CHANGES
IN WEB USABILITY SINCE 1994
- Scrolling Now Allowed
- Imagemaps Less of a Problem
- Comprehensiveness Needed
- Method
- The Sites
- Page Complexity
- Search
- Navigation and Metaphors
- Overview Diagrams
- Thumbnails
- Incomplete Sites
- The Human Touch
- Two-way
Communication
- Mirror Servers
- Parallel Sessions
- Integration with Rest
of World
- Color Graphics
Conclusions
I have
been running Web usability studies since 1994 and the most striking conclusion from
looking back is that most findings about Web usability are the same now as they
were in 1994. This may be surprising, but usability is about basic human
capabilities and users' needs which do not change nearly as rapidly as technology.
The
dominant Web look in 1994 was a mixture of gray text and large images, as shown to the
right (screens from a comparative study of sites in 1994). This has certainly changed: We
have better layout capabilities and many designers have learned to minimize their use of
graphics and save download time (though still not enough). Despite the change in looks,
many of the findings from 1994 continue to hold:
- Users
don't read on the Web: They scan the text
- Some amount
of personality (the "author's voice") makes sites more
attractive: users don't like bland impersonal corporate sites.
- Web
users are impatient: They want to get their answers immediately and do not want
to be slowed down by "cool" features, mission statements, or self-promoting
grandstanding.
- Users
often print out pages: They don't trust the site to have the page for them if they need it
at a later date (and they still don't trust sites to be stable: a rather sad
finding).
- Download
times are becoming ever more critical and sites need to design for speed. Users
have always requested fast pages, but in the early years, a novelty factor made users
slightly more tolerant of slow downloads. This tolerance has declined markedly in recent
years.
- Search
was always liked by users, and has now become mandatory for any large site since the
amount of content keeps growing.
There
are some new findings due to technology introduced after 1994:
- Animation
is almost always annoying and should be avoided most of the time
- Applets
should sometimes open their own window and leave the browser behind
- Frames
suck
- Wild
background patterns disrupt users' reading; use colored text with care
and avoid blue for non-link text (and retain blue as the standard link color for unvisited
links)
There
are also a few cases where early findings have to be modified, as described in the
following.
In
early studies, It was found that only 10% of Web users would scroll a navigation page to
see any links that were not visible in the initial display. The vast majority of users
would make their selection from those links they could see without scrolling. In
retrospect, we believe this was due to people treating a set of Web options like they
would treat a dialog box: You always design dialog boxes so that all choices are
visible (except for tabbed dialogs which are known to have severe usability problems; and
the tabs do indicate the amount and nature of the hidden options).
In more
recent studies, we have seen that most users have started scrolling when they visit a long
home page or a long navigation screen. This change in behavior is probably due to users
getting more experience with scrolling Web pages.
There
are still a few users who rarely scroll. Those users who are willing to scroll may be
tempted to chose one of the initially visible options when it seems to match their goals.
Such users will never see an even better, but invisible, choice that would have required
scrolling. Therefore, I still recommend trying to design navigation pages to make all
major choices visible without scrolling on the monitors used by the average visitor to a
site. Also, the likelihood of making the best choice from a navigation page is maximized
if the user can see and compare all the options at the same time without having to scroll
and remember the hidden choices.
The
change from 1994 is that scrolling is no longer a usability disaster for navigation pages.
Scrolling still reduces usability, but all design involves trade-offs, and the argument
against scrolling is no longer as strong as it used to be. Thus, pages that can be
markedly improved with a scrolling design may be made as long as necessary, though it
should be a rare exception to go beyond three screenfulls on an average monitor.
Imagemaps
caused endless usability problems in 1994, with users overlooking clickable areas and
expressing frustration that they didn't know what they could do on the page. Imagemaps
have caused very few problems in recent studies, for several reasons:
- Users
have gotten used to clicking on pictures that look different from standard GUI widgets
- Graphic
designers have gotten better at visualizing "clickability"
- It is
now rare for pages to consist of one huge imagemap; instead, buttons and clickable areas
are more clearly delineated through the combination of multiple graphics
- Client-side
imagemaps allow some amount of feedback as the user moves the mouse
pointer over the image. Even better feedback is needed, though.
