The iPhone has been a catalyst for a number of mobile versions of popular sites, including many I use most days:

Xero, NZ Herald (*), TripIt, Kiwibank, Google Reader.

(*) if you haven’t discovered m.nzherald.co.nz I recommend you check it out – I’ve completely abandoned Stuff since they launched this.

I’m interested to see how these mobile versions have been designed.

They don’t try and cram in too many features.  They use super large fonts and large buttons, and as a result there is not a lot of room on each page for too much noise.  The things you can click (or do we say “touch” now?) are immediately obvious.

They are not bogged down by lots of unnecessary images or scripts … so they are FAST!

Here is a quick comparison of the corresponding login/home pages:

Site Version Page Size Download
Xero Standard 938.4kB 7.86s
Mobile 12.7kB 2.92s
TripIt Standard 334.2kB 8.15s
Mobile 13.7kB 1.78s
NZ Herald Standard 595.8kB 8.89s
Mobile 126.5kB 3.58s
Kiwibank Standard 69.5kB 4.79s
Mobile 34.3kB 3.06s
Google Reader Standard 71.1kB 3.82s
Mobile 3.7kB 1.12s

I realise that this is completely unscientific.  For example, I used an empty cache in each case.  No doubt many of these sites are faster the second time you visit because of caching.  I also tested only one load of each page, and there are any number of things which could have caused the speed to vary.  And it’s a somewhat random sample of sites to choose.  But, I hope it is a rough drawing of the point I’m trying to make nonetheless – that is, the mobile versions are much smaller and as a result much faster to load.

I wonder how much of this thinking will filter back into the main standard browser versions of these sites?

Hopefully designers and developers will start to see the benefits of some of these things (less design, bigger fonts, etc) into ALL of the sites they work on, whether intended for mobile users or not.

At the extreme of this trend is a site like Muxtape which only has a mobile version of their site.  If you visit using a normal browser, you get the mobile version – a simple, fast-loading page with big obvious design elements.  In other words, you get a great usable webpage.

Which makes me wonder … if I’m just wanting to see the latest headlines, check my balances or lookup a travel booking, why wouldn’t I load the mobile version of these sites in my standard browser, rather than waiting around for the full versions?

Loving TripIt

I’ve raved about TripIt here before.  But, it’s worth repeating.  If you travel a lot and don’t use this service you’re missing out.

Here are a couple of aspects of their service which I’ve only recently discovered, which make it even better …

1. m.tripit.com

They now have a version of their site designed specifically for mobile browsers, so you can quickly and easily get details of your itinerary and bookings from your phone on the go.

They’ve even included a “Check Flight Status” link for upcoming flight bookings, which is very handy.

More information

2 iCal feeds

Previously whenever I booked flights I would manually add the details to my calendar – including times and flight numbers etc.  I would also usually enter an all-day appointment for the days I was away, so I didn’t accidentally make other appointments when I would be out of town.

TripIt can take care of all of that for you automatically.

Just add the iCal feed to your calendar and any trips and flight bookings will automatically show up on the appropriate dates.

Those two things aside, the single greatest feature of TripIt is still the complete lack of data entry required – just forward on the confirmation emails you get from airlines, hotels and rental car companies and they will pull them all together into an itinerary for you automatically.



Enough slagging off banks, let’s talk about some of the good things some of the NZ banks have been doing lately …

I see Kiwibank have launched an iPhone version of their online banking site.

Very cool.

I love it how they have stripped back the functionality to just the essential bits – check your balance, transfer money.  The only thing that’s possibly missing is making a payment.  As a result the interface is not cluttered with lots of unnecessary noise.

However, look closely at the screenshots and you’ll see an interface still dominated by lots of mostly meaningless numbers.

Is “38-9007-0581259-00” your cheque account or your savings account?  Or your company account?  Or maybe your joint account for shared expenses?  You’ll have to either have a memory for long strings or (more likely) guess based on the balances.  But, good luck with that approach on the transfer screen – there are no balances displayed.

As far as innovations go I’m much more impressed with a small change that ASB recently made: you can now name your own accounts.

So simple.

You can choose names, like “Cheque” or “Savings”.  But, if you like, you can also call them whatever you want.  Use this to your advantage – I imagine it would be much harder to frivolously spend money from your savings account if it was called “Fiji Trip”, for example!

Little things…


Affordance is a simple but powerful idea.

I first came across is in Don Norman’s book The Design of Everyday Things, but according to Wikipedia it’s much older than that.

At Webstock this year Liz Danzico defined it as: “providing uninscribed and detectable cues that loosely govern a set of actions or interactions”.

I would say: “make it obvious to me what I can or should do with things”.

