WOW! a lot of interesting thoughts and analyses here! my response way
down below...
Graham wrote:
On Monday 03 December 2007 05:42:41 :murb: [maarten brouwers] wrote:
Hi Graham,
You are about to convince me, I must say... :)
I have little experience with real newbies, and have been able to
educate my parents to a reasonable degree. My scepticism is maybe
comparable to the question whether we should use written language
instead of pictures to communicate what we want, since there are
illiterates?
True, but given that the internet is a text based medium....
Interface language is variable in terms of what is required of that
interface. A couple of questions come to mind,
"For whom Is the interface designed"
(This is not as simple an answer as first seems)
So does this include illiterates? Should we expect illiterate people to
come to the OpenOffice.org website in the first place. Is OpenOffice.org
as a program already user friendly enough for illiterates to understand,
given also that many they may be communicating with are using another
popular suite?
The question is interesting in that it can generate two simple answers.
= The Users
= The Authors
The real answer of course is a compromise of the two but we have to be very
aware of the fact so that the needs of one doesn't override that of the other
Is it ready already for Mr. Thomas Harold Edward?
Mr Thomas Harold Edward Client bought his first computer yesterday
and has heard a rumour that he can download an Office Suite called
OpenOffice.org off the internet for free and so he has just got
himself an internet connection.
On the other hand, your argument makes sense. If we combine your action
statements with generally understood (by the literates) icons, we can
safe them the processing part. We can choose now for a radical approach
for the homepage, I am not against this. But I do think it is radical
given for example
These are excellent examples if only because I've only ever been to one of
them: Mozilla. The critical factor for me is Web User Sophistication level
of the clients.
( Note please that I am not talking about Computer use sophistication. I have
students who can do things with Calc that leave my head spinning and my eyes
blurring over but whose internet sophistication is very low.)
1. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/
Average user sophistication level would be quite high, considerably higher
than the average OOo user.
It uses short phrases to reinforce marketing lines although they don't give me
a clue as to what I'll see if I click on them... that's of course if I
actually figure out that they're links. Confusing links to information = bad
Bright Orange Icon is a Marketers dream and the green contrast hit's you right
in the eye! Excellent
(Note it doesn't say "Consumes memory like a Starving Hyena takes to meat in a
butchers shop" ;) )
For sophisticated Webuser I'd give it a 9 not surprisingly, it is their target
market
????? I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but, well...OK
However that's not ours, so for non-sophisticated User I'd give it a 5
2. http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/default.aspx
Erk it hurts, but this I think is quite good.
However: Sophistication requirement level again is quite high because your
average user buys from the local shop
Best thing: Dynamic content, seasonal changes. This gives people the
impression of immediacy like they are being talked to right now
I'd say it was quite good but I doubt it is used at a significant level
Hard to score, I'll give it a 5 but it's hard not to be biased, add 2 to
compensate for that. ;)
3. http://www.apple.com/itunes/
OMIGOD WTF what a bloody bombsite..
Too many decisions
Definitely not for our average user.
Designed for technically litterate Gen X - Gen Y
For typical OOo User this would get a 2
I agree WAY WAY OVERKILL!!!!!
4. http://www.apple.com/iwork/
Nobody at apple has dialup, that is obvious.
Not bad, still requires reasonable level of web sophistication.
Non intuitive links, slow loading graphics.
But give it a 7
I would say that these pages appeal to the same audience as we do, and 1
and 4 I would, intuitively, consider user friendly. Clean, clear, no
clutter. Maybe you could convince me by arguing why these sites are bad?
I would disagree in general.
One difference between OOo and MS and Apple is that the unsophisticated Web
user can go buy the latter's product from the local shop.
Firefox requires a certain level of Internet user sophistication to simply get
to the point of having enough knowledge to know what a browser is.
I asked a group of my students once. "What is a Web Browser." No answer
until one lady put up a hand and said: "A blue 'e' ?"
LOL!
The lesson I was doing was about how to upgrade to the latest OpenOffice.org.
(Note: Lady was an accountant and was doing things in OOoBase that just went
way over my head.)
OOo Clients web User sophistication I would suggest is much lower than most of
the above except perhaps the the i-Works page. However the unsophisticated
Apple Web user can go to his local Apple retailer and probably would and in
fact would probably get it through an Apple Mail promotion. So while those
site may seem close to our first time user, in fact they are probably rather
distant.
Closer sites would in fact more likely be
www.gimp.org
OK, IF users generally are of the sophistication you seem to keep
implying in this discussion then maybe this kind of approach is
warranted. But I think you might actually be right. :(
It's rather a brave user to begin with to GO and even download an open
source product if you get right down to it. With all the hair raising
stories of identify theft the news, etc.
As for the rest of this discussion, I don't have a strong opinion on
"action" statements vs just short clear description. Our emphasis vis a
vis download should clearly be on plain, simple, and clear for the home
page. Gimp as a model or some of the other simple designs already
created would be great.
audacity.sourceforge.net
www.inkscape.org/
The reasons:
You can't buy any of the above from the shop, like OOo
The User could have got any of the above plus OOo for the first time from a
Magazine CD
Users of these are possibly more sophisticated in the particular field that
the Application deals with than he is as an Internet User.
The only way that this new user can get an upgrade when he wants it is by
downloading from the net
Then there are some other download only commercial offerings
http://www.real.com
On dial up the first thing you see is the "Download" Button everything loads
after that. Little blue button on black BG. Smacks you in the face. I
don't whether it was deliberate but the way it works is very cool.