Users
have always been intolerant of downtime and crashes. As one of my very first Web test
users said, "if a site doesn't work, I may give it a second chance; if it still
doesn't work, I am never going back." Users also felt that "under
construction" signs were disrespectful of their time.
Even
though users wanted sites to work, they were willing to accept sites that had very limited
functionality. In the early years, the Web was more of an experimental environment and
users understood that they would be limited to a sample of a company's services. Now,
users expect comprehensive service from sites. Not only do sites need to be up and
available at all times, they also need to have all the information and services
users want in a certain category. For example, in 1994 a publishing company could get away
with featuring a few recent books on its home page and not providing access to its full
backlist. Now, if a company doesn't have all its products online, users will complain.
The Web
is no longer an experiment: it is mainstream. You have to rely on the ability to do
business on the Web, and people get very annoyed when they can't: Limited sites are seen
as a sign of corporate incompetence.
Additional
reading: Perry Hewitt (editor of www.lotus.com) describes changes since 1994 in a
company's editorial approach to the Web
Report From a
Web Usability Study
Introduction
Users
were observed as they browsed the Web sites of Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Sun
Microsystems, and Time Warner. The report has only been very lightly edited and thus
represents my thinking about Web usability. In fact, the report was originally written for
distribution to the rest of the Web team on paper since we were not heavy intranet users,
despite having designed SunWeb a few months before this study.
The
report is of some historical interest, both because it includes screen captures of several
famous early websites and because it is one of the first formal usability studies of the
Web. In fact, it is remarkable how well the findings and conclusions in this report hold
up in the light of the current state of the Web. People often talk about how the Web
changes on "Internet time", but usability issues seem to change much more slowly
since they stem from human capabilities and interests.
Three
external participants were tested: an MIS director, a programmer, and a systems
administrator. All were employed with technically oriented companies in the Silicon Valley
area, all had extensive Unix experience, and all were highly technically competent. One
participant was a current Sun user, one used another version of Unix on the Intel
platform, and one was currently a Windows user but had been a Sun user for seven years.
All participants had used the WWW extensively before the test. Thus, the participants were
very advanced users and one would expect that less sophisticated users would have many
more problems in using the WWW than described here. In other words, this test investigated
a best-case situation.
Each
participant was tested for 60-90 minutes. During the test, the participants visited 2-4
WWW sites from a list of sites prepared by the experimenter. For each site, the
participants were first asked to give their initial impression of the home page, after
which they were allowed to explore the site freely. After about ten minutes of exploratory
browsing, the participants were given a directed task that asked them to find some
specific information that was available on the site. The sites and the directed tasks
were:
Site |
Directed Task |
| Hewlett-Packard |
You want to see the photo of the garage
in which the company was founded |
| IBM |
You want to know how many hard drives
you can put into a PC Server 50 |
| Microsoft |
You are interested in knowing how
Windows'95 will support access to the Internet |
| Sun Microsystems |
You are interested in knowing more about
the Spring Distributed Operating System Project (a project trying out alternatives to
Unix) |
| Time-Warner |
You want to read the profile of the
co-creator of Mosaic. His first name is Marc and his last name starts with an A, but you
can't remember the exact spelling |
The users were
tested using NCSA Mosaic version 2.4 for X Windows running on a SPARC 10 workstation with
a megapixel 256-color display. The workstation had an indirect connection to the Internet
through a firewall with transfer rates of approximately 10 kilobytes per second. This is
about five times faster than a modem and about the same as ISDN and thus represents
best-case performance for home users, though on the slow side of what one would experience
from an office computer that was directly connected to the Internet. When using the Sun
WWW pages, the users accessed an internal mirror server to which the workstation had a
direct network connection, and transfer rates were much faster for the Sun pages (around
65 kB/s) than for the pages retrieved from the Internet through the firewall. The users
commented several times that access to the Sun pages was faster than their normal
experience and that access to the non-Sun pages seemed a little slow. Thus, we can assume
that the network speeds used in this study were approximately (though not exactly) the
same as those normally experienced by the users.
