April/May Finalists

#1

Go Chugs III! I LOVE that design.

Alex (http://pixul.net/)

#3

I can't help but cringe at the current imdb page now. Great work guys.

Jack (http://boxofjack.com)

#5

I hope Minz Meyer wins it. He's the only one out of the three that doesn't slam information into my face from all angles. His design and coding is perfect. I did notice that it broke in Internet Explorer 5 (I think), but other than that it's flawless.

Robert Lofthouse

#7

From reading a book called webonomics and being taught by a known author for a while, I learnt that you shouldn't stick all your information on the front page, you need to have some things hidden for the user to "find". By find I don't mean hide it 32 pages deep. Just think if you went to a movie and they told you the ending right at the start - well, that appears to be some people's methods when designing web sites.

If all your information is on the front page, then your customers won't stick around for long and they'll rarely come back.

Only Minz Meyer managed to do that, the other two slammed me with information and made me feel like "why should I bother checking out the rest of the site, I have everything here".

Fair enough, you were only meant to design the homepage, but that doesn't mean put as much information as possible on it.

I knew I wasn't going to win, purely because I didn't spend much time on my entry - only a few hours max. I have a lot more time to spend on the mac edition entry, so hopefully my talent will shine through.

The only thing I don't understand i: Right at the start Scrivs said he felt the original web site was overcrowded - yet the two he thought were favourites to win have just as much (if not more) information on them.

Robert Lofthouse

#9

Robert - interesting comment on first page design. I have wondered about this for some time. There seem to be a lot web designers who put lots (too much imho) of info on the front page. So why do they do it? I think they must have a good reason.

My way around it is to have it on the front page but available in popout menus. So the eye is not overloaded and a sense of the structure of the info can be quickly determined. Then a little hovering of the mouse and more is revealed. So it kind of fits it with the webonomics theory.

In fairness to Scrivs, although there is a lot of info on Chugs and Michele's pages, it is better organised than IMDb (as Ippy-chan alludes to). However, I still don't know the conscious reasons for having such a lot of info on page 1. Could someone enlighten me please?

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#11

A lot of people don't know what to do with it - especially when it comes to redesigns. From what I can tell designers think the information on the current site MUST have a reason for being there, otherwise the company wouldn't have put it there. It's a completely different story....

You as a web professional have been hired to design/redesign a web site, therefore you are expected to take what is needed and structure the web site according to your expertise in the area

When you are facing a redesign: You simply can't take all the information they have and lay it out in a different way. Some parts aren't necessary on the front page, some parts shouldn't even be on the web site at all.
The key to winning over your audience is having JUST enough information on the front page to entice them - look at some blogs for example, they give you a snippet of the story, which lures you in to read the rest.

I believe you should treat a redesign JUST like designing a new web site. You get content from a company when you make a new web site - so treat the content on the old version of a web site in the same way.

Remember, you're the god-like professional - you're working for people who haven't got a clue about proper web site design, that's why they hired you.

and remember kids...

KISS - Keep it simple, stupid!

Robert Lofthouse

#13

Can someone tell me, what is a databases sole purpose and why do we use databases? (Note: This question does not need answering)

So, two of the final entrants make the search feature "stand out" - but only one implements it correctly.

When I first looked at the Chuggs one... I thought "FOR".. "FOR".. what the bloody hell do I type in here.. "FOR WHAT".

Then I noticed the lines covering the word "search", which quite obviously completed the start of the sentence "Search FOR..... "

I think it's funny.. the only design that sticks to the principle that "when you're creating a site where a general audience uses it, design for the dumbest person in the world" is Minz Meyer's, the other two in the final three assume that the entire world has an IQ way above average.

I know i'm being harsh, especially when I ranted on about not having much time to do my own, but there are certain "principles" that you must keep to.

Thanks for this competition Scriv's, it's an amazing learning experience for everyone.. and I hope you keep the competition running for a long while yet.

Robert Lofthouse

#15

Robert -

While I'm not personally crazy about the submissions of any of the finalists, I think it's easily inferred what the search function is for only because of the poster images below it support it. Unless one is totally without intellectual capability, the inference is there.

You're right about this being a database primarily. But, it's a database of movies, and all things Hollywood. Being such, I think your approach is a little too logical, in that Hollywood and movies are all about image - and there are none on your submission.

