Recent News

Why Newspapers Should Stop Using TinyURL

Posted by admin on October 9th, 2009

The inspiration for this blog post came to me when I was lying on my sofa reading the Guardian newspaper over the weekend. I was at home and so didn’t have any of the following to hand:

  • iphone
  • pen
  • regular phone
  • internet

Now, you might think they’re not really essential tools for reading a newspaper but you’d be wrong. While reading the paper I was struck, time and time again, by the use of TinyURL to encode long links into a newsprint format. Of course, not having any of the above tools, I had no way of either visiting the URL or noting it down for me to visit later.

Being a kind of lazy person (it was Sunday afternoon, give me a break!), rather than look up the tinyurl online or noting it down for later reference, I just shrugged my shoulders, decided I wasn’t THAT interested in visiting the link anyway, and moved on to the next article. For me, this is a huge wasted opportunity for the paper and also a frustrating experience for the reader. So what’s the solution? Well, before I dive into the solution, let me explain the problem a little more clearly.

Why do newspapers use TinyURL at the moment?

The overriding reason I can see for newspapers to use TinyURL at the moment is that it’s short. Printing tinyurls saves valuable space which otherwise might be wasted. Printing a URL like this:

http://tinyurl.com/55mp6b

Takes up much less space than printing a URL like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0


And even less than a URL like this:

http://shop.ebay.co.uk/items/__rock-roll_W0QQ_nkwZrockQ20rollQ20QQ_cqrZtrueQQ_nkwuscZrickroll?_rdc=1

What’s wrong with newspapers using TinyURL?

I touched on some of the reasons why they don’t work that well above in my heart-rending tale of an internet marketer too lazy to move off the sofa, but here’s the complete list:

  1. You can’t remember them. “Oh great, an article about quantum physics, that looks really interesting. I must remember to check out tinyurl slash x x 2 3 5 h j next time I’m at a computer.” This makes them difficult to use unless you physically take your paper to your computer or you happen to have a photographic memory. (I know that these days you can now choose a custom alias for your tinyurls, but none of the newspapers use them.)
  2. There’s no branding. When you see a tinyurl you are effectively clicking blind – you have no idea what kind of site you’re being taken to and there’s no trace of the site you’ve come from.
  3. No tracking! Tracking, tracking ,tracking. The mantra of everything you do online has been lost when you use TinyURL – you don’t know how many people clicked the link, you don’t know if for some reason one of your TinyURLs was copied and pasted into an email to 1000s of people. You just don’t know. (I know that some services offer pretty neat tracking services, especially bit.ly, but that doesn’t negate the other points listed here.)
  4. No control over the URL shortening service. Do you trust TinyURL? How long might they be around for? What happens if they have a massive data outage tomorrow and all your URLs 404? Think that’s farfetched? Check out zi.ma – this used to be a URL shortening service and now all the URLs 404. Over 67,000 links to the zi.ma domain!

What should they do instead?

Build their own URL shortening service for use exclusively by their journalists! To a technophobe like myself this seems like a lot of work, but I’m assured that it really rather simple to build a service like this – Rob knocked up Twadl, a URL shortening service in a weekend (not to belittle your achievements, Rob!).

What advantages would this have?

Well imagine that instead of using a TinyURL the Guardian used a URL like this:

links.guardian.co.uk/apr/12

or

links.guardian.co.uk/rickroll

This would then allow them to get around most of the downsides listed above: short URLs that they have control over, are able to track and are stamped with the Guardian’s brand. There’s one problem though that this doesn’t solve…

What about the problem of remembering these short URLs?

So using either of the two formats above (one being date & numerical based and the other being alias-based), they’re still not that memorable, so how do you get around this? How about creating a links page on the newspaper site which lists all the recent short-links that have been used and a brief, twitter-like description of what the link is? That way, not only do you know where to go when you forget a short link, but that page becomes like an editorial Digg or Reddit page which can demand a high volume of traffic in its own right. After all, the external links that are being dropped into the paper every day are a valuable commodity – people are always on the lookout for interesting thing to click on, and that’s exactly what that page offers.

Examples from the wild

Two examples from the UK press, one doing it well and one doing it badly:

The good – The Metro use short redirect URLs quite regularly to direct traffic; for example, check outwww.metro.co.uk/cats, which 301 redirects to a metro blog post.

CAPTCHAs’ Effect on Conversion Rates

Posted by admin on October 6th, 2009

Personally I hate SPAM with a passion and I’m sure many of you will agree that you hate it also.  Some time ago, I had a client ask me if there was a way for us to eliminate the SPAM that was generated from his web form.  I went to the usual places to see if I could find the answer and was a little let down with the solution that was presented, CAPTCHA.

