Ask Eric: Questions & Answers

November 11, 2002 – submitted by Dana Griffith of Columbus, OH

Question: Is there research available on the best length for a corporate identity video streamed on a corporate site? We are debating over a 60 to 90 second video vs. a three to four minute version. We anticipate viewers will be perspective employees or market analysts. Thanks.

Eric's response: Dana, I have not seen any research on that specific issue. However the classical first question is "Why provide video?". Currently there are significant problems with both technology (like compatibility and getting through firewalls) and with download times. Does the video actually add something special? If so, then let that content be the determinant of length. But if it is just a flashy bit of 'inspiration' I might consider other alternatives.

September 13, 2002 – submitted by Gretchen Enger of St. Paul, MN

Question: What kind of accessibility statement, if any, should be included on a corporate Web site? Thanks!

Eric's response: The best statement you can make is to make the site accessible, and USABLE, by people with readers.

August 14, 2002 – submitted by Margo Sutherland of Victoria, BC

Question: We're considering using downloadable PDF active documents that our users fill in using Acrobat Reader and then email back to us — where staff can then load the completed forms into a database.

Do you know any stats on the current use, acceptance and user understanding of active pdf documents?

Eric's response: I don't have statistics. However I am certain that few users are familiar with the capability. Almost all familiar with PDF will expect a PDF to be a static document.

July 25, 2002 – submitted by Krishna Pradeep of Chennai, India

Question: Can you give me a comparison between MDI based software & a SDI based software? Also some thoughts on programs like MS Word which uses multiple instances of the same application?

Eric's response: The old Multiple Document Interface (MDI) structure was almost thrown out in the Windows 95 program. It is a pretty poor design. The user spends substantial time moving and resizing windows (we call this window thrashing). There are very few instances when I would recommend MDI.

The Single Document Interface (SDI) is the widely used windowing system solution. It is appropriate when the user is using several tools or documents. This can still leave the user window thrashing, although the Windows operating system has several patches to help the user switch between windows easily.

In most applications and Web sites I find it is best to assume that the user works just on the full screen display. But in reality the user may be bouncing between applications in an SDI, which is ok.

June 16, 2002 – submitted by Anonymous

Question: I work at a university and am frustrated with accessibility extremists and guidelines. Most of the material we develop is intended to teach. The people developing institutional guidelines seem not too concerned with pedagogy and usability of applications for the 99% of our learners. The emphasis is that everyone must comply with guidelines. It takes a lot of time to create fully accessible sites. Many times in designing a site for accessibility we need to water things down so much that the interface design will suffer for people who prefer visual learning with GUI's. Creating mirror sites is strongly discouraged. For example, a recent campus policy for designers says we can not use color for encoding, grouping, differentiating etc. A one size fits all strategy is required. I wish some experts in the fields of usability design and educational psychology would start speaking up and not be afraid of being politically incorrect.

Eric's response: I have a LONG history and attachment to the issue of accessibility. As an undergrad I specialized in rehabilitation psychology. I was one of the founding members of the Human Factors Society's special interest group addressing accessibility. I have waited for 25 years to be able to begin applying usability engineering to support people with special needs. I really care about this issue. At the same time I routinely tell clients NOT to create a single site that also must be accessible. We are trained in the usability field to support the 5th to 95th percentile in our designs. This is the correct action from the business point of view. Businesses should create accessible designs for two reasons. They may have a substantial number of blind users. Or they may want to avoid being targeted by special interest groups who create bad publicity or legal actions.

You can follow the Section 508 rules. This roughly level-A accessibility creates a poor experience for visually impaired people using a reader. It also means that there are techniques that help most users that are not allowed. So this is a pretty poor decision. Yet it seems to be gaining popularity.

I believe that the best solution for an important site is to have a duel design. This allows a good quality accessible design with level AA compliance. It also avoids degradation of the main site. I think this will become practical as people realize that the 'reader' version is the same design that normal customers might use with a cell phone.

Even for normal users you should not have designs that rely on color codes. 9% of males and 2% of females have some color weakness.

I would also like to point out that the accessibility guidelines are almost exclusively about supporting visually impaired users. It bothers me that we have done little for people with other challenges.

May 31, 2002 – submitted by April Cullingford of Delran, NJ

Question: Concerning IVR menu design/skill-set routing: how long should front-end messages be and what is the optimum number for menu selections?

Eric's response: There is a great strategy in IVR applications of dumping the most frequently needed information at customers as soon as they enter. As soon as you validate a customer you might give account balance and the next payment amount and date. This is a good strategy. But as you indicate it should not be too long. The key is to provide only the 2-3 items of most useful information. Avoid fluff and marketing messages. For menus, a general rule is to keep the number of selections at or below five.

April 3 , 2002 – submitted by Cassandra Huggs of Canada

Question: Do you know where I can find some reference material on things to avoid for international Web site development? I am looking for resources such as a list of common phrases that do not mean the same thing in other countries or that can even be considered inappropriate.

I am also looking for other specific things to avoid, such as not to show hands as gestures do not always mean the same thing.

Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Eric's response: Hi Cassandra, thanks for your query. I passed this question to Apala Chavan. She is head of our office in Mumbai and is our expert on internationalization....

Internationalization is indeed a vast area and there are are a host of issues that determine how "international" a site is. Here are a couple of links to sites that will give you an idea of the kind of issues that are important to consider when designing a truly international site.

International Mailing Address Formats and Other International Mailing Information, compiled by BitBoost Systems personnel primarily for the use of such personnel.

"Global Interface Design: A guide to Designing International User Interfaces" by Tony Fernandes.

Also our product Usability Central contains guidelines and checklists on internationalization. If your company has it there is a whole section that will be of interest to you. It covers Graphics, Metaphors, Colors, Formats, Language, and Cultures.

January 2, 2002 – submitted by Kevin Carter of Garland, TX

Question: Eric – I am designing computer systems for the Taiwanese and am in search of some Human factor information on this society, where can I get such Information?

Eric's response: There is not nearly information about usability engineering issues in the Pacific Rim. You can visit the Association of Consumer Research site. They have interesting papers on research done in the Asia Pacific region. But in terms of a solid facility focused in this direction, it is simply not there. In fact, HFI is very interested in setting up a team specifically focused on usable design for China (In fact, I am writing this on a trip to Hong Kong and Singapore. HFI is VERY serious about usability in Asia).