questionable_design

It’s all about context, yes. Some immensely complex UI’s are necessary in certain domains, for certain workflows. But sometimes you can just look at a UI and know that, for whoever its intended users are, it’s a horrible failure.

So it is with this Ferrari steering wheel. Via FastCompany and @JasonSpector, look upon the horror and of course watch the vid. Bonus points for the headline “Ferrari F10 Steering Wheel Looks Like a Robot Barfed on It.”

Ferrari steering wheel fail

Here’s the vid about it too. Enjoy.

{ 6 comments }

Yes, the world has another after-the-fact design modification to add to its motley collection of hacks, patches, fixes, taped-on signs, and Sharpie-improved user interfaces.

Found at the Kent State University bookstore, where I ducked in to buy an umbrella during a downpour. I was there to do some customer observations for a product line I’m working on, and had to walk between buildings in a solid rain storm.

Notice the attention to detail on the mod. The counter clerks must’ve really been tired of walking people through the transaction flow. They even highlighted “BLUE LIGHTS” with blue marker, just so people would get the message.

This is nine kinds of awesome.

{ 1 comment }

I know, I know, this is how “The Design of Everyday Things” starts. The difference is that I found this instance at my local bank. The whole “Wells Fargo experience” is chock full of questionable design actually; I’ve struggled with elements of their web site, physical branch locations and ATM’s.

But it’s always good to catch one of those classic design gotchas in the wild, as it were. So look upon it and know that as long as there are problems out there like this, there’s work for those of us who try to make the world a more user-friendly place.

And yes, every time I leave the bank I pull the damn handle. And that’s because physical affordances are more salient and engaging than labels and signs.

I asked the bank employees how many people pull instead of push, and they just sort of heaved a collective sigh. I took that to mean “a lot”.

I’ve gotten more UX mileage out of that bank than you’d believe…

{ 16 comments }

Here’s the thing about LingsCars.com: It works.

Yes, it’s ugly as sin, an affront to the design sensibilities of practically everyone.

And this picture doesn’t do it justice. Go to the site, you need to see the seizure-inducing blinky-blinky.

But it works. It really does.

Let’s unpack that a bit. What do I mean when I say it works?

It’s simple. The site fulfills the goals of the business, which I’m guessing are:

  1. To lease cars to customers.
  2. To create a memorable experience and make Ling’s Cars top-of-mind for UK people who want to lease an auto.

By those simple measures, the site is learnable, memorable, usable, and creates a unique brand experience to boot. (No, that is not a pun on the UK’s use of boot for trunk.)

Go ahead. Check it out for yourself. And give yourself these “typical” usability test goals, just to prove my point about the usability of LingsCars.com:

  1. Go find the link that takes you to Ling’s cheapest leasing deals.
  2. You want to ask Ling’s Cars a question. Can you chat online with someone at Ling’s cars? Find a way to do that.
  3. You want to lease a Volvo automobile, but aren’t sure which one you want. What does Ling offer?
  4. You’d like to see what the lease prices are for every one of Ling’s autos. Find a way to look at all the prices together in one place.

And here’s the kicker: I’ve established that it’s somewhat usable. Now, is it memorable? You bet it is. Admit it – the memory of the first time you saw lingscars.com is burned into your synapses. Psychologists call this “flashbulb memory” – memories that are so strong, you remember where you were, what you were doing, and a host of little details associated with the memory.

Granted, your flashbulb memory of Ling’s Cars is probably of the Kennedy assassination, Challenger explosion, or 9/11 variety. But still, I guarantee that you won’t soon forget about Ling’s Cars.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually experiencing prodromal migraine symptoms just having Ling’s site in my peripheral vision. I’m not defending the so-bad-it’s-good design in and of itself. What I’m saying is that even the worst design can serve its organization’s goals. It’s a high-risk strategy, yes. But does it work in Ling’s case? I think it does.

Update: A commenter below points out that the site doesn’t exactly fill you with warm fuzzies about the reputation of Ling’s Cars. That is, it doesn’t score points in the professionalism and trust categories.

I would argue that certain businesses need that more than others. If (like me) you grew up in the 70′s and 80′s in the NYC area, you probably remember those Crazy Eddie’s commercials. “Crazy Eddie’s! Our prices are so low, it’s insane!” And of course the pitchman jumped around like a lunatic. They didn’t come across as a staid and somber corporate entity. But they didn’t need to. They were differentiating on price. For electronics, that’s frequently the deciding factor.

Is it the same with car leasing in the UK? I have no idea. But I suspect that Ling is indeed trying to differentiate on price – notice the frequent references to “low prices” on the site. And do you need to build a staid and somber site to trumpet your price differentiation? Probably not. In fact, one could make the argument that the site actually *supports* the price differentiation claim thusly:

Ling’s Cars…our prices are so low, we don’t even bother spending a lot of money on our site…we just home-build it so we can keep our prices low.