Like it or not, even a movie database designed for public consumption has got to include images.

Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)

#17

Mark: You're telling me that a first time visitor who glances over the web site very quickly, would come up with the following:

For + Hellboy = Search a database?

Doing a HCI analysis on that web site, that's one of the major points i'd pick up. I'm sure if you asked the guys at 37 signals, they'd tell you the same thing.

You're right about the web sites needing images and i've already made it clear that I only had a few hours (max 4) to do my web site, so I concentrated on the coding, accesibility , ID, HCI and design principles.. instead of concentrating on the graphic side of things - and hoped people would pick up on that.

I'll spend some more time on the mac edition web site, treat it like a site i'm designing properly and hope for a place in the final three - but it's still a learning experience for me, not a competition.

Robert Lofthouse

#19

..and I have no problems with including images lol - I was an art student as well as doing computing after all.

Robert Lofthouse

#21

Mmm...so who really is the audience for IMDb? I googled "movies" and imdb is no2 right behind movies.com and right in front of yahoo movies. So they are going to get a lot of visitors that way.

The three sites are not a lot different. movies.com has a flash thing and was the slowest to load. Yahoo also has a smaller flash thing. Imdb is the only one with articles on the front page. I'm sure I could learn a lot from these sites if I could be bothered studying them. That's another lesson for me - google before not afterwords!

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#23

No Mark, if you look at the start of the search it says "FOR", I wasn't talking about not knowing what to search for.

Sorry for the quick reply, but i'm busy atm.

Robert Lofthouse

#25

I was simply stating that having "for" at the beginning of a search is very confusing for anyone, unless they take notice of the header - which is crossed out with stripes.

Putting "for" in front of something would lead you to think:

"For what?"

Whereas if you start with "search" or "search here" then the user is less confused and know to simply enter whatever keywords they want.

It's all about HCI/Usability.

Robert Lofthouse

#27

Depends which way your eye comes onto the page. Anyways, too busy to talk atm - this has been an interesting discussion so far.

Robert Lofthouse

#29

You assume that:

1. Everyone looks at a page in the same way.

2. People aren't distracted and then look back to the page that they just opened. Hence there sight may lead them bottom - top or left - right etc.

3. Noone is dyspraxic/dyslexic.

4. Noone has visual problems.

Just because you can see a site perfectly well and your vision locked onto that oh so visible "search" sign.. and interpreted the "for" correctly - doesn't mean the entire audience who go to that web site will.

I spent a lot of time researching HCI and building mock booking systems, ATM's etc when I was studying computing. I just feel why confuse the user by sticking "for" at the start of a search, when you could have simply put "search >" in front of the text box.

Anyways, this issue has been done to death and i'm sure a lot of people who are knowledgable of HCI/Usability won't want to go through all this just to talk about their own things.

Robert Lofthouse

#31

I agree. Not to brag, but I think that the search box on my submission was well-placed, usable, and attractive.

I was disturbed by Chugs' link colors. The normal state is almost identical to the regular text, and there is no hover state. I guess nobody else noticed this because nobody was following links (since none of them work). But it's still an important part of the site.

Minx Meyer's is good; the only thing that I don't like is the "Opening coming Friday" heading. Not only does it not really flow nicely, but it would have to be changed for movies opening on different days of the week. And I don't see the IMDb pro link on there anywhere.

Congratulations to all of the finalists, though. I don't mean to slander the entries because I didn't win, I'm just opening some other points for discussion.

thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)

#33

Drop down lists are purely for error control - i.e someone is less likely to make a mistake choosing from a selection, than they are typing their query into a "search engine" that relies solely on a text box.

I do agree that the IMDB has so much information, that a more advanced search page "should" be implemented - however, considering again that not everyone who visits that web site (or any web site) is the most intelligent/I.T literate person in the world, I can see the plans flaws. Most people just want a simple text box with either a drop down list or radio buttons and a submit button - people don't want to think, and that's what advanced searches do, they make you think - hence why google etc implement a single search with radio buttons with the OPTION of an advanced search for those that care/understand.

The drop down lists should be kept simple, much like the one IMDB uses - no-one is really going to get confused between title (of a movie) and people (actors/actresses) - though i'm sure some out there will.

