Web 2.0 Blog

Following a recent optimization campaign, I was met by this terrible signing in interface courtesy of web advertising site Clickey.com. I felt I should point out the problems with it as it is a usability problem that should not be occurring in today’s web environment.

1. Firstly the terminology is way off. A task which involves registering for an account or adding your domain should not be referred to as ‘Request a password‘. The password is merely a formality when registering at a website, it should not be promoted as the prominent reason and result of the task. Then, check out the submit button - ‘Send Password‘ - I though we were requesting a password, why am I suddenly sending one?
2. From what I can tell, the box on the left is the traditional ‘login’ box, and the box on the right is the equivalent of a ’sign up’ box. They shouldn’t be of equal size as it’s not obvious which one to use, irrespective of the poor naming of the boxes. The login box should be the most obvious and take up most of the space. Preferences should be made to the existing users. A small, but clear option should be made for new users to sign up for an account underneath the main box so all users can think as they see the page: “I can’t login yet so I’ll carry on looking down the page to find where I can sign up.”
3. There are too many instructions too. Why should a box with three lines of instructions be required just to create or login to an account? It’s so unnecessary it’s untrue. Also, underneath each text box where you’d type in your details there’s more text telling you what to input. A usable form would make this obvious without additional instructions. They also put the text in red - which often appears on submitted forms where invalid details have been entered.
4. Lastly, I don’t think the positioning of the boxes works. If this is the way you have to do it then the login box should be on the right with the yellow box header which makes it stand out more. Traditionally users tend to see the furthest right of the two objects of as the most important.

The Yahoo! sign in box shown below is pretty much the perfect example of a sign-in box and it checks all the boxes of the requirements I just went through in terms of usability. The content is ordered and positioned correctly, there aren’t too many instructions, there an obvious but secluded area to sign up, there support for forgotten passwords or additional help, there’s an option to stay signed in, and it’s all contained in one simple, user-friendly box.

As Web 2.0 applications continue to dominate user’s time and investments in 2008, I’ve been doing some reading about Web 3.0 and what it holds in store for the future of web development and it seems there will be four very important milestones reached.

Portable Web
Traditional websites are designed with the intention of being viewed by users accessing them with desktop PCs and standard GUIs. With the evolution of Web 3.0, websites are no longer confined to the screens of a desktop computer but are also accessible via mobile devices such as mobile phones, iPods, Blackberry’s, IPTVs. This throws up a whole new set of questions regarding heuristics, accessibility and usability as users are not interfacing with the software and hardware in the way that all our previous rules were written to abide by.

Semantic Web & Web Services
This is the evolution of intelligent systems beyond the GU, that allow web services to share business logic, data and processes through a programmatic interface across a network. This results in multiple applications interfacing instead of the users. The ultimate goal of Semantic Web is to lessen the tedious work of users and encouraging systems to carry out tasks without the direction of humans. So instead of building web pages to be read by humans, Web services will allow different applications across different platforms to communicate with each other seamlessly.

Open Data
This is the idea of making the web completely integrated in an effort to encourage sharing between users and different applications. The intention would be to make code available via open source, making data portable between sites and making these sites accustomed to your browsing and sharing habits. Imagine being able to use the same login details for a host of your web applications. Google Mail, Yahoo Mail and Blogger are examples of cross-platform data sharing, allowing you to perform different tasks with the same unified account.

Customized Web
Web 2.0 applications are already becoming more customized and tailored to the individual user’s needs based on cookies and settings, and Web 3.0 aims to take this even further. We have already seen websites like Amazon adopting a recommendations engine, which generates thousands of additional sales. How about BBC’s new news site? You can choose which news you want to know about, and you can even have it delivered via RSS.

In my opinion the biggest development comes from the idea of mobile computing and Internet access as not only does it throw the traditional heuristics rulebook out the window, but due to its portability it could be always on, it is aware of its location and it offers instant ways of paying for items on the Internet.

The fact that you can call a number on a website and have credit added to your phone means there’s no reason why we can’t buy other things in the same way. Add to this the new ways that users will interface with these new devices and we could also have much more different ways of interacting with the web. With Google, Yahoo and Microsoft all driving mobile web systems we could be looking at portable Web 3.0 very soon.

It has been rumoured that image-sharing Internet giant Flickr will soon be launching a user video-uploading service that could rival YouTube’s monopoly on the current market. This type of diversification isn’t unknown for Web 2.0 companies as we’ve often seen expansion into other market areas as part of their natural progression and the strengthening of their userbase. Google has already made a head start with its purchase of YouTube and companies such as Yahoo! are losing ground. Despite Flickr having the advantage of a huge userbase to get off the ground with, I can’t believe all of its users will be satisfied with unrelated additions being made to its service which could result in less development time spent improving its existing service.

Could Yahoo! find a way of integrating the two mediums, giving it a unique selling point or two over its rivals. Perhaps video-editing options or an online slideshow creation tool which is simple to use but offers variety and depth would set it apart. Whatever happens, I’m sure that a much-needed injection of creativity into video-sharing websites is the next step in teh evolution of this sector of Web 2.0 and maybe stronger competition in the market could fuel innovation.

Read a news article from PC Pro for more.