Jason Unger

Surprise: Your Users Don't Have Time For You

Posted by junger - 08/27/08 at 09:08:13 pm

Your readers have better things to do than read what you have to say.

Don't believe me? Try these facts on for size:

• 79% of your readers scan text; they don't read it
• Reading on a screen takes 25% more time than on paper
• Intro texts are skipped by 2/3 of users

That's all according to Jakob Nielsen's research, as conveyed during Usability Week 2008 in New York.

Why don't they have time for you? They don't think you're useless, but they care more about themselves. Who can blame them?

Your readers come to you to get a specific piece of information, and then they move on.

So to keep them around, you should bury what they're looking for, right? Wrong.

Give them what they want — right away.

3 Tips for Fast and Easy Comprehension

To make you content easier to digest, use these three methods:

• Lead with the conclusion.
• Shorten your sentences. Use one thought per sentence.
• Visually separate key points with lists or bold.

Old media writers are horrible at this. They bury the lead somewhere in the third or fourth paragraph. Each paragraph is more than 3 sentences long. And the conclusion is at the end.

Don't worry about "giving away" the ending before the reader has done any work. That's not how they see it. Remember: you are not your users.

If you consistently deliver the information that your readers want and how they want it, they'll be back.

Make them happy. Give them what they want as quickly as possible. Or they'll choose someone else to give their time to.

Should Google Pay Me to Be Listed?

Posted by junger - 05/06/08 at 12:05:48 pm

In Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox this week, he proposes an interesting next step for Microsoft, now that their bid for Yahoo! is over (emphasis is mine).

Now that Steve Ballmer has earned his bonus for the year by walking from overpaying for Yahoo, he needs to do something else with his $50B. One idea I would like him to try is to refund some of the outrageous sums harvested by search engines.

a) Give back to the websites that create the content that search engines currently scrape for free: pay sites for only being indexed in one search engine and refuse the other engines. In particular, allow access to deep link archives of value-added content for users entering from your search engine. Value proportion to users: When you search on engine X, you find stuff that's otherwise not available.

So Microsoft, Google or Yahoo should pay me to list my information? Interesting idea, but it's way too late for that.

In a "normal" capitalistic agreement, Nielsen is right — they should be paying me. I put out my information, they use it in their product, and they make money off of selling ads near my listing.

But, given where we are in our expectations with the Internet, this will never happen. Users expect to find the best information when they do an online search — not a company-filtered answer to their query.

What good is a resource if it has no good resources? Obviously, it's no good at all.

This is a similar argument for net neutrality. If your access provider can greatly affect where you get your information, your viewpoint is going to be skewed.

I highly doubt Nielsen's suggestion will happen, and if it does, the types of sites entering into an agreement will be low-profile. Would CNN really NOT want to be indexed by Google News? Would Engadget ONLY want to be indexed by AOL (which owns it)? It would be pretty stupid.

Would you accept money from a search engine for an exclusive listing?

You Are Not Your Users

Posted by junger - 04/28/08 at 04:04:12 pm

If there's one big thing I took away from Usability Week, it's that you are not your users.

It's a mantra every Web publisher should repeat constantly — in fact, you might want to even write it on a Post-It note and leave it in plain sight.

I run into this problem a lot with people who come from the print media world. The old school of thought is that you put out your product, take a survey or two of your audience, and make a change when necessary. But for the most part, your product is your product — you get to define it as you want.

When it comes to Web publishing (especially in the B2B world), your definitions are not always the same as your users. From Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox:

A simple example: Many sites use segmentation, in which users must click through to the appropriate site segment. Unfortunately, these segments often don't match the way customers think of themselves, and thus require them to peek through multiple site areas to find the right one. Even a simple segmentation such as company size isn't obvious. What counts as small? Better sites will annotate their choices with a definition (stating, for example, that their small business segment targets companies with less than 100 employees).

Your users come to you for a specific piece of information — the sooner you give it to them (and the easier it is for them to find it), the more likely they will come back to you.

Real estate sites are horrible at this. We've been looking for a bit now, and are generally annoyed at the lack of information (pictures, etc.) given on realtors' Web sites.

From their viewpoint, they want you to give them a call to find out more. But as a user, you want to gather as much information as possible before making that call. It's frustrasting when you can't.

The next time you think about re-organizing your site or restricting the amount of information you present, remember: you are not your users.

In New York For Usability Week 2008

Posted by junger - 04/10/08 at 07:04:55 am

I'm gonna make it there. Well, actually I'm already here. In New York, that is.

I'm spending Thursday at the Writing for the Web seminar of Usability Week 2008.

Put on by the Nielsen Norman Group — yes, as in Jakob Nielsen, the guy who provides a ton of super-informative content in his Alertbox postings — Usability Week has four stops throughout the world. Well, it's silly for me to talk about it — find out more about it here.

While I can't credit all of my Web knowledge to the stuff Nielsen teaches, I've always found a way to improve my delivery with his research.

I'm hoping to get a little more "formal" education on content presentation and publishing, considering pretty much everything I know I've garnered through experience doing it … not formally learning about it.

Even though I only graduated from college 3+ years ago, it's not like there was a Web journalism path. The only Web publishing class I ever took consisted of people learning Microsoft FrontPage.

Yeah, exactly. The name of that program just shows how little Microsoft (and many still today) understand about how online publishing.

PS. To my friends in New York who I may not have told I was coming in to the city, I apologize — but I'm only here for the day and driving back home when I'm done tonight.