-
What I’m hoping for from SXSW
I’ve been to loads of conferences over the years. Most of them have left me feeling ‘whelmed’ at best and at most other times frustrated.
I blogged last year about one conference I attended in London last May. There was a general feeling that the speakers offered nothing new, virtually no excitement or insight and most of the talks boiled down to a personal retrospective. That’s fair enough you may say, but the conference was billed as being about the future of the industry.
It felt as if the speakers had just been asked to turn up and speak about anything they wanted. No vetting by the organiser and seemingly very little brief to the speakers.
As such I’ve given up on any conferences this year. Apart, obviously, from the biggy. The one we’re all off to.
-
Time for a reassessment of the human-computer interface
A great blog post by Lukas Mathis has been floating around Twitter for a few days now. In it he talks about the removal of features in software development. Specifically:
If you don’t pay attention, what started out as an elegant, simple application that perfectly solves a single problem, can quickly turn into a huge behemoth of an application that solves a ton of problems, but solves all of them poorly.
This, and some other tweet comments, got me thinking about the iPad (who isn’t?) and how I believe it’s a glimpse of the future for how we interact with personal computers.
In the 35 years since the arrival of the personal computer we’ve been on a continuous upward trajectory of feature enhancement and specification bloat. It’s not just the software, it’s infecting the very machines that we run the bloated software on.
-
We’ve sorted the UX. How about the EX?
I think I can stick my neck out and say that *most* web industry professionals are pretty solid on user experience these days. The heuristics of web usability have become engrained in our brains over the years. When planning a site we often reach consensus on discussions around interaction touch points and navigation hierarchies very quickly and get on to writing the next user story.It wasn’t always like this. I can remember observing, and even occasionally conducting, usability tests on site prototypes and early design mock ups as recently as three years ago. It all seemed a bit low rent TV police drama but it worked. Voice and face recording, one-way mirrored glass observation rooms, scripts and lists of questions. A really compelling way to settle arguments between clients / developers / account management / designers.After doing this tens and tens of times you start to get a good understanding of how people approach looking for stuff on a site. The natural gravitational pull to the top right when looking for search. The twitch of the hand to point the mouse to the top left of the screen when wanting a home link. All quite predictable.I know there are still shocking usability examples out there on the web. In the same way that you’ll always get crap food in some restaurants and shonky service from estate agents. There will always be room for user testing on some level.But I think there may be a new avenue to explore. What about the emotional experience of using a site? How do we measure this? Is there any form of measurement for something so intangible?Following on form Isaac’s post about surprise and delight in service and product design, what are the metrics for a great emotional experience online? Just having a site that is easy to navigate is one thing, but what does joy look like? Is it the measure of ‘OMGs’ in Twitter mentions with bit.ly links?In short, what are the things that make a ‘normal’ web user love a site? Content, conversation, dripping with smooth jQuery loveliness? What do you reckon?I think I can stick my neck out and say that *most* web industry professionals are pretty solid on user experience these days. The heuristics of web usability have become engrained in our brains over the years. When planning a site we usually reach consensus on discussions around interaction touch points and navigation hierarchies very quickly and get on to writing the next user story.
It wasn’t always like this. I can remember observing, and even occasionally conducting, usability tests on site prototypes and early design mock ups as recently as three years ago. It all seemed a bit low rent TV police drama but it worked. Voice and face recording, one-way mirrored glass observation rooms, scripts and lists of questions. A really compelling way to settle arguments between clients / developers / account management / designers.
-
Creative Review, D&AD and Adobe round table discussion on the Future of Advertising
Back in the summer William and I were invited to take part in a Creative Review round table discussion to debate the ‘Future of Advertising’. Chaired by Patrick Burgoyne, Editor of Creative Review, we were joined by the great and the good from agencies across London.
Over the hour and a half chat the topics we talked about varied from measurement mechanisms for digital campaigns, payment models, client-agency relationships and a load of other stuff.