The classic textbook example …

When you approach a swinging door how do you know which was the door opens? Do you push the door away from you? Or pull it toward you?

The “handle” that’s placed on the door should make this obvious.


Picture: http://blogs.technet.com/ewan/


Picture: http://www.iqcontent.com/blog

If you think about it the flat piece of metal with the word “push” commonly placed on doors is an odd design element. It has no real purpose other than to remove the doubt about the direction of the door, and perhaps to indicate where is an appropriate place for your hand to push. But, we’d struggle without them.

Some other examples from web design:

  • Links should look like links (i.e. normally blue and underlined)
  • Buttons should look like buttons (i.e. rectangular with a label, and probably with a subtle 3D effect to give the impression that you can press them in)
  • Scroll bars should look like scroll bars (i.e. to the far right of the page and, ideally, using standard controls from your operating system)
  • Tabs should looks like tabs (i.e. with the selected tab appearing to sit physically in front of the other tabs)

Notice a pattern here?

What other affordances make your life easier every day without you even noticing?

Who’s using RSS?

The stats for this blog show that most readers are using a feed reader of some kind (predominantly Google Reader).

But, that’s not normal.

Matt Mullenweg has posted some stats across the entire WordPress universe of blogs for the month of May, and the numbers make interesting reading:

  • Active Blogs: 965,041
  • Page Views: 1,134,796,234
  • Page Views (in an RSS feed): 71,351,276

In other words, fewer than 7% of page views to WordPress blogs are via a feed reader.

I’m sure that number is much lower than most technical people would assume.  Not using a feed reader is so inefficient, eh, and who would be that silly?!

Don’t assume that everybody is like you.

Speed is not a problem you can solve

There are, in my experience, two types of websites:

  1. Websites which are slow; and
  2. Websites which are noticably slow.

It’s important to understand which of these categories applies to your site.

If the people using your site tell you that they think it’s slow then you are definitely in the second category.

What you can do about this?

Also, you can make sure that you include time in your work plans to make small performance improvements whenever you make changes to the site. This is important because (despite developers expectations to the contrary) it is unlikely that the day will ever come where you’ll be able to stop working on new features or bug fixes in order to just focus on performance.

Making your site faster needs to be part of what you constantly do, rather than something that you hope to have time to work on at some point in the future.

We’re not normal

This week web folk from around the country will head to Wellington for Webstock (shouldn’t it really be Webstock 2.0?) to hear a great line-up of speakers coming here from around the world (some of them are here already).

So, it’s timely to remind ourselves just what an unusual bunch we are.

Here are some browser stats the Webstock organisers recently published on their blog:

Firefox Internet Explorer Safari

And, here are the equivalent numbers for Trade Me in January:

Firefox Internet Explorer Safari

Spot the difference?

We’re not normal, but if we put our mind to it we can empathise, surely?

PS I use Firefox on my chunky Mac, so if I’m throwing stones here I’m throwing them at myself first. :-)

Registration Revolution

If you do any traveling and you haven’t yet discovered TripIt.com I strongly encourage you to check it out.

(You also need to go and subscribe to Joel Spolsky’s RSS feed. He wrote about this at the end of last week, and if you’re reading my blog and not following his articles then you clearly have things in the wrong order).

All you need to do is find a booking confirmation email from an airline, hotel or rental car company and forward it via email to plans@tripit.com. They will convert your email into a simple itinerary page for your trip and send you back a link. If you have other bookings to include in the same itinerary, simply forward them on.

No more searching through your inbox to find all of these confirmation emails before your trip, which is good.

But, what’s really great in my opinion is that they have revolutionised the registration process. In fact they have eliminated the registration process altogether. By making the first interaction email based there is no need to fill in a cumbersome form on the website – entering you email address twice to make sure you don’t have any typos, choosing a password (which we all know usually means entering the same password you use on more or less every site), waiting for a confirmation email and then clicking on the link to validate that your email address is actually yours, etc etc. All of that is history.

I really like this idea – replacing a complex process with a simple email – and I think it could probably be used in lots of different situations.

Are there other websites ballsy enough to replace their entire registration page and process with an email address?

Are there any other examples of email-as-interface that you’ve seen out there? If so, I’m keen to hear about them.

Getting to the third user

The scene: some developers are observing their first usability test on some software they have built.

The first users walks in and completely misses the seemingly obvious cues in the user interface. The button the user needs to click might well be big and red and flashing with a marching ants border, but they just don’t see it.

“Dumb user” everybody thinks.

The second user walks in and also ends up hopelessly lost.

“Two stupid users in a row … what are the odds?”

The third user walks in. Same story.

At this point, the smart developers in the room are, hopefully, slapping their foreheads and thinking “how could we have been so stupid”.

