Concentrating Design Quality Labels
Yesterday, 10 useful conclusions and usability principles appeared on Habré - translation of an article from the Smashing Magazine website.
Smashing Magazine is famous for its gigantic reviews from the series “Another 250 plugins for WordPress that we found this week.” Such texts are compiled according to the principle “to search in Google beautiful pictures and come up with signatures for them”. For serious articles, this method is not suitable.
Yesterday’s article is an excellent collection of controversial statements (often given without evidence or references to sources), a misrepresentation of research results, to which references are given and to give obvious things for the discoveries.
')
Under the cut there will be a detailed analysis of each item.
Labels for form fields should be placed above the form fields.
We follow the link and look at which research the authors refer to. As one would expect, this research is completely different about the conclusions, about how best to place the signatures, it does not exist. The authors of the study, using the device for recording eye movements (which at that time were still appearing, the article of 2006), tested various versions of the forms. The purpose of the study was to verify the findings of Luke Wroblewski from the article Web Application Form Design ( translation ). They confirmed the conclusions - it is necessary to place signatures depending on the task.
The rest of the conclusions from this point - about where it is more convenient for users to look for signatures or that it will be difficult for them to find a signature to the field if it is on the left - are simply authors' speculations contrary to the research to which they refer.
Users concentrate on their faces.
In the pictures, which are cited as evidence, it is clear that users concentrate on everything that stands out relative to the background. By the way, the same picture is observed in the event that there are no faces on the screen.
Design quality is an indication of trust
Both the quality of design and the level of trust are fairly abstract and hard to measure. True from the text it becomes clear that by “trust” the authors understand the “first impression”. The first impression really depends on the design, but all that has nothing to do with usability.
Most users don't scroll
You should not be surprised that the article referenced by the authors says nothing about how many percent of users scroll through pages and how many do not (this is generally a page with a table of contents of the book). Although in fact, Nielsen some time ago strongly rested on the fact that users do not use scrolling (for example, article 10 of the main mistakes in web design 3 years later ( translation ) - 1999, very relevant information).
But all this is not important, as the authors further refer to another abstract study, which suggests that users still scroll the pages.
The best color for links is blue.
The obvious fact is a complex explanation, with Google citing as an example and mentioning abstract research.
The ideal search field should be 27 characters wide.
Again, the same thing - the numbers taken from the ceiling, the mention of some research, Google as an example and an obvious conclusion (not about 27 characters, but about the fact that it is better to see the request in its entirety than not to see).
Free space improves understanding
Studies without references are becoming steeper - now abstract values are being measured and conclusions from the series “increases understanding by 20%” (just like in a toothpaste advertisement).
Effective user testing should not be extensive.
The authors again did not put a link to the study, but we could not be caught - this is an article. Five users are all that is needed for the test ( translation ).
But here again, the trouble with the interpretation of the results of the research is that Nielsen speaks directly about three tests of 5 users each and correcting the errors found between the tests. The authors omit this detail and simply talk about 15 testers.
Product info pages help you stand out
Again, studies without references, figures from the ceiling and obvious conclusions that have nothing to do with research or with figures.
Most users don't see ads.
The only sensible item. The correct conclusions and reference to the study that confirms these conclusions.
Conclusion
No need to read all garbage.
There is a blog by Luke Vroblevsky , magazines UIE , UXmatters , A List Apart .
Smashing Magazine is famous for its gigantic reviews from the series “Another 250 plugins for WordPress that we found this week.” Such texts are compiled according to the principle “to search in Google beautiful pictures and come up with signatures for them”. For serious articles, this method is not suitable.
Yesterday’s article is an excellent collection of controversial statements (often given without evidence or references to sources), a misrepresentation of research results, to which references are given and to give obvious things for the discoveries.
')
Under the cut there will be a detailed analysis of each item.
Labels for form fields should be placed above the form fields.
We follow the link and look at which research the authors refer to. As one would expect, this research is completely different about the conclusions, about how best to place the signatures, it does not exist. The authors of the study, using the device for recording eye movements (which at that time were still appearing, the article of 2006), tested various versions of the forms. The purpose of the study was to verify the findings of Luke Wroblewski from the article Web Application Form Design ( translation ). They confirmed the conclusions - it is necessary to place signatures depending on the task.
The rest of the conclusions from this point - about where it is more convenient for users to look for signatures or that it will be difficult for them to find a signature to the field if it is on the left - are simply authors' speculations contrary to the research to which they refer.
Users concentrate on their faces.
In the pictures, which are cited as evidence, it is clear that users concentrate on everything that stands out relative to the background. By the way, the same picture is observed in the event that there are no faces on the screen.
Design quality is an indication of trust
Both the quality of design and the level of trust are fairly abstract and hard to measure. True from the text it becomes clear that by “trust” the authors understand the “first impression”. The first impression really depends on the design, but all that has nothing to do with usability.
Most users don't scroll
You should not be surprised that the article referenced by the authors says nothing about how many percent of users scroll through pages and how many do not (this is generally a page with a table of contents of the book). Although in fact, Nielsen some time ago strongly rested on the fact that users do not use scrolling (for example, article 10 of the main mistakes in web design 3 years later ( translation ) - 1999, very relevant information).
But all this is not important, as the authors further refer to another abstract study, which suggests that users still scroll the pages.
The best color for links is blue.
The obvious fact is a complex explanation, with Google citing as an example and mentioning abstract research.
The ideal search field should be 27 characters wide.
Again, the same thing - the numbers taken from the ceiling, the mention of some research, Google as an example and an obvious conclusion (not about 27 characters, but about the fact that it is better to see the request in its entirety than not to see).
Free space improves understanding
Studies without references are becoming steeper - now abstract values are being measured and conclusions from the series “increases understanding by 20%” (just like in a toothpaste advertisement).
Effective user testing should not be extensive.
The authors again did not put a link to the study, but we could not be caught - this is an article. Five users are all that is needed for the test ( translation ).
But here again, the trouble with the interpretation of the results of the research is that Nielsen speaks directly about three tests of 5 users each and correcting the errors found between the tests. The authors omit this detail and simply talk about 15 testers.
Product info pages help you stand out
Again, studies without references, figures from the ceiling and obvious conclusions that have nothing to do with research or with figures.
Most users don't see ads.
The only sensible item. The correct conclusions and reference to the study that confirms these conclusions.
Conclusion
No need to read all garbage.
There is a blog by Luke Vroblevsky , magazines UIE , UXmatters , A List Apart .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/70943/
All Articles