Or these have to be two of the most visited download pages on the net
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
To help you already:
Nr. 1 doesn't need much assistance, is a much less complex program, and
4 doesn't rely on its homepage only to 'sell' it, whereas openoffice.org
does.
At the moment yes, my assertion is that it shouldn't try to sell it beyond
first level contact. why.openoffice.org does that job much better
I was kind of shocked with 3, since it seems to be quite popular,
but again, most get it with their music player of that brand. And for 2,
I doubt how popular this website actually is, it is definitely not
required for convincing users.
Agreed
I just want to be sure whether the action statement approach is a solid
approach since it is relatively radical in my opinion, when websites are
considered.
"Download"
"More Info"
Show a person unfamiliar with the OOo website the above phrases. Your
ones first with no context. Yours are cryptic, no doubt. Do they make
sense out of context, no.
But the context is there, these buttons are/could be surrounded with
OpenOffice.org, OOo-symbols, branding elements, etc.
True but context has to be "read in", that takes time, arguably longer than
reading a simple statement. especially to an internet newbie
Personally, I rarely go to the front page but my Opera bookmarks have 33
OOo specific addresses.
Actually I still do... but then, let me clear about that, the website
shouldn't be designed for people like me.
Agreed
However instead of asking
[.....]
can't we shorten it a bit, I think these action statements are still a
bit too long to my taste. The cognitive processing argument applies here
as well... the longer the sentence, the longer the read. Another
argument is that the long lines make it hard to design around, marketing
is also about the attractiveness, and more powerful make it easier to
design around, I'd say.
Why not:
"I want to download OpenOffice.org"
"I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org"
"I have OpenOffice.org, but need help"
"I have OpenOffice.org, but want to help"
or "I want to help OpenOffice.org"
Indeed, in fact all your statements come in under the 8 word phrase
Actually yes they would likely work better.
The need in each statement is to connect the " I " with OpenOffice.org in the
Users mind, through an action. The above fulfills that
But what we are forgetting about is (I am checking it now against
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Pages_Requirements ):
- international users (you have indeed the map, but why should this
follow the same approach)
- we want to promote extentions, should we add "I have OpenOffice.org,
but want to extend it"
Next level? Not sure. Sophisticated Users recognise tool bar type links
easily in the same way we have now. Perhaps we gear the links up there
toward that market.
You could have
Issues | Native Language | Uno | Extensions | Forum | Login | Search
- do you think it is still appropriate to include some lines explaining
in very global terms, e.g. "OpenOffice.org is a multiplatform and
multilingual office suite and an open-source project. Compatible with
all other major office suites, the product is free to download, use, and
distribute. "
Yes and No. It's about prominence on launch and so long as it is readable but
not the most prominent thing when the page launches. However the above
statement is clear and concise and relevant and gives our casual "Foot
traffiic" client one more nudge to hit the "I want to learn more...."
button / icon / link. I'm more in favour than not
- What do you think about the one-click download issue?
Heh, you probably shouldn't have asked me that but hey, Louis has often had
to resist the temptation to fire rotten fruit in my direction in the past.
No point in staying under cover! ;)
One click download is basically a method to try and convert click-throughs
into downloads. I don't think it will work because it doesn't deal with the
fundamental problem that started this thread: Creating the Desire. All one
click does is get the horse to the trough faster, but he is still no
thirstier.
So basically my suggestion, (lets call it "Creating the Desire") and "One
click" are different solutions to the same problem. I just think mine is
better! :)
Having said all that I think that Louis' point about making it easier is a
valid one, we can "Create the Desire" but we can also kill the desire quickly
by making the process difficult. I would change the goal to "Minimal click"
Download
How about we look at this as the process.
"I want to Download OpenOffice.org Now" links to download.openoffice.org with
the ability to choose language and OS and so forth pretty much as is right
now.
"I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org" links to why.openoffice.org which
does OS + Language + JRE check then the "Download" link on the why page is a
single click. As soon as the download starts and while it is happening the
contributing page displays.
That's two clicks for a new user
(I am not sure whether I am covering everything now, but these still
need some discussion)
I like this discussion though, so while my answers may be a bit
short/critical (which you might interpret as something negative), I
don't want this to stop the discussion. I'm interested in what you have
to say about this!
Heh the discussion is intelligent and relevant and I was a great admirer
of your work in the last revamp so I'm happy to put the time in and don't
worry I see nothing that has been said so far as critical, just an
opposing viewpoint designed to scrutinise the ideas. No problem with
that at all, quite the opposite.
Thanks, just wanted to be clear about my intentions, since sometimes
people can take these discussions personal... which is never my intent.
*sigh* I know about that one! :-/
This is excellent and productive, I'm still mindful of the timeframe but we
are covering good ground.
Leonard makes good points about Graphical elements
I am trying to think of a way of combining the elements in a progressive
manner that can be done with CSS
So that a colour or grad BG loads then coloured backgrounds to the buttons
with the "I want to Download..." Text then the Graphics on top of the buttons
but under the text
This bit is probably better on the wiki and I should probably have a shot at
rough coding it.
g.,
Maarten
Cheers
G
--
===================================================
MzK
Kay Schenk
"It's no secret that in times of stress you turn
to potatoes."
-- 'Daniel' to 'Betty', "Ugly Betty"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
