So yesterday I get an e-mail in my box with the cryptical headline:
usability guidlines for blogs — please help us (your readers) out
The text of the e-mail consists of a repeat of the headline followed by a link:
From this I would gather that the reader who sent it has a beef to gripe with my blog which he expects to be remedied if I read and follow the usability guidelines to be found at the link.
So I took a look at ’em.
They’re some thoughts by Jakob Nielsen, a Dane who has made a name for himself as a web usability consultant.
Now, I’m all for usability. It’s one of my favorite things. In fact, I regularly lament the lack of usability I encounter on the web, in software, and in life. Truth be told, if things aren’t usable then I’m liable to up and not use them! So Jakob Nielsen and I should be natural allies.
Unfortunately, not all values in life can be subsumed under the rubric of usability, and you’ll get a sense why if you visit the link and take a look at Nielsen’s site. It may be usable from a coding perspective, but it’s grating on the eye. (Screen widths being what they are today, having a right- or left- or both-hand margin available is a GOOD thing rather than let the text flow all the way across the page. San serif fonts also can’t be used for extended lengths of text; they’re best for headlines but will also grate the eye if they run on for too long.)
So despite what natural allies Jakob Neilsen and I should be, I’m starting to wonder how much of an expert he really is from the way HIS site is designed.
Then I start reading the content, and notice that he repeatedly refers to "weblogs" without even noting the existence of the more common term, "blog." He eventually surrenders to inevitability and starts using "blog," but he does so without explanation, which is odd since he feels the need to inform his readers–in his very first sentence–that "Weblogs are a form of website." He also states:
[W]eblogs are part of an ecosystem (sometimes annoyingly referred to as the Blogosphere).
Hoo-kay.
Jakob Nielsen’s credibility as someone to tell me about blog design is rapidly diminishing at this point. Even if one is initially put off by a word–like "blogosphere" or "apologetics" or what have you–if you really become an expert on it then you get so used to hearing the term that you lose your initial negative reaction and surrender to the fact that it is, in the end, the standard term accepted in the community.
In other words, you get over it.
The column was released yesterday, Monday, October 17, 2005, and at this point for an alleged expert in web design to be publicly complaining about the annoyingness factor of the word "blogosphere" tells me that he either isn’t that familiar with blogs–or "weblogs," as he calls them–or he is an unusually persnickety individual who is overly attached to his own ideas. Y’know: The kind of person who joins propane-accessory sales comedy troupe and insists on continuing to call it "The Propane Maniacs" when the rest of the group has decided that "The Propaniacs" is the more felicitous name.
Nevertheless, let’s see how JimmyAkin.Org stacks up compared to his top 10 rules of "Weblog Usability." What follows in boldface are Nielsen’s critiques of the design of many "weblogs," followed by analysis of how JA.O fares.
- No Author Biograpies. Here we have a mixed score. If you click the "About" link in the left-hand margin, it takes you basically nowhere. This link came with the blog and I haven’t been able to get rid of it. But if you click my name under "JA.O Bloggers," you get a proper author biography of me. Clicking the other bloggers’ names also leads to info about them.
- No Author Photo. Got one of me. Could get a little crowded if group blogs had them for everyone–and many members of a group blog might not WANT their photos online. For that matter, not all solo-bloggers want their photos online, so I don’t see this as an essential element of good blog design.
- Nondescript Posting Titles. When it comes to magazine article and book titles, I’m a BIG opponent of obscurity. Clarity in such things is important to me. I’m less strict about this in blog post titles since (a) they don’t have to get someone to spend money the way a book title does and (b) nobody looks up blog posts in an index where the titles could confuse them. You just look at the next line and it should become obvious what the post is about. As a result, there’s a mix of clear and opaque post titles that I come up with. The opaque ones, though, tend to set an editorial tone ("Now here’s some good news. . . . ") or play on something ("Where Mr. Monk Shops"). I think they add texture to the blog, just like "Propaniacs" is less instantly intelligible but more ultimately satisfying than "Propane Maniacs."
- Links Don’t Say Where They Go. Here Neilsen complains about people including links like "some people think" and "More here and here." I don’t mind the latter so much since you’ve already been set up for what the topic is that you’ll find on the other end of the link (which is what’s important, not where on the Net it’s housed). The first, though, can be a real annoyance, especially if the identity of the person in question isn’t obvious from doing a mouseover. I don’t think this happens much here on the blog. I may say "GET THE STORY," but only toward the bottom of a post where I have been introducing the reader to the topic of what the link points to.
- Classic Hits Are Buried. Not a problem. That’s why I have the Permaposts section (though I need to update those.)
- The Calendar Is The Only Navigation. Bwaaa-haa-haa-haah! On THIS blog? You gotta be kidding me. I’ve got naviations methods all over the place. There needs to be a navigation method to navigate the navigation methods.
- Irregular Publishing Frequency. Double bwaaa-haa-haa-haah! With an average of five or six posts a day, not on your life!
- Mixing Topics. Okay. I admit it. I’m a topic mixer. I don’t think this is a problem, though. In fact, I suspect far FEWER people would read the blog if I just made it Catholic apologetics all day every day. One of the things I get the most compliments on is the diverse topic mix, so I think the readership of the blog appreciates this, too. (Though perhaps some don’t.) So I disagree with the applicability of this rule–at least in all cases. There are at least some cases in which it doesn’t apply.
- Forgetting That You Write For Your Future Boss. While I hope to stay with my current employer indefinitely, I am quite aware of the potential issues here and strive to stay well clear of them.
- Having A Domain Name Owned By A Weblog Service. Nope. Got my own, thanks.
