Category: Managed Services

Online mapping services like Bing Maps and Google Maps are an outstanding addition to just about any website that has a physical tie to planet Earth.

The fact that both require no software purchase and have fairly complete API’s (that’s Application Programming Interface – it lets our programmers hook into all that mapping information easily), and offer compelling mobile experiences only help in their adoption. We’ve used them in the past with quality results.

We’re just about ready to launch a project that has some pretty heavy Bing Maps functionality built into the user interface.  The client’s Location Search is built almost entirely around it (with, of course, a non-map based alternative for users who can’t see the map and for browsers who can’t handle it).

It’s been an effort influenced by almost every group here at Atlantic BT with User Experience, Design, Marketing and most definitely Programming contributing to the outcome.

We spent considerable time working out how this map’s output could be interacted with by the site’s users:

• Does clicking on a map “pin” take the user to the location page?  Bing Maps has no default action for pin clicks, but the more popular Google Maps does.  Do our users even know that they’re looking at a “Bing” map, or is it just an interactive map to them?
• Does sliding the map around update the text results adjacent to it?
• How does the search radius change when the user rolls their mouse scroll wheel?
• And the most important question – how far can we safely deviate from what the users expect the map to do?  Where is that sweet spot between allowing exciting new features and not frustrating uses?

Our discussions brought up two really important points that we want to remember going forward:

• Highly interactive and open-ended page elements like embedded Bing and Google maps require extensive planning if you want them to be truly awesome and if you want them to feel like a natural part of your site.
• These services’ wide adoption rate means a wide range of user types with different skills and very different expectations.  What we make needs to be flexible and forgiving for many different types of users.

The smallest of features can negatively impact the user experience on a website if not designed properly. For example, I recently encountered a small issue in Gmail when I searched my email. The issue was very salient because I had to spend a few seconds thinking about how the feature worked…

After searching your Gmail, have you ever wanted to turn off the highlighting?

The power of search is one of the things that makes Gmail one of the best email solutions available.

Have you ever searched for an email (using a keyword) and noticed that the keywords you used were highlighted in the resulting email? This feature is very useful and mimics traditional search engine behavior, where keywords are bolded in a couple sentences from each result.

The highlighting can actually be controlled by using the two icons that appear in the top-right of the search results page:

Unfortunately, these icons are identical, so the user has no idea which one to click. The left highlighter icon will actually turn on highlighting (only if it’s off), and the right highlighter icon will turn off highlighting (only if it’s on). The design is very salient because it doesn’t match the user’s mental model, which is primarily developed from previous experience (with computers and in the real-world).

Here’s a design that should match a user’s mental model, because it’s very similar to an on/off button:

On:

Off:

Little Big Details

This may seem like a very small issue, but imagine how many people must have encountered it. Small details like this should not be overlooked. The blog Little Big Details does a great job at demonstrating how small features can make a big difference. One of my favorite posts was their demonstration that the position of the close button stays the same in Chrome, allowing users to effortlessly close more than one tab. Small details like that go unnoticed by the majority of users, which is actually a good thing. When users have a frustration-free experience, they can focus more on their goals (which is why they’re on the site in the first place!).

Here at Atlantic BT we take great pride in our Experience Design capabilities.  They help guide our designers and developers into making some truly outstanding websites.  We’ve equipped ourselves with a series of tools and methodologies that are proven to deliver delighted users. We rely on user stories, card sorting, site outlines,  interviews and wire-frames to guide our projects to completion.

In between these processes we find ourselves turning, in a pinch, to a great tool.  The Hallway test.

Just yesterday I was working with a designer on a website’s navigation issue.  We discussed what it could be, sketched out our ideas, and the designer crafted a working prototype.  The interface functioned exactly as we had described, but we were both unsure if it would be understood by our users.  Since we had both been involved in the process from idea to near-execution, we were both tainted.  We were no longer impartial about this idea.

To test our navigation scheme we literally stepped down the hall to find another Atlantic BT staffer with no knowledge of what we were working on.  We sat her down in front of the prototype and asked her two seemingly simple questions:

• “Where do you think you are in this website now?“
• “How do you get to a different page within this section of the website?”

Since this was her first exposure to the page, we knew her experience would be similar to that of our users.

The Helpful Sound of Crickets Chirping

She took glance, made a few guesses, and neither matched up with our plan.

Her answer revealed some confusion about a navigation scheme we thought would work.  We then repeated the same Hallway Test with two other co-workers with the same results.  We knew we had to re-examine our idea and then retest with different people who are not tied to the project.  (Our original Hallway testers were now tainted to what we were trying to accomplish).

This simple act of checking the validity of our ideas early (and often) has saved us from a lot of rework later on down the line.  The Hallway Test isn’t the most accurate or powerful user experience test, but is pretty great for quick checks of new ideas.

What is Google Boost?

Google Boost is a new advertising platform that Google has begun to roll out to all industries across all cities in the world.  In short, the platform allows you to pay for placement at the top of the page when an individual searches for a keyword that matches your industry. In the example shown below, you will notice the individual has typed “Asian restaurants San Francisco.”

The Business Case

Another way Google Boost can help (or hurt)

If you take a better look at the Google Boost ad, you will notice five yellow stars. By now, most Internet users are familiar with the yellow stars and can quickly associate that with reviews. The following report performed by Kudzu.com tries to show how important consumer-generated media (CGM or in layman terms reviews) really is.

