Compete on Usability

Help wanted ... with your careers page

In searching for a new job recently, I've seen many companies disregard the users of their career website pages. Most clutter this section of their websites with mission and branding statements, meaningless photos of smug professional people, even slick video animations.

None of this matters to job applicants unless they know the company has a job opening for them. So why do so many companies put it first?

Qualcomm's careers page is typical of the user-unfriendly breed. Primary billing is reserved for a Flash animated tag cloud of corporate buzzwords, and promotions for the company's presence on Twitter and Facebook capture the rest of the content area. The tasks users actually come here to do -- look for job openings -- are squeezed into terse links at the left.

Another frustration arises when a careers page doesn't have a job search field, instead requiring users to select a hierarchy of the company's internal divisions. To outsiders, however, corporate business group names are cryptic and ambiguous. If I'm seeking experience designer openings, do I look under Consulting? Marketing and Communications? Technology Solutions Group?  These are real categories at EMC. Fortunately, EMC allows keyword search without selecting a business group first.

The Staples.com careers page does a much better job for me. Under the huge branding area, the page fits in two key calls to action. One is vaguely titled Own Your Own Success, but the other, Search Jobs, couldn't be clearer. I'd be happier if the page didn't play audio automatically, but you can't have everything!

Simplicity is not the ultimate goal

I saw a hotel telephone last week that perfectly illustrates one of my favorite themes: simple is not always more usable.
Here's a phone without any buttons. It doesn't get much simpler than that!  Yet most people wouldn't even consider it a real telephone, because essential features are missing. How do you choose who you want to call?

If a simple interface is your goal, it's critical to know the essential feature set. Simplify past a certain point, and you risk making your product or system unrecognizable. The best way to know the essential feature set is user research, although a survey of competitive products can substitute in the short term.

But wait, there's more!  Over time, the essential feature set increases for a given product.  Early phones used to come like this one, with no controls other than a crank to signal an operator to help you. These days, most people won't buy a phone without a display for caller ID, redial and  volume controls, and more.  Heck, wired phones can seem like a relic compared with the versatility of mobiles.

The ultimate goal is user satisfaction. Meet expectations by delivering the essential feature set, then delight users with a better, more usable interface on those features.

Google Charts API

If you do any display of usability result online, try out the Google Charts open API at http://code.google.com/apis/chart/. Unlike other chart APIs I have seen (Yahoo, for example), you don't need Javascript or any embedded code.  Just a correctly formatted URL.  There are plenty of examples at the Google code URL to get you started.  Don't forget to avoid legends whenever possible, though I'm disappointed the API doesn't currently support much in the way of labeling.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Web form to help with formatting the URLs though.  Anyone seen one yet?

Daylight screen backlash

Via Usability News, I found a press release saying 60-80% of British consumers have trouble reading their portable device screens outdoors, with 44% saying they were misled by advertising showing people using them in daylight.

Note that the press release quoted research sponsored by a next-gen screen vendor. While the data may be accurate, it's being released as blatant marketing spin to create a need for the vendor's products. Still, the data seems intuitive to me. My cell phone's large, bright screen is unreadable even in overcast conditions, let alone sunny skies.

Color-reflective displays, optimized for bright light viewing and low battery drain, have existed for years. Early implementations of the technology, however, caused a real backlash. First versions of the Game Boy Advance's dim screen, as well as the DS (pictured), were derided by industry press.  These days manufacturers seem to rely on displays using the opposite technology, perhaps hoping consumers will grow inured to squinting and hand shading in order to use their cell phones and handhelds.

It doesn't have to be this way.  Screens can be optimized for both types of ambient lighting. I always thought it was too expensive, but if a $100 laptop designed for children has a screen that works well both in daylight and indoors, why don't we all have one?  So I hope pressure builds and consumers begin to reject their dim displays.

Professionalization of usability

I read a provocative rant about "Lame excuses for not being a Web professional" on 456 Berea Street that got me thinking about the nature of being a usability professional.  A couple of years ago, it was rare to see any job postings in the field that required more than relevant experience.  It's become much more common now to see open positions requiring specific degrees in human-computer interaction, human factors, and interaction design.

I'm cheering on this trend because it fits the domain so well. Good usability is all about applying consistent, well-thought-out methodologies, and also keeping current in cutting-edge technologies.  You can't rest on your laurels because there's so much to learn and so many problems waiting to be solved.  Challenge yourself and don't settle for inconsistent visuals, substandard accessibility, and excluding potential users.