I like the "more searches" feature on the original IMDB site, which sticks with the "keep it simple" theory and enables those who don't understand where to search, to find what they need. Strangely enough that page is just a long list of nicely labelled text boxes, drop down lists and submit buttons.

Robert Lofthouse

#35

If only I could be bothered to regurgitate everything I learnt from my HCI lectures, then maybe you would see my point about the drop down lists and the "keep it simple" theory.

Also, it's proven that most people who visit web sites don't even notice the "advanced" search button on web sites. I had to do an entire HCI project on search engines when I was on my computing course and found that most people I asked to test out each search engine had never noticed the feature, used it.. and in fact couldn't find a use for it.

The feedback every time was that they wanted it simple, they liked drop down lists because it gave them options so they didn't have to think and the same for radio buttons.

Robert Lofthouse

#37

Robert - if you did your course more than 2 years ago, things have moved on since then - Google.

Drop downs filter the input, whereas Google searches All and filters the output according to various rankings. I think that now Google is so universal, almost everyone will have come to expect a simple text box and press search and get answers. What could be simpler than that. Certainly not drop downs.

Like you say, users wanted it simple, and drop downs WERE simple but are not quite so simple any more. Agree? At least they are not as simple as one text field and one search button - you surely must agree on that?

So what I think IMDb should do is get a google type search engine that actually does search everything, and then on the results page give users the option of filtering the results - perhaps similar to Google which seems to be along the lines of most popular, most linked to, most recent. They might have one or two other filters that they can find from looking at what people have been searching for. Possibly this could be a drop down, but on the results page, not on the input, and thus less confusing. But better than a drop down would be the capability to combine such filters as most recent with characters or whatever. I think that could be designed so it is near enough a no brainer. I don't care less what IMDb do either but they are the site that we have been applying our design skills to.

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#39

You are also disregarding a lot of other factors for the sake of PURE simplicity. Sorry for the vaguesness, but as I said, i'm in a rush.

Robert Lofthouse

#41

Select lists are useful when you're working with a database and need stuff to be accurate (for example, state names).
They're less useful when you're working on a search, but can be very useful in some instances... think Amazon -- you can choose between author, title, manufacturer, artist, etc depending on genre (book, cd, electronics) when you type in your query. That way your search for Weber, the grill, won't be flooded with results from Weber, Andrew Lloydd and so on. So, Robert, I agree with you in general principal, but here, you're making the first argument more than the second, which is the one that really applies.

That or I'm tired and just got out of a meeting and no longer thinking. :-)

JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#43

Sorry if I appear to take thing personally. I'm away from my fiancee for the time being and work from 8am - 4am the next day EVERY day, so I can be quite grouchy.

I didn't state that drop down lists are a general design principle. I think JC understood it perfectly and highlighted why drop down lists are good for sepecific things.

Also, drop down lists control errors by giving choice, rather than letting the person choose whatever they want for a query/input - e.g. "Mr/Mrs fields" - thus taking away the need to think about input.

Anyways, i'm tired of fighting for drop down lists - x-forms are godly.

Getting back to work, thanks for the interesting chat.

Robert Lofthouse

#45

Peter - That question saves me a lot of typing. I actually explained that a couple weeks ago in my comment here: http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/version_2/imdb_redesign_suggestions.php#4302.

And for what it's worth, I think that a drop-down like that is a good idea. Just as long as the default option combines the results from all the others, then the user can worry about using the menu or not. It works well.

thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)

#47

Robert - you must have been tired when you wrote "drop down lists are purely for error control" (#33) because that statement was completely irrelevant to my comment previous about search drop downs (#32). In #43 you finally explained why you said that, but in between you were talking about one thing and I was talking about another. You must get more sleep!

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#49

Peter - It really does depend on how much time I have to read through a post, hence why I usually answer questions in my later posts when I have had time to read through people's answers properly.

I'll get back to you about your suggestions later.

Robert Lofthouse

#51

JC - Thanks for replying. My background is not technical. And thanks for telling me about my site. Down again...

You are coming from a corporate viewpoint, which I have no experience of, and the way you explain it makes sense. Your company and employees have specific needs and the search has been customised accordingly.

This whole thread was really referring to the IMDb redesign although my ideas on search could be applied to sites used by lots of passing visitors. These companies can afford to get a powerful, google-type search engine. I concede that my approach would probably not work as well in your corporate situation or similar.