The key here is getting to the third user.

Otherwise you haven’t really learnt anything.


Anybody who has worked with me on UI design will be familiar with my sarcastic request for a marching ants border. I always assumed this was impossible in HTML, but apparently not …

How to add “marching ants” Photoshop selection style to your links


Garr Reynolds Wisdom, Part II

This is Part II in a two-part series. Part I was published on 24-Jan.

Another one from Guy and Garr

Question: What is the single most important thing people could do to enhance their presentations?

Answer: Turn off the computer, grab some paper and a pencil, and find someplace quiet. Think of the audience. What is it they need? What is it you want to say that they need to hear. Identify what’s important and what is not. You can’t say everything in a twenty-minute talk—or even a two-hour talk.

The problem with most presentations is that people try to include too much. You can go deep or you can go wide, but you can’t really do both. What is the core message? This time “off the grid” with paper and pencil or a white board is where you can clarify your ideas and then get them on paper visually. After your ideas and basic structure are clear, then you can open up the software and start laying out the story in the slide sorter view.

Replace the word “presentations” above with “software” and the same great advice holds, I think.

Certainly the part about turning off your computer and spending some time thinking about what your audience needs and considers important, as tempting as it is to jump straight in and start coding.

But the real gem here in my opinion is the observation that you can go deep or wide but not both.

Just like presentations I think that most people building software try to include too much. Adding more features is a natural inclination. It’s actually ingrained in the social order of software developers – within teams enhancing existing features never seems to have the same status as adding something new. But, it should.

Can you have both the most features and be the easiest to use?

When you look around there are not many examples of software products which have achieved this.

So which of these two alternatives are you choosing, consciously or otherwise?

Garr Reynolds Wisdom, Part I

This is Part I in a two-part series. Part II was published on 25-Jan.

Garr Reynolds from Presentation Zen (who I’ve linked to before) recently answered a bunch of questions for Guy Kawasaki.

Ten Questions with Garr Reynolds

It’s a great post and I recommend that you read it. But a couple of the questions and answers especially jumped out at me. I thought it was worth highlighting them here – one today and one tomorrow.

Question: Are PowerPoint and Keynote part of the problem or part of the solution?

Answer: There is no question that PowerPoint has been at least a part of the problem because it has affected a generation. It should have come with a warning label and a good set of design instructions back in the ’90s. But it is also a copout to blame PowerPoint—it’s just software, not a method.

True, the templates and wizards of the past probably took most of us—who didn’t know any better anyway—down a road to ‘really bad PowerPoint’ as Seth Godin calls it. But today we know better, and we can make effective presentations with even older versions of PowerPoint—often by ignoring most of the features. Ultimately it comes down to us and our skills and our content. Each case is different, and some of the best presentations include not a single slide. In the end it is about knowing your material deeply and designing visuals that augment and amplify your spoken message.

How depressing to have an expert like Garr is telling people that the best way to use software is to consciously avoid features. Of course, he’s right. But, what a waste of time spent designing, developing and testing those features. Imagine instead if that time was invested in those parts of the software that people should use.

What’s more, not everybody is lucky enough to read this sort of advice. Death by bullet points is still the most common presentation experience.

Who is responsible for that outcome?

Those of us who design software should always focus on guiding users directly into “The Pit of Success”.

“In stark contrast to a summit, a peak, or a journey across a desert to find victory through many trials and surprises, we want our customers to simply fall into winning practices by using our [software]. To the extent that we make it easy to get into trouble we fail.”

— Rico Mariani, Microsoft Research (quoted by Brad Adams).

You need to make the right way the default. A new user should be able to just follow their nose, make the obvious choices, and end up in the right place.

Of course, this requires that you take a view about what the “right way” and the “right place” actually are (even where this requires you to be a bit of a dictator).

I think this is where software developers often let themselves down – by giving users almost unlimited flexibility, giving all features equal prominence in the navigation, by adding all of the features that users ask for (as opposed to those features that are required to get them most directly to the desired place), etc etc.

Those working on PowerPoint over the years have fallen into all of these traps.

As have many of us.

BONUS: Garr has a new book, also called Presentation Zen. If you do any public speaking, or even in-house presentations at work, go get a copy.

400 pixels or less

One of the fundamental decisions for a web designer to make when working on a new site, or updating an existing one, is what canvas size to allow themselves.

At the risk of showing my age, when I first started working on the web one of the key questions was how the site would look for those using a monitor with a resolution of 640×480 (for the younger readers: this wasn’t THAT long ago!)

Thankfully, time and screen sizes moved on.

When we updated the design of Trade Me late last year we increased the standard resolution that we supported up to 1024×768, although with code in place to ensure that the site still works well at 800×600.

