Emanuela Agni takes issue with comments by usability
guru Jakob Nielsen made in Computer Weekly's 9 November
issueJakob Nielsen's controversial ideas are at the centre of a
raging battle on the Internet between Web designers and usability
advocates. Nielsen's idea of Web design places a premium on
usability over style. This is exemplified by his Web site http
://www.useit.com, which consists of two coloured squares densely
filled with text.
However usability and information design should not ignore
aesthetic concerns. A truly user-friendly site can be beautifully
designed and elegantly structured. Creative design not only
enhances the message but provides the user with a more memorable
experience which is likely to lead to repeat visits. The principal
goal of effective communication is clarity. Too often, simplicity
is seen as synonymous with clarity. This unfortunate mistake is
responsible for dumbing down information rather than illuminating
it.
The Web is still a new and experimental space, which is shaped,
daily, by users' needs. It is used by an array of people ranging
from the tech-savvy to the techno-illiterate; a combination of
well-informed and helpless visitors whose interaction to sites is
dictated by cultural dispositions and sensory abilities. What all
these visitors have in common is a short attention span, a problem
that is exacerbated by the increasing number of media competing for
our time. We need to be challenged through a combination of
constantly changing visual and mental stimuli.
Material that is perceived as static and dull is often
overlooked as unimportant. Our capacity for concentration
deteriorates when there is nothing to stimulate it. Where there is
no change, a state of sensory deprivation occurs. Nielsen maintains
that the reason people spend more time on other sites is because
they have poor usability. But the real reason these sites score low
ratings on usability is that they fail to excite and entice users
because of poor design.
In the current environment of sensory overload, the Internet is
just one of many media competing for our attention. To get it, the
Net needs to do more than give information. It should create a
rewarding experience for users. To encourage users to return, a Web
site must be more than simply useful, it should be fun and
personalised as well. One way to achieve this is through
interactive and sensory design. Both are essentially story-telling
devices which employ techniques based on sensory communication.
The use of visual design (typography, graphic design,
illustration, video, photography, sound and music) enhances our
experience of the Net and is often the most effective way to
communicate a particular message.
The Internet is currently unregulated and reflects the diversity
of its users. In this environment, Nielsen's rigid fixation on
usability is impractical and not much different from a teacher
trying to placate a classroom full of unruly children. It is
useless to impose a uniform structure on a chaotic medium, which is
basically Nielsen's crusade. Surely, his efforts to creat a
vanilla-flavoured Net will be in vain as his unbending logic
ignores that the Net is still a new medium and the rules we apply
today may be invalid in the future as new technologies and creative
ideas emerge.
Usability experts, designers, computer scientists and online
gurus need more than the anecdotal information provided by
usability tests in order to create guidelines for good design.
By imposing his own rigid guidelines for Web design, Nielsen is
stifling the creative process and the free exchange of ideas. The
truth is that nobody really knows precisely how the mind works.
What we do know is that people have many different cognitive
styles and they interact to Web sites in different ways. Therefore,
people need different tools, interfaces and designs that fit how
they think rather than one set of rules that fits how Nielsen
thinks.