We
obviously wanted to test Sun's own existing web pages since the previous release of a
product is the first prototype of its own replacement. Four additional sites were selected
for the study based on discussions in the www.sun.com redesign project. Project
participants were asked to recommend good web sites that had interesting design with an
emphasis on sites with a magazine or news-oriented approach to WWW information. We
believed that frequent information updates are an emerging trend and would be important
for attracting repeat traffic to our WWW site. IBM was selected because it used a magazine
format for its home page with a monthly cover story. Time Warner was selected because of
its highly news-oriented design. HP was chosen because of its clean and highly structured
design, and Microsoft was chosen due to its status in the computer industry.

Many other sites were considered and were rejected either because
they were similar to the ones chosen or because we were sure that we did not want to
emulate their designs. For example, the home page for HotWired used icons and labels that
were essentially impossible to understand. Such a design may be appropriate if
"hipness" is the essential quality to be. One possibility would be to follow the
example set by eWorld and design the corporate Web page to mirror the graphical user
interface of our desktop software, but we were not aware of the eWorld Web site when the
comparative usability test was planned, so this option was not tested, except for the
observation that users liked a similar design feature at Microsoft's site.



On
the Sun home page, all users clicked on the Santa Claus icon first due to its prominent
position at the top left corner of the page. Also, several users expressed a liking for
the untraditional icon design with the button graphically protruding from the image. All
users overlooked the row of flat buttons on top of the Santa button. Several users were
actively looking for a "new at Sun" button and a search feature but did not find
them. The design used for the Sun home page makes the button bar look too much like
captions or headers for the top row of much more prominent icons.
All
users complained when they retrieved pages with a screen or more of unstructured text.
They plainly did not want to read much, and at best scanned the text for important or
relevant paragraphs. The users liked information that was presented in lists that were
easily scannable, especially when icons were used to indicate the different parts of the
list (see the figure from Hewlett-Packard's site). Also, users liked the use of a
"New" indicator to highlight new information in a list and the use of horizontal
rules (<HR>) to partition a page. Long pages (more than a screen) were only deemed
acceptable when users could quickly decide to ignore most of them and focus on the
relevant parts (e.g., a list of Microsoft networking products organized by operating
system).
In one
case, a user retrieved a page that was very similar to one he had seen before and wondered
whether the two pages were in fact identical. This incident indicates a potential problem
with representing the same information multiple times with slight variations.
Observations
regarding search in this study confirmed the results from more quantitative studies
conducted as part of the AnswerBook redesign project: users typed very short search
strings (normally one or two words) and sometimes overlooked the item they were trying to
find even when it was included on a list of search results. The main conclusion from these
observations is that one cannot rely on search as a mechanism for leading users to the
information they need.
Users
also sometimes scoped their search incorrectly: in one case, a user was looking for
information on the Sun server and came across the Catalyst project page, which included a
search form for finding information in these pages. The user happily used the Catalyst
search in the belief that it searched the entire Sun server and not just the Catalyst
database. The conclusion from this observation is not to offer search features that are
limited to a subset of the information on a sever. If scoped search is needed anyway for
some reason, it should be made very clear to the users what information is being searched
and what it not being searched and there should be a direct hyperlink to the global search
page. Also, users sometimes identified the need for search after they had traversed
several links and were deep in the hierarchy. They expressed a desire to be able to start
a search from their current location and not have to navigate back to the home page first.
During
this study, users were mostly very good at knowing what site they were currently visiting,
so they did not seem to get lost in hyperspace at the macro level of knowing what
company's information they were browsing. One user complained about the inclusion of
information about third party products on Sun's server. He felt that he was browsing Sun's
web to get information about Sun's products and that he would access those other
companies' sites if he wanted information about them. A possible solution to this problem
would be to make third-party pages more visibly different from Sun's own pages or to
eliminate the information itself from Sun's server and only provide links to the other
companies servers.
On the
Time Warner page, one user was surprised when the "Virtual Garden" button
pointed to information for home gardeners. The user had expected it to be a list of links
to other interesting Web sites to visit. Users may have become so accustomed to the heavy
use of metaphors in many WWW designs (and systems like Bob and Magic Link) that they
expect design elements to be metaphorical rather than literal. The lesson for user
interface design is to consider not just the first-level interpretation of proposed design
elements but also whether they could be misconstrued as inappropriate metaphors.