So it seems that I’m in at least substantial compliance with all of Nielsen’s rules (not that they all have to do with the usability of the blog) EXCEPT for #8 and, perhaps, #3.
Which makes me wonder what kind of beef with my blog is had by the reader who e-mailed. Unless he’s got a strong thing for clear post titles or wants me to do apologetics all the time (in which case, forget it; the blog would be deadly dull), I’m not sure what he’s after.
Just one of the mysteries of life, I guess.
Quote: “San serif fonts also can’t be used for extended lengths of text; they’re best for headlines but will also grate the eye if they run on for too long.”
This is the only thing here I disagree with. Perhaps I am in the minority, but to me sans-serif fonts are much easier on the eyes for reading text on a computer screen. I think it has to do with the fact that fonts with serifs don’t look as sharp on a computer screen due to pixelation issues. (However, for printed text, I prefer fonts with serifs rather than sans-serif.)
I don’t find Dr.Neilson’s site very accessable either and I have enough migraines as it is, when confronted with wide type like that I have to view it from a considerable distance away form the computer screen.
Now, please don’t take this the wrong way because you know I like your blog…but, I find your photo in the top left corner fairly disconcerting, always have. It’s not that you aren’t a nice looking chappy or anything, it’s just that my vision is automatically drawn to your image when I view your blog, and I’d prefer it to be lower down the page so that I can focus on the post’s. Nothing personal. I still enjoy my visit’s 🙂
God Bless.
I think the blog is in pretty good shape.
Are you open to suggestions, though? Because I think the style of Title, Summary, and then “Click to read more” would be much tidier, and enable people to more easily scroll through what doesn’t immediately interest them. Then tell Typepad to keep more stories on the front page, before they scroll off into the archives. With so many posts per day, maybe you want to keep some of the stories on the front page a little longer? (Would be nice).
For an example of the style (Title-Summary-Click to read more) I mean, take a look at Slashdot.org. (Only difference is that their stories expire from the front page in one day, but at the bottom they have a link to Yesterday’s News).
Also, something happened to the Preview views lately–for some reason I get black text on a green background on my previews which is hard to read because of low contrast. That might be a CSS problem in the software but I’d ask Typepad to look into that.
Other than that, I think it’s set up great. I’d like a darker green background that matches the logo better, but that’s just my taste.
For the About link–I’m not familiar with Typepad, but it looks like you might be able to simply edit the “about.html” page in your main website directory. If you were looking for a way for Typepad to insert things in there, maybe it doesn’t have that feature yet, and you’re meant to do it yourself with an HTML editor. Hope that helps!
The first commenter has a point. As with most things, you can find studies coming to opposite conclusions, but sans-serif is said to be better on computer screens, especially relatively low-res ones.
Just to weigh in — I was an Art Major once for whatever that’s worth — I find Neilson’s site very jarring — stark white background creating much too much contrast with the large black type. By comparison your site is easy on the eyes (apart from the occasional images of such things as exploded snakes and scorpions-on-a-stick) — it has a good balance of color and type is very readable, and everything also seems to be pretty well-organized and accessible. I especially like the mix of content – the apologetics drew me to your site, but the sci-fi, humor, and Mr. Monk (my favorite) have kept me coming back.
The only thing that I might change if I had any say-so — which I don’t — is that I have noticed that some blogs fit more entries onto the main page by putting less of the main entry there and linking to another page, which is good, as long as enough of the main entry is left on the front page to know whether you want to read more.
HERE’S THE THING though — it is an exceptionally good blog – that’s why you have so many readers and so many people weighing in with their opinions 🙂
Jimmy, if you enter the control panel and edit your design and then choose ‘change content selections’ and uncheck ‘about page link’ and then save your settings.
Perhaps I am in the minority, but to me sans-serif fonts are much easier on the eyes for reading text on a computer screen.
I have to agree with Jimmy on this one. Fonts with a serif are much easier to read in long portions of text, and less likely to strain the eyes.
Fonts without a serif are great… in headlines and shorter text.
I’d like a darker green background that matches the logo better, but that’s just my taste.
That sounds nice.
Bingo. As one who regularly reads and appreciates Nielsen, I have to say that you’ve really pegged him here. And it’s true that his site looks like crap. He has a lot of useful things to say about usability, but he takes usability snobbery to such an extreme that he paints “design” as the enemy, as if the uglier your site is, the more you prize usability over design and therefore the better your site is.
When I visited the site, my immediate first thought was “ugly.” I would also bet that he’s the sort of guy who would search for something on Google, open 40 new tabs for the first forty results without reading them, and then get mad at Google for giving him results that weren’t what he wanted.
And in contrast to Nobody Special, I find having to click “Read More” the MOST annoying thing in the blogosphere. 😉 This is especially annoying when reading blogs via RSS, clicking on the summary you get there, and then being sent to another summary page where yet another click is needed to read the full article (e.g. Domenico Bettinelli’s blog). Of course there are exceptions for really long posts, but for everyday things, I would much rather see the full post.
Jimmy said:
“(b) nobody looks up blog posts in an index where the titles could confuse them. You just look at the next line and it should become obvious what the post is about.”
Except people who use RSS feed readers. For people like me who look at dozens of blogs everyday, scanning is an absolute necessity. This is the same reason why links should describe where they are going.
“Seventy-nine percent of Web users scan pages; they do not read word-by-word.” (Sun Microsystems)
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/wftw3.html
Scannability = readability in my book.
It’s a lot like email. Most people prefer to know what an email is about from the subject line. That’s why emails with a subject line of “hi” are so annoying to so many people.
Nielsen may have problems, but #3 is right on.
Having said that, I think your headlines are pretty good. I’ve seen *far* worse.