Blog & articles

One issue of contention between many copy writers and usability specialists is the user of ‘click here’ within links.  The use of these links is often promoted as they tell the user exactly what they want the user to do. Brian Clark makes this point in his article ‘Does Telling Someone to “Click Here” Actually Matter?‘.   In the article he encourages site owners to use actionable links (the ones that tell the user what to do) if you really want to users click.  

Compelling copy and careful labelling of links play a vital role in directing users towards performing the right action.  There are also times when, particularly on marketing sites, encouraging users to perform a particular action out weights the understandability of the links.  However, even in these cases there is no reason the call to action could not be both descriptive and actionable e.g. ‘click to buy’ rather than ‘click here’. 

In the article he highlights a study by Marketing Sherpa he felt supported his point of view.  However, this study compared click through rates for three terms (‘click to continue’, ‘continue to article’ and ‘read more’) none of which describe the content the link goes to.  Also just because the user clicked on a link doesn’t mean that they were taken where they expected to be or didn’t immediately select the back button.  This highlights why it is so important to be careful of any user research, questioning whether it applies in your particular case, looking at the method used and whether other interpretations for the findings apply.

The article also addresses the arguement that ‘click here’ wastes anchor text that could contain terms designed to boost search engine ranking.  Quite rightly Brian  rejects search engine optimization over the experience on the page.  However, when search engine optimization will lead to more understandable links that describe what they link to the arguement can’t be easily dismissed.

In answer to the question posed by the article ‘does telling some one to click here actually matter’.  The answer has to be yes.  Actionable links may encourage users to select that link but it doesn’t mean they will go where they want to.  Labelling something ‘click here’ tells the user nothing about the result of their action because ultimately any link could be labelled click here.  However, this does not mean actionable phrases can not be included in descriptive links or that the label affects link performance. 

Recently dilbert.com has updated their site introducing a new design, structure and functionality.  The site makes use of some very innovative user generated content, such as mash ups an area where users can suggest new punchlines and vote for the best ones.

User generated content can have several advantages, it involves users in the site, means content is frequently changing and can encourage users to promote the site to others.  However, it also has a down side in that it can provide the opportunity for those dissatisfied with your brand, site or actions to speak out.

Chevy discovered the negatives of user generated content when they tried to get people to create their own adverts for the Tahoe using video clips and music they had created. People used the clips to bash Chevy and the fuel economy of there vehicles. Although not as extreme, users could be seen using the mash up functionality to criticize the site this week.

A user has used the cartoon above to post the message “Who cares about mash ups? All we want is a simple fast web site to read Dilbert! This new site sucks. Bring back the old web site!!”.

It isn’t uncommon for site redesigns to have some negative responses even if improvements are for the better. Regular users get use to where content is and the design and are put off by change. This is one of the reasons why it is important to manage change, informing users what’s happening, introducing ways to feedback and when possible making incremental changes.

This comment also highlights an important point, just because there is extra web 2.0 features does not mean users are willing to put up with poor performance on key functionality. Why it was decided to display the cartoons on the home page within a flash area is incomprehencible when an image would do much the same job more efficiently. The use of the ‘beta’ will also do little to appease users when they had a perfectly good site before.

While look for more information on Crazy Egg, a great sevice that produces images showing user activity on a web page, I came across an article on Ask the CSS Guy on creating integrated forms.  It explains how to creates a table displaying features associated with different pricing options that when one is selected  a sign up form is displayed.  The page works with javascript turned off as it takes the user to a separate page when this is the case.  However, there may still be some accessibility issues as not all speach browser users disable javascript and they may not be aware of the appearance of the form. The example would also be improved if it did not show the option button once it is selected. Still a very interesting technique and great tutorial.

Creating a table with dynamically highlighted columns like Crazy Egg’s pricing table

Adobe has recently launched an online version of their photoshop tool. Initially when I heard this I was quite surprised. My experience of photoshop is that it is a tool used to mock up web pages costing hundreds of pounds. It turns out it is not really a version of the massive feature heavy programme used by web designers, but rather a photo manipulation tool combined with online photo storage and sharing functionality. As such, it provides much the same functionality as flickr but puts the emphasis on image manipulation rather than community. It is interesting how different this makes it and even though Flickr provides much the same image manipulation functionality I would use it in preference to these. However, its main competitors must be desktop applications which often come free with digital cameras and don’t rely an internet connection.

Photoshop express

Earlier this week I read an article about issues with a couple of common page layouts by Andy Rutledge. In the article he looks at one of the most common layouts, three columns with large central area for content and navigation in the two side columns, and highlights a number of short comings.

Although I don’t agree with all he says, as the layout is often used when a persistent left navigation is used and the role of each column is much better define, he makes some good points. Coincidently, I was asked to review a site using a similar structure, without persistent left navigation, the next day.

The full article is here: Killing Some Bad Layout Conventions