|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NN/g Home |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ask Tog, July 27, 1998 Silo Design for Web Transactions
The secret to transactional design using current web browsers is taking control. While this is anathema to the current web philosophy of barely-contained anarchy, it is essential if a transaction system is to be successful. When we developed our benefits-enrollment product at Healtheon, we identified three classes of users: naive, experienced, and power users. Naive test subjects had to have used the web a minimum of two hours--it was not our goal to test whether they could start up their system, only to test how well they could use the software. Experienced test subjects spent a couple hours per week on the web, and power-users spent more than that and self-identifed as power users. From the beginning, it was clear we were going to have significant difficulties with two of these groups. Naive users needed guidance to avoid wandering off accidentally, and power-users, who insisted on exercising their right to get lost if they wanted. Had I been designing a service that people used voluntarily on their own time, I might have left the power users alone--after all, I enjoy my right to get lost, too. However, this was a serious service, and failing to achieve a successful enrollment could have serious financial and legal results. Something had to be done to guide--and control--the users. Eliminating the CompetitionThe first step was to get rid of the "attractive nuisances," the plethora of tempting menus, buttons, and controls, all of which had nothing to do with our application. Having the browser's controls surrounding your tranactional application is rather like having the menu bar for Photoshop perched on top of Excell. This exercise is critical. Browsers don't tell you when users have clicked the browser's own buttons. You have no opportunity to save users' work or even inform them that their work will be lost. Our adventures in getting rid of these controls is chronicled in excruciating detail in Maximizing Windows. Having rid ourselves of the browser's controls, we then experimented with our own. Desirous of giving power users as much freedom as possible, we placed our own menu button bar at the top of each page, with buttons to jump to various places in the enrollment process. Big mistake. Power users of a once-a-year application don't know where they want to jump. What's more, they don't know when they are free to jump. The Illusion of CompletenessThe first screenful of a web page--or any other foreign document--tends to look complete. Unless the screen happens to break across some graphical element or divides a line of text in two, users will assume they have seen it all and will move on. The only consistent information users are getting on the real size of the web page comes from the scroll bar, and, based on our testing, it is not even close to working. For the first fifteen years of the personal computer, we spent the vast majority of our time composing our own documents. The work product of other people's computers arrived at our homes and offices printed on tree carcass. The web changed all that. What needed to change with it, but hasn't, are the scroll bars. We used to depend on our own knowledge to understand how large a document was. Now we must depend on our scroll bars, and they are not up to the task. It was bad enough when the bars had clear "elevators" in black, sliding on a clearly-contrasting background. On Windows, in particular, they seem to have taken some pains to make the elevator disappear entirely. Medium-gray on medium gray is not the ideal choice for contrast. The result is that test subjects would reach a page of ten benefits--medical, dental, vision, life insurance, etc.--and leave satisfied that they had enrolled, completely oblivious to the fact that all they had chosen was a single medical plan. We tried every device under the sun to increase user-awareness of page size, but nothing worked. We finally determined we had to remove our own button bar from the top of each window. Yes, we did try bringing up dialog boxes when power users would (inevitably) press these buttons, explaining in detail the importance of finishing the first task before doing the sixth. We discovered that power users don't listen very well. They uniformly ignored options and choices that would have slashed their enrollment time, just to be able to do what appeared to be an immediately satisfying jump. They were consistently taking one and a half to two times as long to complete an enrollment as the experienced user cohort. We had to reign them in.
These techniques are overkill if all you are doing is getting someone's name and address. For lengthy and complex data collection, they are a necessity. Power users may get a bit ornery about having to scroll to the bottom of a page to move on, but it is nothing to their reaction to losing three pages worth of work. Keep writing. The questions and comments have been good and they are getting better! Click now on... Response
Rick's bro is doing it right. Users should never lose their work, no matter how much work guaranteeing that causes us. Web pages are stateless. When many folks read that back at the beginning of this revolution, they took it to mean that their sites could be stateless, no matter what kind of mischief it caused. What it really means is that we take on the obligation to construct by hand what those www guys left out. We have not been freed from an obligation to protect our users by maintaining state on our own. -Tog |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||