Recently in Usability Category
From the Penn State Web Standards list
http://deeplinking.net/paper-web/.
For my own reference, this site has some good examples of different interfaces sketched on legal paper (and maybe some cocktail napkins). Also has a video showing a usability test with a paper set of paper prototypes.
While I'm at it, I should add this link from A List Apart
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sketchingincode
Interestingly the author argues for a "medium quality" prototype because wireframes may be so bare that users may not be able to infer functionality. FYI - The problem with "professional" quality is that users get distracted with suggestions on fonts and colors (been there, done that).
I've had some success with the "mid level", but I've seen projects where the bare paper does work, so the key seems to be keeping the concept minimal enough for users to focus on function and not fonts.
At the Web 2008 conference this year I was able to listen to the keynote from Steve Krug, the author of the classic usability book Don't Make Me Think.
The one take-away I got from that session was that modern users expect the Home Page to kind of be an orientation page to the site (or part of the site). That can have several interpretations, but to me this would include linking to a table of contents, a short statement of the purpose of the site, an explanation of some tools , one or two unique features and who to contact for more information. Interestingly, the home page is likely to be the second or third page visited (after the content page Google found for the user).
It reminds me of another metaphor heard from a usability expert of comparing the home page to an entrance of a store or office complex rather than the cover of a book. That is, when you enter a new store, you may be looking for aisle labels and maybe some hot sales. You may or may not be interested in the perfume lady.
P.S. My other impression was how accurate his observations of the higher education Web culture. In fact, I was wondering if he had sent an astral projection of his spirit to some of the Web design meetings I've been. Spooky
I just ran into the site German GROW, a site with cultural links for German teachers at http://www.aatg.org/content/view/255/ It's run by the AATG (American Association of German Teachers).
Like the icons? It looks very Web 1.0. But click each link and it actually takes you to a del.icio.us page that the AATG has set up. For instance the Musik link goes to http://del.icio.us/GermanGROW/Musik As you can see, the AATG has established their own folders within del.icio.us.
This is an interesting design which I like because the interface is intuitive to a Web 1.0 educator audience, but actually leverages Web 2.0 technology. If you do understand del.icio.us, you can go directly to http://del.icio.us/GermanGROW/ and even suck in the RSS feed. You can even add your own resources if you know how to tag.
But if you haven't had a chance to get acquainted with tagging yet (and many instructors are still in this position), the Web 1.0 interface will still let you get to that content without learning a new set of terms. As my colleague Tim Perry noted recently, "RSS remains an elusive concept."
An interesting case is Studio 204. I must say it is a well-designed site and nowhere does it mention that it's tied to ETS, TLT or even ITS. It just says it's a video studio any student or instructor can access.
However...in order to access the site, I MUST know it's a part of TLT because of the URL http://studio204.tlt.psu.edu/ (see that little "tlt" between "studio204" and "psu.edu"?). My first guess was "studio204.psu.edu", but alas I got a 404 error.
I'm really not trying not to play a blame game here (in fact I can hear some of you grinding your teeth an muttering "I know I know"). I also know that you do have to go through "channels" to get a URL like "studio204.psu.edu" - although I also know that it's not especially burdensome.
But if you're ever wondering why people can't find our valuable resources - maybe it's because we've made some of our URL's more exotic than people can digest.
I regularly read the Jakob Nielsen usability newsletter, and this week he presented results from some eyetracking studies from the U.S. Census Bureau site. In the scanning images, red shows frequent hits,
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/fancy-formatting.html
The point that struck me the most was that users were attracted most to navigational elements - either the search box, the left hand navigation buttons, the category links or the links list. Interestingly, the users skipped over the red text with the population countdown and the bottom Annual report link even though they were meant to be highlighted.
According to Nielsen, anything that looks like it could be an ad is typically ignored, so too much highlighting can be just as bad as too little. In this case the red text combined with the large font made the census count look a bit like an ad. Even worse, it's "not navigation", so users are really not paying attention.
I suspect that red text is most problematic on a home page where lots of other navigational choices are presented. It would be interesting to see how users react red text on a page with more information.