Maybe that’s a stretch. Thoughts?

{ 13 comments }

Old-school readers of UsabilityBlog may remember my (ranty but well-reasoned) diatribe against EULA’s and how they’re presented in software user interfaces. (Also check out my follow-up posts here and here.)

This picture I took the other day  reminded me how easy it is to corrupt and degrade the user experience with obtuse and unfriendly language.

In this case, I was at the bank setting up an account. The rep handed me the account agreement, and then told me that the bank didn’t require me to sign the actual forms anymore; they’d recently begun collecting signatures electronically. I have to admit that bothered me a bit, because my “electronic” signature looks nothing like my pen and ink signature.

Putting that aside, the experience of providing my signature on the device was not good.

The face of the device I needed to “write” on was raised about 4-5 inches, and there was no way to comfortably position my hand while signing. The bezel was not flush with the screen, which caused the edge of my hand to bend in an unnatural way,  further deforming my signature.

And then there was the lawyerly language. We’ve all had the intimidating and negative experience of viewing a legal document in paper form. I don’t think a single person will dispute the fact that legalese is intimidating and obtuse. Not surprisingly, that experience is intensified when rendered digitally. And then there’s the ridiculous aspect of referring to something “herein”, which applies to a document, but certainly not to anything “in” the UI of the device I was interacting with.

And no, the full agreement was not presented onscreen for me to page through. The rep simply handed me the written agreement, then slid this device across the desk for me to “sign.”

The various user experience disciplines – usability, information architecture, interaction design, etc. – have been laboring for the 20-odd years of the tech boom to create great user experiences. Let’s not let the lawyers screw it up.

{ 1 comment }

So Bad It’s Good

by Paul Sherman on January 15, 2010 · 8 comments

in Design

Check it out now. Today. Go on, you know you want to. And here’s the scary thing: IT’S STILL BEING UPDATED REGULARLY. How scary/awesome is that?

Here’s the URL: http://www.Havenworks.com.

I should also post Ling’s Cars. I’ll get around to that this week. In the meantime, enjoy HavenWorks, and try not to have a seizure. (And if you do, it’s not my fault.)

{ 8 comments }

First Name Form Fail

by Paul Sherman on December 7, 2009 · 5 comments

in Web

So I was looking for a good price on a little Honda I’m interested in. I stumbled across a site that pings all the dealers in my vicinity for their best price.

One thing I do when I’m not sure of how trustworthy a site is…is use my initials instead of my first name. And usually I accompany it with “plus” addressing, which is simply a way to identify if an organization is selling your email address to third parties. You put “pjsherman+[something else]@gmail.com”, and Gmail will still deliver it to your base address. If you start receiving spam at that address, then you know that the company sold your address. And, you can easily block it.

So I fill out the form, and enter “PJ” – short for Paul Joseph – into the first name field.

And the form barfs. Plus, it gets all scoldy with its CAPITALIZATION of CONTACT and VALID. In my head it sounds like a smarmy schoolteacher.

Then I got curious and entered in some variations to see if the form would accept certain two-letter first names.

Nope.

So the upshot is…if you’re Bo or Al or Ty or Jo, this company isn’t interested in your business.

{ 5 comments }

Illustrated in this simple dialog are three common errors that software producers make:

  1. Assuming that users know what the heck their acronyms mean,
  2. Not helping users understand the implications of selecting/not selecting an option, and
  3. Using a single selection control to perform what appears to be a combination of two actions (e.g., “run WinSAT” and “enable Windows Aero desktop theme.”)

Here’s the context: I was finishing up a Windows 7 install, and found an updated driver for my laptop’s video card. When I started the install, I was presented with this dialog.

Honestly, I have no idea what “WinSAT” is, what it does, or why anyone would (or would not) want to run it.

And the second half of the sentence is even more perplexing… is it presenting me with an independent action, or is it referring to a consequence or outcome of “running WinSAT”?

Hey Intel, I love your SSD drives and I’ve been happy with your hardware for years…but you need a bit of work on your software UI’s.

And don’t even get me started on Intel’s software app for handling multiple monitors…it’s the epitome of frustrating software.

{ 6 comments }

Really? I need permission from EVERYONE?

Well OK, but I think that’s going to take awhile…can you give me some time to get everyone’s permission? Or do you need to know right now?

Fine, be that way.

{ 6 comments }

Found at the Lowe’s off of Anderson Lane in North Austin.

I asked the cashier how often she has to help customers who pay with a debit or credit card, and she replied that before the design modification she had to help customers more than 75% of the time.

After one of the cashiers made these after-the-fact design mods, cashiers rarely have to assist customers.

{ 6 comments }