How HCI and API design are similar

All software needs an interface. Having one makes it possible to use the functionality and consume the data that lives within that software.

Humans use interfaces for software all the time, with the World Wide Web arguably being the biggest interface there is (OK, perhaps some websites aren't the best examples of usefulness in this mass experiment).  But put basically... they allow human-to-system interaction, also known as Human Computer Interaction or HCI for short.

Human Computer Interfaces have the following principles:

1. They remove complexity:
   By making it clear what each function does (e.g. do not have two ways of doing similar things)
2. They follow standards:
   By following established conventions (hyperlinks, buttons, tick boxes, etc.) they provide consistency.
3. They make interaction easier:
   By enabling swift and efficient relationship with the underlying data & processes and providing feedback or a response when something happens.

And Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) play a very similar role, but in a slightly different system-to-system manner. They:

1. Remove complexity, by (hopefully) providing a single request & response for each individual function
2. Follow standards, usually in the form of an API specification, to allow consistent development against them
3. Make interaction with the underlying systems easier via a standard set of methods (GET, POST, DELETE, etc.)

Ultimately, whether interacting with a human or another system... a well designed interface benefits both parties.

API granularity

Deciding how to design a digital architecture that provides optimum agility and scale-ability for your organisation is a challenge for many architects in the midst of a digital transformation. Deciding if you should use APIs in your integration layer is perhaps much less of a dilemma (hint: of course you must). But then working out how to design those APIs and the services behind them can be a new problem to solve.

I think this is an especially important decision, as it is quite hard to undo an architectural choice. Issues, can subsequently occur such as:

• performance bottlenecks (e.g. from too course a design)
• too much 'chatter' (e.g. from too granular a design) 
• the inclusion of too much (any?) business logic

All of which could have major implications in the future.

Is A High Bounce Rate Always Bad?

If you have any form of contact with website reports, you will no doubt be familiar with the phrase ‘bounce rate’.  Google defines Bounce Rate as “the percentage of single-page sessions”, in other words the ratio of site visitors who came to your site and didn't go anywhere else. 

It is one of the most popular online web metrics quoted and is typically cited by website managers as good or bad depending upon the figure…. With “High” usually meaning “bad”.

But is that really the case?

Those with some understanding of bounce figures usually claim that a high rate is a sign of poor design or bad usability. That users have not found what they wanted and then gone elsewhere.

This may indeed be true, however the opposite may also be the case. You see a user may have arrived at exactly the right page they wanted (either via marketing activity or good deep-linking search engine optimisation) and got everything they wanted (such as the right information or a view of a video).

Note: If you only have a single page site, such as a microsite or a holding page for a larger forthcoming site, then you can obviously expect a very high bounce rate.

Nobody sets out to read ‘content’ online

It seems that everyone is panning for virtual gold in the Content Marketing sector like it's San Francisco in the 1850's. Taking a look at Google Trends for Search, the term "Content Marketing" is currently reaching a feverish peak... somewhat helped perhaps by Google recently clamping down on paid-for advertorial links

It seems that content is having a bit of a Renaissance right now (deservedly so) and the pendulum has swung back away from "design first, content later" to "content first, design later".

But here's my revelation... Most normal people when they use the web don't start by thinking "My, I must consume some content", instead they want to:

• Read opinions
• Gain insight
• Chuckle at rants
• Understand products
• Learn from ‘how to’ guides
• Take a peek at useful information
• Compare reviews
• Watch news
• Hear another person tell stories
• plus many other combinations of the above and more.

So prior to setting out to "do some content marketing" and before considering: search engines, your 'tone of voice guidelines', the design of the page and even your boss or client's feedback... Think about the most important person. Your reader.

Russell & Bromley finally gets going with eCommerce

I’ve been fairly critical of shoe retailer Russell & Bromley in the past, mainly because their online property has been poor. So I was surprised and somewhat pleased to hear that they have eventually launched an eCommerce site.

But hardly setting the world alight, Russell and Bromley have decided not to launch with an all singing and dancing multi-channel tablet-optimised site… but have gone for a very mediocre online trading site instead.  Using Venda’s Software-as-a service cloud offering (BTW: shouldn’t that be shop-as –a-service) they have finally put women’s shoes, men’s shoes and handbags for sale via their site.
So given my criticisms of their site before; I thought I’d provide my initial thoughts on this Internet retailing launch by one of the last High Street entrants:

Design :
It’s not that I dislike the creative approach they have taken…  OK, perhaps I do slightly… but what I would have liked from a brand that clearly sets itself up to be of high quality is a site that oozes prestige and refinement. Instead we get a ‘me too’ formulaic & grey-on-grey site that fails to impress. Model shots are scare & aren’t particularly good quality and  product zoom functionality was hard to find (and even non-existent on some product detail pages)…perhaps the only saving grace is the high quality of the actual product photographs.