-
Life after Verdana
Typekit launched recently amid a tremendous buzz from designers and bloggers across the web.What typeset offers are ‘real’ fonts on the web. Don’t quite know what this means. Surely Arial, Verdana, Georgia, Tahoma et al are all ‘real’ fonts. I think what they mean is that there is now access to a huge library of extra fonts to employ in browser-based design.This sort of follows on from my previous post about Art Direction on the web. This wider choice of fonts should allow greater freedom for the designer to inject some personality into their designs and help achieve some differentiation. As, arguably, one of the nicest serif-fonts online Georgia is used all over the place for online publishing. The arrival of Typekit should help reduce the reliance on Georgia for this purpose.So how does Typekit work? It’s actually very clever. You see, the problems with fonts online are the same as digital music publishing, namely DRM. As soon as I install a font on my web server and use it on my site then I need a license for the distribution of that font. And those licenses don’t exist. Ot they do but their prohibitively expensive.Typekit have got round this problem by allowing you to rent the font from their servers for use in your site CSS and HTML. You pay a monthly subscription (on a freemium model), the level set depending on how many fonts you want to use and how many sites you want to publish those fonts on. Once you’ve chose your fonts and enter the URL of the destination site and it spits out a couple of lines of javascript for you to place into the <head> of your HTML file. It looks a bit like this…<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://use.typekit.com/etn1iee.js”></script><script type=”text/javascript”>try{Typekit.load();}catch(e){}</script>This works in all major browsers (Firefox 3.5 and up, Safari 2.4 and up) and even IE (version 5 an up).It’s all quite ingenious really. And a very elegant solution to a problem that looked insurmountable a few years ago.However, I’m slightly wary of where this might lead. The old saying ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean to say you should’ needs to be plastered all over the Typekit site. The font catalogue may be extensive but there are some absolutely hideous examples of the typographers art on there. Allow the user to set them small onscreen any they’ll be completely illegible.This may also open up the floodgates for some crimes against typography. Remember when, in the early-mid 90s the PC became more and more pervasive. The world became filled with rainbow coloured, Times, Comic Sans and Brush Script-rendered signs in corner shops? The same people who used the <blink> tag and texture-mapped animated gifs. I fear we may be treading the same path again.Whatever, in the right hands this opens up a very exciting future for web-based editorial design and art direction. A future that may be even brighter when some of the larger foundries come onboard with the likes of Garamond, Franklin Gothic, Clarendon etc.For those that care about typographic nuances I found this useful tool for seeing exactly how the font will render in a browser, at different sizes, white out and at varying shades of grey.It’s probably worth pointing out that there are others doing similar things to Typekit. Some use a different method of linking back to the font file (@font-face) but the principles are the same. These include, Kernest, Fontdeck (coming soon) amongst others.Typekit launched recently amid a tremendous buzz from designers and bloggers across the web.
What Typekit offers are ‘real’ fonts on the web. Don’t quite know what this means. Surely Arial, Verdana, Georgia, Tahoma et al are all ‘real’ fonts. I think what they mean is that there is now access to a huge library of extra fonts to employ in browser-based design beyond the standard set of ‘browser-safe’ fonts.
This sort of follows on from my previous post about Art Direction on the web. This wider choice of fonts should allow greater freedom for the designer to inject some personality into their designs and help achieve some differentiation. As, arguably, the nicest browser-safe serif-font, Georgia, is used all over the place for online publishing. The arrival of Typekit should, if nothing else, help reduce the reliance on Georgia for this purpose.
-
Looking towards more flexible web-based editorial design
Isaac and I have been discussing how users consume media and news which has raised some interesting questions around online publishing. Specifically: how we construct content templates, how that content looks when it’s in place, art direction at a micro level and how we can create richer, more engaging and, importantly, more ‘useful’ reading experiences online.
Over the last 4-5 years there has been a gradual convergence in how most newspaper sites construct their article pages. Based on a grid system, they employ a wide central column for the body copy and a number of other columns, usually on the right of the screen, for related information, links to other stories, MPUs, tools, etc. We should know, we’ve designed a number of sites for media owners, as well as countless blogs that conform to these conventions.
No matter how long the article is it is wedged into the same template. If it’s 200 words, stick it in. 800 words? No problem, paginate it and reap the ad impressions.
There’s loads of sense to this approach. The beauty of the web is its democratisation of publishing. Drop your text and image into a well crafted template and you’re away. But I think there’s room for another approach.