In a
few cases, users retrieved information that caused a PostScript viewer to be launched
without warning. The users complained that the WWW page had not warned them that the link
would download a PostScript document rather than jumping to another hypertext screen and
they also did not want to read the PostScript document (as mentioned above, the users
disliked long texts). Even though the users disliked links to PostScript files that were
displayed in a separate viewer, they did like the possibility of using FTP to retrieve
additional information, executables, patches, or other non-hypertext files.
Even
though users understood what sites they were visiting, they often got lost within sites,
and they several times expressed a wish for overview diagrams. Hewlett-Packard's design
was particularly good at informing users about their current location in the information
space.

Users
consistently praised screens that provided overviews of large information spaces. For
example, they liked the HP navigation screens, Microsoft's home page with its extensive
listing of server content, and the overview page for Windows'95. Some users did complain
that the text in the Microsoft home page overview was too small.
Several
users who were getting lost coped by analyzing the file names with full directory paths
given for HTML files to understand the server hierarchy and their current location. Unix
experts may be capable of doing so, but general users would need a simpler mechanism for
understanding the information space.

Users
several times complained about small thumbnail pictures where too much photographic detail
was shown in too little space to be clearly visible. The figure shows a page with several
overly complex thumbnails from IBM. Another example from the IBM server, below, shows how
a small picture can be perfectly acceptable provided it shows a fairly simple object
without much detail. In general, users appreciated when the system was giving them advance
notice before they decided to retrieve a large file (e.g., a big image).

Broadly speaking, it seemed that users disliked 1x1 inch thumbnails but liked 1x2 or 2x2
inch thumbnails. To communicate graphical information in a one-square-inch space one
should thus use icons and not thumbnails. The general conclusion regarding thumbnails,
though, is that they should communicate some information to the user and have a clean and
uncluttered appearance. Thus, the exact size of a thumbnail should be a function of the
complexity of the original image. If it is impossible to represent an image clearly with a
thumbnail then it will be better to use a textual description.
Users
distinctly disliked seeing "under construction" markers. As one user put it,
"either the information is there or it is not; don't waste my time with information
you are not giving me." Users were particularly aggravated when they had linked to a
page only to find that it was under construction. One user said "At least give me
something for going to the page; don't put it out there if it is not working." Users
were less upset when currently inactive hypertext markers had construction signs that
could be seen before activating the link.
Users
had little patience for server error messages. One user said that he might try retrieving
the page once more, knowing that servers sometimes got overloaded, but if he got a second
error message from the same server then he would never visit it again: he would assume
that it was too unreliable and/or too poorly maintained to be worth his time.

Users
were also very disappointed when they came across evidence that a server was not being
kept up to date. For example, several sites listed talks or conferences that had already
taken place as if they were still upcoming. In related comments, users praised the way
some information on the Sun and Microsoft servers was labeled with dates to indicate how
current it was. Users also liked the use of the month name to indicate the currency of the
information on IBM's home page.
All
users liked Microsoft's picture of their Webmaster in front of the server. They felt that
it was nice to know that they were communicating with a service supported by an actual
person and not a faceless entity. The users also liked being able to read the technical
specifications for Microsoft's server, again from the perspective that the information was
not just coming in over the wire, but was coming from somewhere. Of course, server specs
may be less interesting to less technically oriented users than the ones tested in this
study.
The
users liked the ability to request further information about products by filling in a
form. One user mentioned that he would often use a Web site to get a general idea about a
company's products but that he would then fill in a form asking to get contacted with more
information about the specific products he was interested in buying. He was less motivated
for having to search the Web site himself to find this detailed information. This user was
particularly interested in finding lists of contact telephone numbers and email addresses
for the various products.
The
users also liked the forms that were provided at several sites to allow them to give
feedback to the Webmaster. This observation may also be related to the "human
touch" phenomenon mentioned above since having the form makes the users feel more in
contact with the actual people who maintain the server as opposed to being just consumers
of a flow of information.
Users
did not mind online surveys and questionnaires as long as they were at most one page long.
