I see it as the base that keeps me, as a designer, grounded to what really matters. I value usability above almost everything because it allows your users to get from point A to B in the most effective way possible.
At the end of the day thats all that really matters, especially when 90% of internet users couldn't tell a bad design (graphically) from a good design.
One of the best ways I found to approach this is to design with HTML in mind at every step. Photoshop really makes you lose focus and end up perfecting the layout and not the presentation of the content.
Yeah, people confuse "pretty" with "good design". Sure, sometimes pretty things are designed well; but they are not different words for the same thing. Personally, I think the best design is <h1>My site</h1> <h2>Foo</h2> <ul><li>Foo 1</li>... anything else is pretty, not useful. Note that this is how I've designed http://jrock.us. It's very easy to find content, and it looks the same in any browser. And, it took me all of 30 seconds to implement, sparing my time for sleeping or watching TV :)
And in all honesty, if I stumbled on your site in the middle of the night, I'd immediately hit the back button.
I would have no idea it's a personal site, or even what the point is. The biggest words I see are 'jrock.us' which has no meaning in the English language.
You have 3 seconds to make an impression and sincerely, I think you fail with this minimalist design. Put up a photo of yourself and the words, "Perl makes me horny." and suddenly, I get it. Well, sorta. :)
But I don't need to make an impression. You are there because you want something I have, that I am giving away for free. So I get to take the easy way out when it comes to design.
If you are randomly viewing my website... well... you need a hobby ;)
Content is king, but king also need to wear some pretty clothes. Unless you're already a celebrity in the real world, your site has no chance to stand out from the crowd.
I have always liked his stuff, and I read and liked Designing Web Usability, but the enterprise-ish pricing on the real meat of his research annoys me immensely.
E.g.
"Usability of Intranet Portals
A Report from the Trenches: Experiences From Real-Life Portal Projects
3rd Edition
343 pages PDF format
$348 for a single report,
$698 for the report and a site license to make copies within your organization and place on your intranet. (No shipping/handling fees will be added: it's a download.)"
The parenthetical statement is hilarious. Site Licenses for books are hilarious.
I know folks in the business of selling educational material to corporate customers and it's a huge business. If you have a corporate credit card and have to spend so much for education each year that kind of money is a no brainer.
if you trust the relevance of his research its far, far cheaper to just purchase the report than hire someone to do the same research yourself. I'd suspect most developers with niche products have niche usability needs that make it lesson relevant. If you're building a giant web portal, it seems relatively inexpensive for access to decent comparative stats.
its far, far cheaper to just purchase the report than hire someone to do the same research yourself
Amen to that. You think $350 is expensive? That's like three hours of consultant time. For someone with Nielsen's resume, more like 1-2 hours.
But, hey -- if you think it'll improve the situation, I might be willing to support your effort to give Nielsen a government grant that pays for his salary and his lab and lets him release all of his research for free.
And PCs used to cost $3000. Now they cost $500 (other than Macs). Operating systems used to require consultants and were priced for enterprises, until Windows came along and completely changed the market.
There's lot of instances where a dramatic cut in price opened a new market for products, and it sure seems like this is the case here.
I also find the whole "site licensing" of PDFs (which obviously means DRM) kind of obnoxious.
Finally I find that the useit.com approach of putting up short parts of reports, followed by a link to the paid report, to be borderline sleazy.
Perhaps I'm influenced by the "free" culture that is so pervasive these days.
Many of the people who critique Nielsen don't seem to appreciate that he uses empirical measurement (rather than aesthetic judgement or opinion) to determine what is "good" or "bad" design.
His column is about usability design rather than the veneer of beauty that obsesses many graphic designers. Whether it's good methodology is a different question, but not one that I see people who dislike his advice address.
No problem. I'm happy to downvote someone who thinks that publicly wishing someone dead is appropriate, let alone a valuable contribution to the conversation.
Is Craig Newmark also on your little list? Jimmy Wales? Are there any other messengers you'd like to shoot today?
He's also not just a messenger - he's the source for many attacks on the design community, particularly Flash.
I could consider his views if he had any fairness to them. But he doesn't. His views are lazy and incomplete.
It's like a guy who "publishes a song" which is nothing but the C scale played over and over and then spends the next 10 years criticizing Rock & Roll. He might be considered a conceptual artist. But would you really call him a music guru?
I see it as the base that keeps me, as a designer, grounded to what really matters. I value usability above almost everything because it allows your users to get from point A to B in the most effective way possible.
At the end of the day thats all that really matters, especially when 90% of internet users couldn't tell a bad design (graphically) from a good design.
One of the best ways I found to approach this is to design with HTML in mind at every step. Photoshop really makes you lose focus and end up perfecting the layout and not the presentation of the content.