back in the row of people vampiring off of a power strip.Â not that I’m all the way down, but I don’t want to get there.
food comas all ’round! but the smartasses come out after lunch, too.
functioning form guy.Â I had to unsub him a while ago, too overwhelming.
gotta love a typo in foot-tall letters. intro stuff. “form design best practices” hm. he’s written some good pieces on forms
ack. bullet points!
looking around feverishly for something that might be right. vid of eyetracking. scanning headline & graphics. I’ve seen that in practice. it’s fascinating.
what an odd diagram. of organization -> interaction -> presentation.
presentation != icing on the cake.
quickly communicate: usefulness, usability, desireability.
sms2quit, visual example.
another of a page with almost no hierarchy. nothing draws the eye. (especially at this distance) and then essentially the same stuff with more distinction.
“if you can’t make it big, make it bold, and if you can’t make it bold, make it red!”
what if you can only do incremental improvements. smallish color changes, move search box, text size and spacing. totally. that’s what I’ve been doing. and then even smaller changes.
oh, cute baby.Â meaning based on differences. and this is the same stuff as in the little design book, and things that Ken taught in his class. visual weight. “buy that thing!” while you understand and use, you also get a brand message.
this is a problem I think with lots of offline places that let customers (clients, students, members, etc) do stuff online is that those functions are done by IT in toto, which makes sense structurally, but is a problem with the actual experience and the impression given to those customers.Â hm.
how do you know the priority?
list of “stuff” — scanning at a high/mid level. you are here indication. I’d like to do that a lot better. plus nice error messages. easier way to see the health of a network. (kinda reminds me of the meraki interface.)
[digressive research: no, there isn’t anything we can do about the basic look/action of online banking. dang.]
sites vs content objects. the important thing is little high-quality bits of content.
chicago tribune: 76% site hierarchy stuff, 24% content.Â which is why I want to go 2-column. and contrasted with NYT.
(oh, hey, I forgot I had a measuremap account.)
clearer, single strong message. maybe there’s some ways I can realign in that direction.
side rant re: signups. (but in our case, signup really is the first thing you do. hell, you gotta get checked against the gov’ts terrorist list.)
nice display of reprioritizing actions in an email.
giant honking button. gets a good laugh. and so on and so forth.
hey, look, it’s of U of Florida! (I totally borrowed their design for the pierce site a couple of years ago.)
work out units of related stuff.
scanning tables. I think I’ve improved the rate tables, but it could sure be even better. that last one in his example is damn nice.
and the loan lady is a problem.Â I understand the GOAL, but I don’t know if it’s particularly successful. (which reminds me that I need to check Google Analytics.)
imply the fun slide? huh?
more quirky examples. enterprise software is notoriously ugly, which is totally depressing.Â so many people spend so much of their life working with such painful systems.Â ::sigh::
prioritization connecting with personas, working out what’s important to the audience, and then using the data to create priorities for design. nice. I want to go back to my idea of reviewing the goal of every single page.
prepackaged questions. hm.
Q: what about multiple audiences? make sure what the core is, and show it. “uber-prioritization”?!