Regarding being silly, I think you misunderstood me. I would not leave any default dropdown. I would not have a drop down. I would just have a search like Paul's at the top of this page. No clutter, obvious and intuitive. I would not put things like "search entire database", "select a category", "choose a keyword" or "press search button". They are irrelevant, unneccessary and could be confusing. The thrust behind my whole argument is based on making the site more useable and cutting the crap.

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#53

"The point of an information based web site is to "find information" and being able to "search within the archives of specific categories" - a drop down list combined with a text box on the main page complies with that."

It complies - agreed.

"Paul doesn't need a drop down list - mainly because he has all the information and categories throughout the site, therefore his use of a single text box at the top of the page is acceptable."

It is - agreed.

"Your ideas seem to make the web site inaccessible to a number of people."

Seem to you maybe. But how is a search box like Paul's less accessible? How are any of my other ideas making it less accessible?

"You're also forgetting that on an information based web site, the search feature should be easy to find and dominant on the page rather than tucking it away as a simple text box. You can highlight the search with a different colour, make it a large feature, make it graphical - whatever you want to do."

You've read something into this that I did not say. I nowhere implied that the search feature should not be easy to find. Of course it should be easy to find. I agree with you. And of course you could do the things you say to it.

"The same way the employees at JC's work place have specific needs, so do the people at IMDB - therefore giving them option via a drop down list is logical."

It is one logical option. I am arguing there is a better option.

"Google is a completely different thing, so I don't get the references. You wouldn't use a drop down list containing categories on google.. simply because the list would be endless."

If a search engine as good as Google was to be used for IMDb it would store everything. After the search term is input, it would produce a long list of everything containing that term. If it was like Google it will have sorted them into order by date, proximity of keywords and whatever else Google does. So there would already be some relevance in the results.

It is then that you could be asked to filter by categories. Similar to Amazon. After the search you can choose how to display - sort by popularity, by price, customer rating, a-z, etc.

"The web is meant to be available to all, therefore putting little words next to a search saying "search >" or "select a category >" isn't going to harm your web site at all - it's going to enable more users to use it."

It won't harm your web site but it is merely stating the obvious, therefore unnecessary. But these things should be put in title and alt in the markup, for accessibility.

"There are a lot of people who use the web, with various disabilities, learning difficulties and moods etc therefore it is our duty NOT to alienate them."

I agree and accessibility is not well supported. It is a tricky area and sometimes there is no adequate solution. However, I think if they can see well enough to recognize a search box they will know what it is (or will soon learn) and don't need extra words distracting them.

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#55

He's wishing he was out golfing, except that the weather here sucks right now.

I don't think this really needs to go on and on. I've already pointed out the best solution -- the way Amazon works. You choose the dropdown or you don't. On the results page, if there are enough results in various categories, it breaks them down into categories. For things that can be broken down into categories, that's a bloody fantastic way to handle things -- give them both.

I simply do not understand what your objection is to having a dropdown in the first place, Peter. So long as it's worded properly, it's not going to screw people up, as long as the default is to search all. You don't use it in situations where there's no way to categorize, where there are too many categories, or where the result set is so small that it's pointless, but it's really bloody useful in situations where it can be used.

It's also far, far easier for a designer/developer to implement a dropdown with values that will translate to "WHERE CategoryID = "4" or whatever than it is to write an amazonesque results page... maybe 5 minutes of coding against, I dunno, a few hours if you include all the testing and approvals and nonsense that would have to happen... adding a select list to a search and most people just nod it through.

And it's not like it's difficult for people to understand. The original complaint here wasn't that the select list was confusing, it was that having the word "For" appear in front of it without the word "search" before it (yes, it was above it, but headings do not complete sentences terribly well) didn't make sense on first glance. It should say
SEARCH (heading)
Search for _______________ in ___________V
or really, far better as
Search in ___________________ for _________________.
Nice, easy to understand sentence format. Most people can manage that, where they'd have trouble with a normal search box, especially a small one popped away in a corner that uses the word "go" on the button to save space (a sin I've committed many a time, and will continue to commit as needed).

