

Usability Tips Based on Research Studies - jrwoodruff
http://sixrevisions.com/usabilityaccessibility/10-usability-tips-based-on-research-studies/

======
vitovito
This is the only sort of UX, interaction design and usability "top ten" list
that should ever receive upvotes: one that cites references and only publishes
information that has been validated in some fashion.

~~~
aresant
In several of the author's examples - like vertical attention - different
studies show different results - or as new measurement tools become available,
old truisms fall.

I am all for documentation / proof in UX but at the same time the problem with
vetting out ideas, or common sense "this worked for me " illustrations may
keep you from testing that one morsel that puts your ux / conversion rate over
the top.

------
Symmetry
The article was very interesting and I was also interested in the "Removing a
Button" article they linked to:
<http://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/>

I recently bought something from the website of a company that does that exact
same thing wrong and made me hesitate a long while before purchasing. I sent
the article to them and hope they change their setup, I really want them to
succeed.

------
Thangorodrim
Re: #5.

The referenced "studies" show that users will scroll if they realize they need
to access their desired content.

Okay.

That absolutely does not mean that vertical pages provide pleasing UX or good
usability. It simply means the user endured the vertical layout in that case.

None of the provided citations support that conclusion of the article. Not
only that - sample size, obvious confirmation bias, and extreme extrapolation
of data to unsupported conclusions render the "studies" relatively useless.

In the last citation, even though they attempt to wash it away with
statistical significance (SD on a sample of 15?) their data actually shows
that usability, as defined by comprehension, is maximized by paging.

I think the truth is found closer to the notion that form follows function and
the answer to scroll vs. paging is content and site specific.

I am finding the article, overall, unimpressive. The method involved seems to
be that of looking for support of one's opinion, not extraction of good
practice from objective research.

------
JoeAltmaier
The words-read-per-page graph is presented as a curve; looks to me more like
folks read up to 200 words, then start dropping out. The initial plunge is
linear in other words, equal to the number of words on the page (when there
are less than 200).

------
Pistos2
Can anyone provide examples or references that discuss the importance (or
unimportance) of site speed for sites that aren't search engines?

~~~
ollerac
[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/googles-marissa-mayer-speed-
wi...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/googles-marissa-mayer-speed-wins/3925)
When the Google Maps home page was put on a diet, shrunk from 100K to about
70K to 80K, traffic was up 10 percent the first week and in the following
three weeks, 25 percent more, she said.

------
dasil003
I thought the three-click rule died in the 90s. Krug debunked it in 2000 in
Don't Make Me Think.

------
yosho
I was surprised that being above the fold didn't matter as much as I thought
it did.

------
mdg
I assume the F-shape pattern is only effective in languages that read left-to-
right?

~~~
DougWebb
I wonder how much the sites they used biased the results. Google's search
results are very F-shaped, for example, and so is any left-to-right language
text that is divided into paragraphs with headings. Does the "use an F-shaped
pattern" recomendation actually boil down to "display text the way ypu
normally would in your language"? If so, that's not nearly as interesting.

~~~
jm3
Well for navigation, the F-shaped or "Top-Left" pattern has been a staple of
site design for at least 11 years.

In 1999, when i started making sites, the sort of nav was considered "boring"
because everyone was using it, and our designers often created weird (poorly
performing) nav just to buck the trend.