When 600 users were surveyed in December 2008:

86% of shoppers said product evaluations and reviews influenced their purchasing decisions.

Of those 3,000 conversion focused users, 2,820 – 2,910 are searching online for your product / service before setting foot into your store. Of the 2,820 – 2,910 visitors 2,425 – 2,502 are allowing reviews to influence their purchasing decision.

So, if you start getting reviews that are negative it may be wise to hire someone who takes care of your online reputation management. It is also a good move to give some perk to customers who choose to give your business feedback / review online.

Why Google Boost then for this audience segment?

I would like to expand on point #6 because it is 100% necessary to have one when targeting online shoppers. In the previously shown screenshot,  the UVP is that they use, farm-fresh ingredients.

Let’s assume the example business we own is a car repair shop. There are five competitors who will most likely rank within the top half of the Google page when the user searches for “car repair in Raleigh.”  Having your Google Boost ad say, “Car Repair Shop located in Raleigh.” is less effective than delivering a clear UVP such as, “Car Repair Shop with Competitor Price Matching.”

Oh…nobody trusts pay-per-click…right?

Takeaways

• If you are a local business who relies on customers, I’d recommend getting started today.
• The pay per click market is growing. Google Boost is similar to a pay per click system and I maintain that it will have a high chance of growing alongside that market or turning into pay per click altogether.
• The majority of people making purchases are doing research online for local shops prior to the trip to the location.
• Have a Unique Value Proposition ready if you want to create a Google Boost advertisement.

Please feel free to comment with any questions or counter points.

I recently came across an issue when working with Umbraco (v 3.0.5) pertaining to the publishing of a node that lives directly at the root of the site.  For some reason I kept receiving the “Error: Publising failed because the parent page isn’t published” (side note: Publishing is spelled wrong in the speech bubble that pops up at the bottom right).  This message seems straight forward and easy to solve right?  Well it would be an easy solution if the node I just created was not directly at the root of the site.

So how is it that I came across this error?  How is it possible that the root of the site is not published, but I can still successfully view the pages on the front end of the site?  HOW CAN I PUBLISH THE ROOT?!?

After reviewing a couple of blog posts the most prominent answer seemed to be to right-click the Root Node and choose the “Republish entire site” option.  I tried this but unfortunately it did not solve my problem, that would have been too easy.

In normal circumstances this probably would have fixed the problem, but this was not the case for our scenario.  During development the root node was accidentally deleted, which sent it into the Recycling Bin of the site.  Umbraco’s default behavior updates the umbracoNode table to modify the path of the node  and set it to the appropriate value for the application to assume the node is in the trash can (“-1,-20,-1”).

The path column is important for the location of the actual node in the site, but the column that is really causing the issue for me is the “level” column.  By default, the level of the root node for Umbraco sites is 0.  In this scenario, since we deleted the root node it was moved into the Recycling Bin of the site and Umbraco did something behind the scenes to set the level of the root node to 1.

To resolve the issue, we simply look into our database, view the umbracoNode table and modify these two column values to reflect the appropriate values for the root node (the root node should have an id of -1).  Change the “level” column back to 0 and set the “path” column to -1 and you should now be able to publish nodes freely from the root of the site.

Have you run into something similar or know a different way to resolve this?

After determining a site’s navigation, or information architecture (IA), it should be put to the test with your users. Brainstorming and card sorting can help determine and validate the main levels. But, with deeper menus, it is worth considering a tree test.

A tree test is a method where users are asked to find something in an IA (usually for websites or software) and their path is recorded. Tree tests can be done with index cards, or with online tools (like PlainFrame and Treejack). The benefit of using online tools is that you can send the test to many people, quickly and easily. You can send a link in an email to a bunch of people, sit back and collect responses. The benefit of in-person tree tests is that you can ask follow-up questions and it can be tacked on to something else you are already doing (like an in-person interview). Currently, both online solutions available do not offer the ability to ask why a user picked a particular path.

PlainFrame

PlainFrame, which came out of beta on January 11, 2011, is the newest online tool to conduct tree tests from the same company that does the online card sorting tool WebSort. PlainFrame is the most affordable solution to conduct tree tests. Here’s an example of how a task looks on PlainFrame.

Unfortunately, PlainFrame still is new and has some issues (like the task being cut-off on the top).

PlainFrame allows you to have either a vertical or horizontal-style menu. You can also have menus in the header (upper right) and the footer (bottom middle).  You can customize the tree test with a logo. Results are collected by simply sharing a link with the people you want to collect results from. The results are presented in a simple format, without graphs. But, you can easily export to Excel where you can generate any graphs you need.

TreeJack

The first-to-market online tree test solution was TreeJack, from Optimal Workshop. Here’s an example of how a task looks on TreeJack:

TreeJack looks less like an actual navigation, but should be just as effective.

TreeJack allows you to customize your tree test’s look and feel beyond adding a logo. Like PlainFrame, you send a link out to collect results. Unlike PlainFrame, TreeJack has a dashboard which shows useful visualizations about the data you have collected. Even the exported Excel results are formatted nicely.

Summary

Tree testing is still a relatively new method to refine information architectures. Tree tests can either be conducted in-person or online with either PlainFrame or TreeJack. TreeJack is the more expensive tool, but has two main benefits: it is highly customizable, and it has useful reporting features.