Peter, my apologies if you thought I was calling you silly. I was calling the idea that. And I understand you quite clearly -- I just don't think it's a terribly good argument. You use the best tools for the job at hand, without adding undue burden to the user. I wouldn't throw checkboxes, radio buttons, and explanations of Booleans at them... but I will give them an immediate option to limit their searches to the specific subject they are interested in if the database is complex enough to merit it. Filtering AFTER receiving an overwhelming number of results is not the way to do business for a normal end user.

--

Robert, your arguments on accessibility don't really apply very well here. Basic types of disability... vision (blind, partial, poor sight, color blindness, etc) of course apply in any instance to anything, but they don't favor one version over the other. Hearing problems and most physical handicaps are irrelavent for most web browsing. People with difficulty moving the cursor around have a hard time with select boxes, especially those suffering from parkinsons or other things that make the hands shake, but again, they don't have to use the select box. People who use only the keyboard and not the mouse are perfectly capable of navigating select lists and search boxes, their only real headaches are when the select lists are navigational jump boxes that act onchange, which obviously doesn't apply to searching. What handicap am I missing here? No offense, if you have a definite idea in mind... I just get a little tired of people spouting out "accessibility" to defend their point of the moment when it really doesn't apply. It implies argument by intimidation (implied "If you don't agree that I'm right because of accessibility issues, you're a bad person who hates handicapped people and a bad designer who's incapable of understanding these issues"), which gets my back up. Not that I haven't used it as a lever on occasion to push through other agendas (getting the heck off of netscape 4.7 for example), but that's "outside the family" so to speak.

and damn this was a long reply, and not even really on topic... so I'd better throw Paul a bone here... I like the one from Minz best. Good use of friendly, cheerful colors that make it inviting for the average user.

JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#57

JC - I posted my reply to Robert and now I see your reply. I will read it again before I respond. (I hop on and off the net in short bursts and that way I get it free)

Peter (http://www.01010.org/)

#59

JC - The kind of disability I was referring to is learning difficulties. My brother is autistic and one of my best friends is dyspraxic and they both need those extra words and drop down lists to make their online experience as enjoyable as everyone elses.

I know you're not an ignorant person, but you should always try and cater for disabilities no matter how small an effort you make. I've heard that argument over and over "ugh, why should I do it for them.. i'm tired of being called a bad person just 'cause I won't help a large percentage of the web out".

In the end it's your choice - Usability/Accesiblity applies to nearly every design decision on a web site - even flash based web sites.

Don't see that as me "telling you what to do" - you're a very knowledgable person, so i'm not saying you don't know this stuff.

Yes, my original point made was about the poorly placed "for" word in front of the search feature - but it took several posts for people to even understand why it would be necessary for such a feature - hence the length of this "thread".

Peter - I don't see how I went off topic at all. I just discussed some things you possibly didn't want to hear and a lot of things I discussed was the theory behind certain design based decisions.
If you would like me to stick to simple explanations and words in future then fair enough.

I didn't really see the point in going into the scripting theory, as the whole thing from the start WAS about accessibilty - if anyone has gone of topic is you.

Even your points weren't required in this thread. This thread was about the remaining 3 people who are going to be judged.

Seems as if this thread is beyond repair. Peter what is your profession?

You are in the North of England, so you could be anywhere near me - i'm temporarily in York.

Robert Lofthouse

#61

Kind of a catch 22, really, robert... some people *need* the extra cues... then there are some that the extra cues would prove a total distraction to.

I don't think people generally classify mental disorders, even serious ones like autism, as the sorts of disabilties one can really do much for on a web page... Yes, it's an accessibility issue of sorts, but it's not one you can really help with, because what helps one hurts another.

JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#63

Indeed. In the end it's up to you to decide who you want to "hurt". We make compromises every day in web design - design for usability, usability for design and so on.

I also appreciate the search feature :)

Robert Lofthouse

#65

ooops, I forgot to give you all a link about "how to install multiple versions of IE one computer" - the necessary files will be going up tonight, so i'll post the link on here for those that are interested.

My tutorial is a modified version of a thread that was posted on webmaster world, however you need to sign up to view their posts, so I thought i'd give everyone an easy to access version.

Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)

#67

Here is the link for those that are interested in installing multiple versions of IE on one computer, without using a virtual pc or partitioning. Alternatively you can sign up to webmasterworld forums and get DrDoc's version.

Guide

Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)