I’m personally not a fan of CAPTCHA and have always wondered about the affect they have on conversion rates of web forms.  I decided to put together a case study to clear my head about the use of CAPTCHA and its affect on web form conversion rate.

The case study was done over 50 different websites that I either manage or have access to.  These websites range from less than 1 year old to over 5 years old.  All forms were a collection of common information such as name, address, city, email address and a comment area.

The study was done over the course of 6 months, half of the website started with CAPTCHA’s on and the other half started with no CAPTCHA’s.  After 3 months the CAPTCHA was switched to the other CAPTCHA setting.  I recorded the amount of successful, failed, and SPAM conversions for each of the 50 web forms.

A SPAM conversion was recorded when the submission had excessive links or was a solicitation for a service.  A failed conversion was recorded when a user/bot entered an incorrect CAPTCHA or never correctly entered the correct CAPTCHA after multiple tries.  A successful conversion was when the information given in the web form was the required information minus any spammy information.

On to the data!!!!

CAPTCHA-Off

  • 2,134 total conversions were entered while the CAPTCHA was off.
  • 91 total SPAM conversions while the CAPTCHA was off.
  • 0 total failed conversions while the CAPTCHA was off.

CAPTCHA-On

  • 2,156 total conversions were entered while the CAPTCHA was on.
  • 11 total SPAM conversions while the CAPTCHA was on.
  • 159 total failed conversions while the CAPTCHA was on.

From the data you can see that with CAPTCHA on, there was an 88% reduction in SPAM but there were 159 failed conversions.  Those failed conversions could be SPAM, but they could also be people who couldn’t figure out the CAPTCHA and finally just gave up.  With CAPTCHA’s on, SPAM and failed conversions accounted for 7.3% of all the conversions for the 3 month period.  With CAPTCHA’s off, SPAM conversions accounted for 4.1% of all the conversions for the 3 month period.  That possibly means when CAPTCHA’s are on, the company could lose out on 3.2% of all their conversions!

Given the fact that many clients count on conversions to make money, not receiving 3.2% of those conversions could put a dent in sales.  Personally, I would rather sort through a few SPAM conversions instead of losing out on possible income.

What have been your overall views on the use of CAPTCHA and its affect on web form conversion rates?  I’m interested to see what techniques everyone here uses to prevent or reduce the amount of SPAM on web forms.

Usability: Order of Buttons

Posted by admin on October 6th, 2009

Jakob Nielson has put an excellent article in his site www.useit.comabout the order/sequence of buttons. This article specifically discusses the order of OKCancel buttons. Should the OK button come before or after the Cancel button. At first glance, OK / Cancel seems to be the right choice however this can be debated upon too. Listing OK first supports the natural reading order in English and other languages that read left-to-right. Many other button sets have a natural progression (say, Yes/No or Previous/Next). You should always list these so that the reading order matches the logical order — in this case, OK/Cancel. Further, assuming users need OK much more frequently than Cancel, it’s better to place this option first so that keyboard-driven users who tab to the buttons can get to their preferred choice with one less keystroke. Listing OK last improves the flow, because the dialog box “ends” with its conclusion. Also, as with Previous/Next, you could argue that OK is the choice that moves the user forward, whereas Cancel moves the user back. Thus,OK should be in the same location as Next: on the right.

Deviate from the standard, and you’ll easily cost users several minutes — or possibly hours — as they overlook or misuse UI elements. The time people spend pondering inconsistencies typically sums to much more than the small savings you’ll hypothetically derive from a specialized design.

If you’re designing a Web-based application, the decision is harder, but you should probably go with the platform preferred by most of your users.

It’s often better to name a button to explain what it does than to use a generic label (like “OK”). An explicit label serves as “just-in-time help,” giving users more confidence in selecting the correct action.

