In user experience we trustI do believe mobile sites will win over mobile apps in the long term. But when that will happen is less certain. Today, if you are serious about creating the best possible mobile user experience, my advice is to develop apps.
Źródło: Mobile Sites vs. Apps: The Coming Strategy Shift, Jakob Nielsen, Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox
Przeglądając różne blogi branżowe natrafiam od kilku miesięcy na temat webcam eye trackingu. Koncepcja ta opierająca się na wykorzystaniu zwykłych, istniejących w laptopach kamerek (webcam) do badań eyetrackingowych, na początku 2012 roku brzmi lekko absurdalnie. Ale być może za kilka lat, wraz z rozwojem technologii i spadkiem cen, może się rozwinie?
Aga Bojko, autorka mającej się ukazać w tym roku nakładem wydawnictwa Rosenfeld Media książki Eye Tracking the User Experience: A practical guide , popełniła bardzo interesujący wpis The Truth About Webcam Eye Tracking, w którym opisuje jak obecnie wygląda przeprowadzenie takiego badania i jakie są ich aktualne ograniczenia. Najważniejsze wnioski to:
- What decreases the accuracy of webcam eye tracking even further is when participants move their heads, and the longer the session, the more likely this will happen. Therefore, webcam eye tracking sessions have to be very short – typically less than 5 minutes, but ideally less than a minute. Studies conducted with real eye trackers, on the other hand, can last a lot longer with little impact on accuracy.
- Currently, webcam eye tracking can handle only single static pages. All four studies I have participated in and a few I read about were one-page studies. Without allowing participants to click on anything and go to another page, the applicability of webcam eye tracking is limited. This constraint also lowers the external validity of the studies.
- The rate at which the gaze location is sampled is much lower for webcams than real eye trackers. The typical frame rate of a remote (i.e., non-wearable) eye tracker is between 60 and 500 Hz (i.e., images per second). The webcam frame rate is somewhere between 5 and 30 Hz. The low frame rate makes analyzing fixations and saccades impossible. The analysis is limited to looking at rough gaze points.
- Due to imperfect lighting conditions, poor webcams, on-screen distractions, participants’ head movement, and overall lower tracking robustness, out of every 10 people who participate in a study, only 3 – 7 will provide sufficiently useful data. While this may not be a problem in and of itself because of very low oversampling costs, what makes me uncomfortable is not knowing how the determination to exclude data from the analysis is made. Data cleansing is important in any study but it is absolutely critical in webcam eye tracking. Exclusion criteria should be made explicit for webcam eye tracking to gain trust among researchers.
Źródło: The Truth About Webcam Eye Tracking, Aga Bojko, Rosenfeld Media Eye Tracking blog
11. Consistent design and navigation needn’t mean one-size-fits-all: Users should always know they’re on one of your websites, even if they all look very different. Most importantly of all, they know they won’t ever get lost.
12. Accessibility is not an optional extra: Sites designed that way from the ground up work better for all users
Źródło, The BBC’s Fifteen Web Principles, Tom Loosemore, Tomski.com – Tom Loosemore’s Blog
Companies are missing the chance to set the right expectations at the onset of the customer relationship. Industry-specific switching behavior remains considerable, especially in emerging markets. In aggregate, two in three consumers switched companies in the past year in at least one of the industries covered by the survey due to poor customer service.
Źródło: Accenture 2011 Global Consumer Research Study (PDF), Accenture
Czego życzyłbym samemu sobie jako projektant(owi) i całej branży w nowym roku? (…)
Śmierci eksperckiego „audytu usability”
Bo to jakiś relikt z początków branży około 2005 roku Nie chodzi mi tutaj o samą metodę, ale o sens takich projektów. Powiedzmy sobie szczerze: klient tak naprawdę nie potrzebuje audytu, ale przeprojektowania swojej aplikacji. Dlaczego więc nie zaangażować specjalisty od razu do projektowania zamiast audytu? Po co komu kilkusetstronicowy dokument z opisem błędów, jeśli można je od razu poprawić? I tak będzie do tego później potrzebny projektant. A dla projektanta taki dokument jest generalnie mało przydatny, bo sam dostrzeże opisane problemy.
Źródło: Życzenia na 2012 – user experience design: projektowanie interakcji i użyteczność, Maciej Lipiec
When you use a panel provided by remote usability testing service, you end up gathering data from a bunch of freelancers – professional participants who know the kind of things they’re expected to say. At best, they’ll make a real effort to take the tasks seriously and you feedback. At worst, they’re just actors, going through the motions to get paid.
Real user research involves recruiting participants who honestly care about the problem your service is trying to solve. They’ll engage with the information, weigh up their options in difficult decisions, and carefully consider implications. Most importantly, they’ll draw upon their life experiences to weigh up the benefits of your service against their current practices and other competitors.
Źródło: Why I never use panels provided by remote usability testing services, Harry Brignull, 90 percent of everything
What types of information are being shared?
The majority of respondents reported sharing several different types of information through Facebook (see Figure 2). Most commonly, respondents shared videos (70%), photos (67%), fun/humor (66%), music (60%), hobbies (57%), news articles (57%), or general information (57%). Of those respondents, fewer (34% – 47%) reported sharing school/research information, local information, or sports. Less than a third of respondents reported sharing products, books, or recipes.Source: http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/132/sharing.asp
Sharing Settings
Respondents were asked about their default sharing settings and how often they customized posts when sharing links. The majority of respondents reported their default sharing settings for posting updates was set to “Friends Only” (58%). Relatively few respondents used customized settings as their default group (8%). When respondents were asked how often they do customize sharing, the majority stated they do not customize, but instead use their default sharing settings (56%). Approximately 25% of respondents customized some posts, while more frequent customization, half of their postings or greater, occurred less often (> 20%).
Source: http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/132/sharing.asp
Źródło: Facebook Sharing and Caring, Justin W. Owens, Usabilty News, December 2011, Vol. 13 Issue 2, USA