If you’re interested load up the home page and try re-sizing your browser window – you’ll notice that, thanks to the magic of JavaScript, at 800×600 the logo and advertisment in the top-right corner jump up above the tabs and the font size on the category links in the body of the page is smaller.

By comparison, Xero, which has slightly more modern browser requirements, uses a fixed-width design which more-or-less fills the screen at 1024×768.

Why is this stuff important?

Well, as it turns out, people are not so quick to increase their screen size or resolution as web designers like to think.

Whenever I speak to a tech crowd I normally ask for a show of hands from anybody who is using a low-res screen (lately that has been 1024×768 or less). It’s unusual for anybody to raise their hand. But, out in the real world there are still plenty of people browsing at that resolution.

In fact many thousands of them…

Using the Neilsen Online stats for September ’07 of the ~3.5 million unique visitors to Trade Me during the month around 15% of them were using a resolution of 1024×768 (that’s 515,000 visitors) and even more incredibly just over 4% were using a resolution of 800×600 (that’s 145,000 visitors). Many of these people will be using a monitor that is capable of a higher resolution, I’m sure, if only they could work out how to increase it!

At the other end of the spectrum there are a number of different very large resolutions now in use. I’m typing this on a screen that is bigger than could have even been conceived of in the late 1990s, which of course makes life difficult for sites like Trade Me that use a liquid design.

Where it really gets interesting is when you look a little further down the list of browser resolutions. For example, the fifth most common resolution, with 1.82% market share is 214×138. That’s pretty small!

After I mentioned these numbers at the WDANZ conference I spoke at in Auckland a few months back Harvey Kane from RagePank picked up the analysis and came up with some even more interesting findings.

He made the observation that what really matters is the number of horizontal pixels available.

He looked at the Trade Me data and found:

Horizontal pixels Market share
400 or less 14%
800 or less 22%
1024 or less 45%
1280 or less 77%

That is a lot of people using little screens! Presumably many of them handheld/mobile devices?

So, there might be a role moving forward for those of us who remember designing for tiny resolutions after all! :-)

The lesson from this…

Design for your audience, not just for yourself, and always remember that they are probably nothing like you.

Right column navigation

It’s a brave person who challenges design conventions…

“Traditionally navigation on the web either appears on the left or at the top. Right hand navigation has somewhat been frowned upon. However, more recently this trend seems to have been changing with more websites adopting it. I think this is partly due to blogs, which seem to have right hand navigation by default. However, it has always struck me as strange that the convention is towards left. If you think about it there are a lot of good reasons for right hand navigation…

  • It puts the content first visually
  • Your cursor naturally hovers near the scrollbars on the right
  • We are familiar with right hand navigation from tabs in books
  • We know from usability research that whether navigation is on the left or right, it makes no difference in the time it takes to complete a task

Overall I am hugely in favor of right hand navigation and I am glad to see it becoming more popular.”

From: Emerging Design Trends

What do you think? Agree or disagree?

Cumulative feeling of quality

Here is a nice (old) post from Sam Ng at Optimal Usability about Ben Goodger’s presentation at Webstock last year:

“Ben Goodger, lead engineer for the Firefox browser, obviously believes in the power of the user interface and credits their ‘less is more’ philosophy as one of the key reasons for the browser’s success. As part of this philosophy, they made sure that the interface was clear, removing words or interface elements wherever they could to increase clarity. They also had fewer and more useful options, only including a configuration option if 15% or more of users were likely to change it. And they worked hard on using smart defaults, like turning the pop-up blocker on. All these small changes created a ‘cumulative feeling of quality’.”

From: http://www.optimalusability.com/post.php?postid=31

Designing for the 80% majority (or 85% in this case) is a great idea.

Sam – this is good stuff, what’s happened to your blog?

Google is the benchmark

Last week the DominionPost had a story about Peter O’Hara leaving Fairfax. He was formerly the Editor-in-Chief. I only met Peter a few times during my time at Trade Me, but was impressed each time. He will be missed, I’m sure.

I went looking for a link to the article this afternoon on Stuff.

A search for “Fairfax” on Stuff returned only one result: “Fairfax Magazines Terms & Conditions“.

Not very helpful!

A search for “Fairfax site:stuff.co.nz” on Google on the other hand returned about 415,000 results (in 0.32 seconds no less!)

An on the first page, this article: “Fairfax Media’s editor-in-chief leaves“.

With “Fairfax” in the headline and repeated several times in the article you’d expect this to have been in the site search results.

How is it that Google can index Stuff better than Stuff can index themselves? Stuff only has to index Stuff. Google has to index the whole web. And still they do a better job.

Including search functionality on your site is very important, but unless it works you may as well just refer people to Google.