Usability, an unknown ideal

Posted by admin on October 6th, 2009
Since the last 4-8 yrs, Usability has become an important aspect of consideration when it comes to delivering web applications or portals. Its no longer the era of delivering just bug-free, fully functional and clean website with an aesthetically pleasing look and feel. With the introduction of Usability, the overall perception of how a website should look, has changed. Why did all this happen?? Around ten years ago, the Web was exciting to people. Today it’s routine, its no more a rarity. It’s a tool. If it’s convenient, they will use it; if not, they won’t. With ten times as many sites and probably a hundred times as many pages on the Web, users are getting less tolerant of difficult sites, so every design flaw means lost business. All these factors gave birth to the concept of Usability. Usability has become more important than ever. So what exactly is Usability? Usability is a quality attribute relating to how easy something is to use. More specifically, it refers to how quickly people can learn to use something, how efficient they are while using it, how memorable it is, how error-prone it is, and how much users like using it. If people can’t or won’t use a feature, it might as well not exist.
The Web contained fewer than 10 million sites 10 to 12 yrs back. That was certainly enough to make usability an important issue: If sites were difficult to use, people already had plenty of other places to go. More important than the numbers, however, is the change in users’ attitudes toward the Web. It was exciting to be able to reach around the world and have information come to your desktop in an instantor, more often, 30 seconds. Of course, you couldn’t do that much on the Web, and whenever you found what you were looking for, you were grateful. Today the situation is quite the opposite. People’s expectations have expanded with the massive expansion of the Web. People just assume that the Web has what they want. They turn to search engines with all kinds of questions, and usually something comes up that has the answers. They assume that sites work. They assume that they will find whatever they are looking for and can buy almost anything online.
The Web is a tool. Consider the way that people think about that other onetime-dazzling invention, the telephone. They don’t wake up in the morning and think, “Today I will experiment with my telephonic apparatus and place a call to somebody so that I can assess the sound quality of the connection.” Their use of the telephone is driven by their real-world needs. The same is true for the Web, as far as average users are concerned. You, dear reader, are not the average user, as proven by the fact that you care enough about the Web to buy a book about it. (Just as the people who buy books about how telephones work are telephony engineers, and the way they think about phones is different from the way that most telephone users do.) One of the goals of Usability was to shake up the world of Web design and make it pay attention to human needs. It succeeded, but only in part. Most Web projects today pay lip service to user experience, and it’s rare to find Internet managers who don’t list usability as a top goal for their sites. Unfortunately, in practice sites continue to violate many well-documented usability guidelines and as a result do not reach even a fraction of their business potential.
It’s no longer enough to say that you want to design for your customers. If you give usability the priority it deserves on your site, you will be designing for them.

Jakob Neilsen can be said to be the father of Usability. Jakob’s book Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity (New Riders Publishing, 2000) appeared in print at the cusp of the first Internet bubble and was called a “landmark” because of its role in changing Internet professionals’ attitudes toward Web design. Before DWU, most companies simply wanted cool sites. In fact, the best-selling Web design book at the time, Creating Killer Websites, advocated splash screens and other design atrocities. After DWU was published, many Internet managers realized that killer sites killed business. They discovered that the best way to do business on the Web was to create sites that their customers could use. The Web is not television. People don’t go there to zone out. People go to the Web with a specific purpose in mind. They have their hands on their mouses, ready to interact and be engaged. Designing Web Usability was a manifesto. It strove to sell readers on the “practice of simplicity” over the cool design and complex user interfaces that dominated the Web at the time, and it did so partly by deconstructing many screen shots of miserable Web sites in the style of the day. In fact, when rereading DWU today, the biggest complaint most people have is that the screen shots look outdated. Fortunately, many of the design mistakes we warned against have now gone out of fashion. Unfortunately, new mistakes have arisen to take their place. This book is filled with new screen shots that show what design elements failed current users and caused much misery and lost business.

Success rates are up and user failures are not nearly as common as they used to be on the Web. The usability movement has had measurable results in terms of improved user experience.

In fact, good usability has two benefits: On the one hand, it supports your business goals on the Web and thus helps your company make more money. On the other hand, usability empowers humans and makes it easier and more pleasant to handle the technology that’s infusing every aspect of modern life. We don’t want to get all soft-hearted, but making life better and more enjoyable does seem to be a worthy goal. Watching people who feel oppressed by technology is not a happy sight, but it’s a common one in user testing.
By improving usability, we can enable people with little education to hold meaningful jobs, we can connect senior citizens with the community, we can give users with disabilities the same information and service as everybody else, and we can allow everyone to spend their time with computers more productively and reduce their feelings of frustration and powerlessness. The happiest thought of all is that these improvements in quality of life don’t come at the expense of your profits. On the contrary, usability benefits business and it benefits humanity.

Jakob’s book ‘Prioritizing Web Usability‘ is an excellent book for learning about Usability. You can also get hold of this book by Steve Krug ‘Dont Make Me Think‘. Both of these books were an eye-opener for me and have literally changed my perception of a web page should look. Happy reading…..

Recent Comments | Recent Posts


designed by: Website Builder | Coded by: Blog Directory | Provided by: Wedding photojournalism chicago
bottom