Users frequently complained when they came across pages with questionnaire forms that did
not fit on the screen. Users expressed a wish to have as much information as possible
filled in for them. For example, a user who had already filled in his name and address on
one questionnaire wanted the computer to automatically insert that information in another
questionnaire he retrieved from the same server a few minutes later. One user wanted to be
able to enter his email address to subscribe to notices about updates for a certain page
that he found particularly interesting.
One
problem related to mirror servers was encountered during the test: one user had initially
accessed Sun's WWW site through the internal mirror. From there, he had linked to an
outside site which happened to have a link back to Sun. The user followed this link, but
since the outside link pointed to the outside version of Sun's Web site (the
"original" copy of the site), all further cross-reference links to other Sun
pages now pointed to the outside copies. This change in addressing caused a usability
problem because the Web viewer did not display appropriate breadcrumbs on the link
anchors. Normally, Mosaic shows anchors for links that the user has already followed in a
different color, but since even those links now pointed to new URLs, they were displayed
in the color reserved for unexplored links. This confused the user who remembered having
followed some of the links earlier in the session.
This
usability problem cannot be solved in the design of any individual server but must await a
change to URNs or some other addressing scheme that takes mirror servers into account.
All
users opened two Mosaic windows and kept separate sessions going in parallel. Most of the
time, these two sessions visited the same Web site, but explored different parts of its
information space. The users would typically start a retrieval operation in one window
and, while waiting, turn their attention to the other to study the information it
contained.
Two
conclusions can be drawn from the users' extensive user of parallel sessions: WWW users
are very impatient and do not like waiting for information to be retrieved over the
Internet. As far as possible, one should avoid having them wait (since their attention
will wander).
One
cannot assume a one-to-one correspondence between the stream of WWW requests received from
a user and that user's hypertext browsing, since two or more browsing sessions may be
interleaved.
One
user who had read a page about the speed of PhotoShop on Sun computers, wanted to get a
demo of PhotoShop from Sun's WWW server (or have a link to Adobe's server with a demo).
Another user mentioned that he normally requested demo CD-ROMs for products before buying
them.
One
user had read in the newspaper that Sun had information about the Rolling Stones online
and searched for that information during the study. Knowing about certain information from
paper-based sources is one way that users can get prompted to look for it, and the URL
should be given in those printed sources as far as possible. Some users mentioned that
they would not want to spend time during the day to read extensive information but that
they might print it out or email it to themselves to read later. With current technology,
most printouts will be restricted to grayscale graphics and much email will be restricted
to ASCII text, so the information should be designed to be useful in those formats.
Color Graphics
Users
sometimes had problems with flashing colormaps, leading to a recommendation to minimize
the number of colors used in bitmaps. Also, several users expressed an appreciation for
graphics with a small number of colors (e.g., the HP home page) because they looked clean
and felt like they did not waste a lot of bandwidth (and user time) when they were
transmitted. It is possible that the move to screens with larger color spaces and the use
of faster networks will change this preference for less-colorful images, but for now, it
seemed prevalent.
Users
had low tolerance for anything that did not work, was too complicated, or that they did
not like. With non-WWW user interfaces, the technically oriented users in this study would
normally persist for some time in trying to figure out how to use the system, but with the
WWW, there are so many sites out there that users have zero patience. Thus, the demands
for good usability are probably higher for WWW user interfaces than for normal user
interfaces, even though the designers' options are fewer. "Under construction"
signs should be avoided and the server should always provide a response within a few
seconds.
If the
requested information cannot be provided, a meaningful error message should be given
instead.
We
found that users wanted search and that global search mechanisms should be globally
available. Even so, users were poor at specifying search strings and they often overlooked
relevant hits. Thus, we cannot rely on search as the main navigation feature. Navigational
structure and overviews are necessary to avoid user confusion and should be provided both
in the large (server structure and location) and in the small (structure for the
individual pages with iconic markers for the various types of information). Users liked
the feeling of being part of a two-way communication with a site staffed by real humans
and not just the recipients of a stream of bytes coming in over the net. Care should be
taken to provide a "high-touch" feeling in addition to the "high-tech"
image of a WWW server.