Usability:
Grey text on white backgrounds (or sometimes vice versa) is never good for on-screen legibility. But add in the use of serif fonts and a small point size and you’ll have even a hearty share of the good-sighted users squinting at the screen. It’s therefore unsurprising that there’s no obvious accessibility page/ statement anywhere… 
Even the navigation seems to be missing a forth menu item, perhaps they are waiting for another product category to come online soon?

Technology:
With no 360 product spin (surely a useful way of showcasing women’s and men's shoes these days?) , no video and no further useful fit functionality the site hardly cuts new ground. Yes, with a Google Page Speed of 92% the site is fairly optimised, but I have the feeling that’s more down to Venda’s platform and system than anything else.

Content
With no blog, short & basic product descriptions, no user generated reviews and no text on the category landing pages… R&B is showing how not to use content to sell product. Maybe it doesn’t need to and the products sell themselves?

A surplus of creative feedback

Just ask anyone in the media, marketing or promotional industries and they will tell you how difficult it can be to get sign-off of anything creative.

From clients that "just want a few extra changes" through to the wholesale madness that is "I don't like it, do it again".... Everyone has an opinion on creative work, everyone.

But just like every waiter in LA being an out-of-work actor and every taxi driver in London having a cure for immigration or Chelsea's failures in European Championships... Everyone seems to think they know how what good design looks like, even if they're not even asked.

You never get this in other industries (usually). Architects don't get treated like second-rate draftsmen, car mechanics are taken at face value on the quality of their work and I've never heard a hairdresser told "oh just do something and I'll tell you if I like it when it's done".

But give a client a single website design at breakfast and you'll have 10 different pieces of feedback by elevensies, plus a few more contradictory ones by lunchtime.

The future is responsive

PC's, tablets, mobiles and TV interfaces.... The list of devices used
to browse the Internet changes and increases all the time.

When designing and developing a new website, the common accepted
practice is that you start your user experience (UX) work first, based
upon how users with a PC and sometimes large tablets (e.g. the iPad),
might see things. Then depending upon the other popular devices used
to access your site, you then consider building an alternative
version.... say mobile.

But turn this concept on its head for a moment and consider the following:
1. Nobody fully knows what the future devices will be (up until 2
years ago the tablet market was virtually non-existent).
2. It is safe to predict that mobile devices will continue to grow in
use and that the available range will expand over time, as
manufacturers experiment and try to invent new form factors (in the
hope of finding a previously in-tapped customer need).
3. Bolting a mobile interface onto your existing site is hard work.
Some do fancy things with style sheets, while others just 'make the
buttons bigger' (yes this is a cheap and quick change, but not all
sites look good with chunky submit buttons, etc.).
4. Building a separate mobile-specific site is usually more work than
spending a little longer on your main one.
It is therefore unsurprising that I predict a future where a
significant number of company websites will no longer be developed
with a version for each specific device.... but a single one that
automatically adapts to the size and orientation of the devices used.
Note: I'm not talking about interfaces such as the Microsoft Metro
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language) design
language, which the software giant is successfully using across most
of its devices.

But this isn't a pipe dream for the far-off future, this is all
possible now using responsive site design & development techniques.
And soon it will be clients asking for this technology that will drive
its adoption, as they realise they don't need to spend a lot more
money building separate versions just for specific device profiles....
For examples, take a look at:
http://mediaqueri.es/
http://designmodo.com/responsive-design-examples/

Changing my blog design - again

Last week I posted on how I had found the design settings in Blogger (the Google-owned blogging platform I use) and had settled on a new design.

Well... following feedback and my own opinion after a week of usage, I'd decided to change it again to something more easily readable than white text (and grey hyperlinks) on a black background.

Hopefully you'll find this design theme easier on the eye....

A new blog design

I've had a busy few weeks, which has meant I haven't had the chance to blog recently. However, taking a break from my daily routine to collect my thoughts and put a new posting together, I noticed that Blogspot has a new feature where it allows you to apply themes to your site.

So now, rather than one of only a handful of basic designs, users of Blogger/Google's blogging tool now get the chance to have a little more creative freedom.

This template design is called 'awesome'.... apparently.

Beyond the Walled Garden - the User Interface

Ryan Singer of 37 Signals (Basecamp, etc.) gives a presentation on effective User Interfaces:

http://www.slideshare.net/carsonified/ryan-singer

Which leads me to consider how you could even hope to show a user the level of information/control being managed beyond the 'walled garden'. Assuming you could somehow measure this level, the UI would have to be both complex (potentially showing numerous content areas/places) and simplistic enough to be utterly usable.

The worry is that people don't consider measuring the impact or regard it as too difficult.