An early millennial retrospective

W. Hudson
{"title":"An early millennial retrospective","authors":"W. Hudson","doi":"10.1145/761919.761931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under normal circumstances you might not expect to see a retrospective of the new millennium for at least a few more years (or perhaps a few hundred, depending on your enthusiasm for such things). However, given that this column started in 2000 and that web time is a fairly accelerated phenomenon, it seemed appropriate to pay a brief visit to bygone days for this final print edition of the Bulletin. Our journey begins in the year the internet industry collapse began. The term \"dot bomb\" may have been born in the 1990's but 2000 was its coming of age. Jakob Nielsen wrote an Alertbox in the middle of the year foretelling the death of web design, primarily from a usability perspective. In my first Bulletin article, Web evolution: Is HCI an endangered species , I looked at some of the implications of the dot.com demise and considered the future of web design. Have things changed? In general I believe they have. E-commerce sites in particular have discovered what works and what doesn't in terms of converting visits into sales. Happily, clear consistent navigation based on other successful sites is where the safe money is (and safe money is what counts at the moment). The intervening years have also allowed the industry to mellow a little. What was originally a pitched battle between usability professionals and the design community has receded to the occasional skirmish as cooperation and understanding between protagonists continues to improve. Let's skip forward to the middle of 2001 where I asked one of the perennial questions of usability testing: How many users does it take to change a web site? Jared Spool and his colleagues at UIE had just presented a paper at CHI on their experience of testing with large numbers of users (\"Five users is nowhere near enough\"). The paper reported on a study that failed to find even half of a web site's predicted usability problems with 18 users, compared to Nielsen's recommended five users for discount usability testing. It is a little disconcerting that this question remains largely unresolved even now, especially considering that Nielsen's original recommendation was made in 1989 (later revised upwards in a 1993 paper with Thomas Landauer). In \"How many users…\" I suggested that the complexity of web pages was the culprit-how can you expect to find the majority of a web site's problems with just five users when …","PeriodicalId":7070,"journal":{"name":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","volume":"23 1","pages":"9 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/761919.761931","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under normal circumstances you might not expect to see a retrospective of the new millennium for at least a few more years (or perhaps a few hundred, depending on your enthusiasm for such things). However, given that this column started in 2000 and that web time is a fairly accelerated phenomenon, it seemed appropriate to pay a brief visit to bygone days for this final print edition of the Bulletin. Our journey begins in the year the internet industry collapse began. The term "dot bomb" may have been born in the 1990's but 2000 was its coming of age. Jakob Nielsen wrote an Alertbox in the middle of the year foretelling the death of web design, primarily from a usability perspective. In my first Bulletin article, Web evolution: Is HCI an endangered species , I looked at some of the implications of the dot.com demise and considered the future of web design. Have things changed? In general I believe they have. E-commerce sites in particular have discovered what works and what doesn't in terms of converting visits into sales. Happily, clear consistent navigation based on other successful sites is where the safe money is (and safe money is what counts at the moment). The intervening years have also allowed the industry to mellow a little. What was originally a pitched battle between usability professionals and the design community has receded to the occasional skirmish as cooperation and understanding between protagonists continues to improve. Let's skip forward to the middle of 2001 where I asked one of the perennial questions of usability testing: How many users does it take to change a web site? Jared Spool and his colleagues at UIE had just presented a paper at CHI on their experience of testing with large numbers of users ("Five users is nowhere near enough"). The paper reported on a study that failed to find even half of a web site's predicted usability problems with 18 users, compared to Nielsen's recommended five users for discount usability testing. It is a little disconcerting that this question remains largely unresolved even now, especially considering that Nielsen's original recommendation was made in 1989 (later revised upwards in a 1993 paper with Thomas Landauer). In "How many users…" I suggested that the complexity of web pages was the culprit-how can you expect to find the majority of a web site's problems with just five users when …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期的千禧一代回顾展
在正常情况下,你可能不会期望看到新千年的回顾至少几年(或者几百年,这取决于你对这类事情的热情)。然而,考虑到这个专栏始于2000年,而网络时间是一个相当加速的现象,在这最后一期的印刷版公报中,对过去的日子进行简短的回顾似乎是合适的。我们的旅程始于互联网行业开始崩溃的那一年。“dot bomb”这个词可能诞生于20世纪90年代,但2000年是它的成年期。Jakob Nielsen在年中写了一篇Alertbox,主要从可用性的角度预言了网页设计的死亡。在我的第一篇文章《网络进化:HCI是濒临灭绝的物种吗》中,我分析了dot.com消亡的一些影响,并考虑了网页设计的未来。事情变了吗?总的来说,我相信他们有。特别是电子商务网站已经发现了在将访问量转化为销售额方面哪些有效,哪些无效。令人高兴的是,基于其他成功网站的清晰一致的导航是安全的资金来源(安全的资金是目前最重要的)。其间的几年也让这个行业变得成熟了一些。最初可用性专业人员和设计社区之间的激烈战斗,随着主角之间的合作和理解不断提高,已经减少到偶尔的小规模冲突。让我们跳到2001年中期,在那里我问了一个关于可用性测试的老生常谈的问题:改变一个网站需要多少用户?UIE的Jared Spool和他的同事刚刚在CHI上发表了一篇论文,介绍了他们对大量用户进行测试的经验(“五个用户远远不够”)。这篇论文报道了一项研究,该研究在18个用户中甚至没有发现一半的网站可用性问题,而尼尔森推荐的5个用户进行折扣可用性测试。令人有点不安的是,这个问题至今仍未得到解决,尤其是考虑到尼尔森最初的建议是在1989年提出的(后来在1993年与托马斯·兰道尔(Thomas Landauer)合著的一篇论文中向上修正)。在“有多少用户……”一文中,我认为网页的复杂性是罪魁祸首——你怎么能指望只有五个用户就能发现网站的大部分问题呢?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Session details: HCI education A whole picture is worth a thousand words How to fix an election www.designingtherealworld.com Parting thoughts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1