website Facebook was created by a Net Gen-er (Mark Zuckerberg) who at the age of 20 understood how to apply the existing technology to the demands and desires of the new generation.
His vision embodied some of the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies (from What is Web 2.0):
Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability
Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
Trusting users as co-developers
Harnessing collective intelligence
Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
Software above the level of a single device
Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
Facebook scores high in most competencies but like every early-adopter had and still has to face concerns and rejections for others. Facebook had to appologize when huge protests occurred after introducing the News Feed in 2006 which is now the most used part of Facebook or dealing with privacy concerns about the social advertising system Beacon.
And to be honest, I still don't understand the real power and use behind Facebook. At this point I should make space for the next generation like my friend Robert who offered to give some insight and explains:
"When you look at vamp bites, slaps, gifts and all, it seems pretty pointless. I'm a big fan of my feed though ( obviously ). Facebook pulls data from Twitter, Flickr, Digg, Last.fm, Hulu and Google Reader --- so I see feed more like 'This is a slice of Rob's life, RIGHT NOW' instead of 'Here's some stupid stuff he did on Facebook...'"
and how he thinks about Privacy:
"Yeah, I don't have much online privacy. Everything but my age, which is out there but I make it a little harder to get. I find that If someone knows my age first, It might be a problem. If they learn it last, no problem at all. I like people to be able to talk to me, I want all my info to be assessable. I can't really think of anyone who I wouldn't want to have my info that couldn't get it anyway; but I do know people who I want to have my info but might not be able to get it otherwise. Plus, I love messing with the internet shy."
Why does Web 2.0 matter?
Businesses need to understand the opportunities and potential offered by Web 2.0 and its changing user behavior. To become or stay competitive, companies need to create applications that learn from their users and support an architecture of participation. Understanding and implementation of one or more of the following Web 2.0 concepts are paramount:
Users add value: Involve your users in adding value to your application
Trust your Users: Provide users with the tools to create unique, hard to create content which will eventually give you a competitive advantage.
The Perpetual Beta: Engage your users as real-time testers and instrument the services so that you know how people use the new services.
Cooperate, don't control: Offer API's and content syndication and re-use data services of others.
Some Rights Reserved: Keep barriers of adoption low. Use licenses with as few restrictions as possible.
Utilize Network Effects: Aggregate user data as a side-effect of their use of the application.
This is the first in a series of blogs describing User-centered Design Methods. My goal is to summarize my experience, insights and findings across multiple literature and compile them into easy and quick to digest pieces for you to consume. I want to encourage you to comment your own experiences and give me feedback on why your company applies certain methods differently or not at all or something else altogether.
I personally don't like the term Usability too much, it's an empty buzz word. It means SOMETHING to everybody but isn't scientific enough to be taken serious. It's often interpreted wrongly and purely misunderstood by most. It's kinda like Psychology, we know it is important to understand fundamental human behavior, their problems and remedies, but I wouldn't pay a dime to go to a Psychologist. But who knows, just as Psychology got its scientific relevance and acknowledgment - partly maybe through the 'invention' of the IQ - hopefully Usability rises up to similar levels (Jeff Sauro offers interesting metrics via SUM (Single Usability Metric).
That's why I like the term User-centered Design. It works wonders with Project Managers and the-like, probably because Design is such an important term in their daily work. And when asked about Usability testing I can conveniently point out that this is only one tool of many in my UCD toolbox. But the really important sales trick is to know which UCD method is best used at what time in the project management cycle.
The following chart compares the most common user-centered design methods, outlines their cost and shows when to use them:
Not long ago, after having completed a full project management cycle (requirements, design, implementation and evaluation) the PM proudly announced to perform a Focus Group with his stakeholders. Showing the ready application, he thought, would surely impress them and lead to valuable feedback for the next milestone. This impulse isn't uncommon but has to be fought before it becomes reality. Does he really want to produce MORE and EXPENSIVE requirements? Because that's the output of Focus Groups. Wouldn't he be better off running 2 iterations of User Testing to reveal usability issues or a Survey to receive input from outside the development environment?
Recommendations
Requirements:
Competitive Studies
Interviews
Field Studies
Design:
Heuristic Evaluation
Paper Prototyping
User Testing
Evaluation:
Surveys
Server Traffic Log Analysis
Search Log Analysis
User Testing
The Usability effort is NOT proportional to the size of the project. Bigger projects spend less percentage on UCD with same effort. Regardless, as a rule of thumb assign 10% of the projects budget for UCD.
Faster iterations of prototype design require less testers
Before I dive into guidelines and tips of designing and implementing usable websites I feel it is important to define and outline what Usability is. Please allow me at this point to cite several sources that I find essential.
Usability is the
Effectiveness (accuracy and completeness to achieve goals)
Efficiency (resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness)
Satisfaction (comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users)
with which specified users achieve specific goals in particular environments. [ISO9241]
Basic Principles
Alan Dix formulates in his book 'Human-Computer Interaction' that above definition can be concluded into three basic principles:
Learnability (the ease with which new users can begin effective interaction and achieve maximal performance)
Flexibility (the multiplicity of ways the user and system exchange information)
Robustness (the level of support provided to the user in determining successful achievement and assessment of goals)
Five Quality Components
Jakob Nielsen uses human characteristics to extend these principles by saying:
Usability has five quality components:
Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks the first time they encounter the design
Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks?
Memorability: When users return to the design after a period of not using it, how easily can they reestablish proficiency?
Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?
Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design?
with the addition of 'utility' (functionality): Does it do what the user needs?
Implications for Usability Design
Implications drawn out of above definitions are that pages shall strive (devote serious effort or energy) to provide:
Consistency of presentation and controls across the site
Logical and natural organization of information (clear structure, systematic, clear and meaningful labels)
Contextual navigation (how much information is given for providing a context for the user; where is he/she in the site? Where can he/she go? How can he/she go back?)
Efficient navigation (the amount of time and effort the user needs to exert in order to move around the site)
Adequacy of feedback (are user interactions clear, are requests answered, do commands elicit the right response?)
Searchability (how effectively the site content can be sought in search engines?)