dr. erin n. bush

historian of u.s. crime & punishment. digital research methods.

Random

Comments: Week of April 5

I commented on Zayna’s post with some well-timed (?) Alice in Wonderland references and on Lisa’s post about how awesome Ted.com is.

The Golden Triangle

I’m finding that as the weeks go on, I’m thinking more and more about how I want my final project to look. So this week’s readings on usability were slightly overwhelming, if not perfectly timed.

It’s as if every week, with each additional reading, we get one more thing to think about or take into consideration as we’re designing our projects. Then the panic sets in.

This week I read, had my usual panic attack and then took a step back to breathe. After I thought about it, Sasha is right , we’ve seen this before. We’re just getting a bit more detail about what it is we already sorta know about web design. Further more, these readings bring home to me an argument I’ve been having for years in my work life. Specifically, where to put things. Let me explain.

In re: the readings on Rule of Three. At work, we use a term called the “Golden Triangle,” which reflects how users expect to find information when they visit your site. These expectations are based on users’ experiences with Google’s Search Results layout, which love it or hate it, is the dominant way users navigate the web now. The concept of the Golden Triangle was/is based largely on a 2005 eye tracking study done by some fancy web marketing research firm to understand how search was really taking over the world wide web AND changing how users navigate it.

(In another lesson in how blogs typically can stand the test of time, while web sites rarely do, you can get to the blog entry discussing said study, but you can no longer get to the full study – big bummer. You can see the heat map below and the triangle is pretty clear.)

Graphic of the Golden Triangle, lovingly borrowed from seroundtable.com

Let me be clear, I have never designed a site before this class, nor have I ever hand-coded a site by myself. My job in the working world has always been, solely, to represent to the web development and design teams the business requirements for content and advertising on major,high-traffic commercial sites. ie, “I need the content box to appear here and it needs to be at least 5 lines of text with six possible hyperlinks and an image at least ‘this big.'” “The ad needs to be above the fold and adhere to the Internet Ad Bureau’s standards on size and expansions,” blah blah blah.

And then the fight over the Golden Triangle would ensue:

Highly skilled design and usability folks: “No, it can’t go here because you are trying to dominate critical space in the Golden Triangle with your stupid content.”
Me: “Well, I know, but if I can’t recirculate traffic to our internal pages where the big ads are, then the user can’t see the ad, and then we can’t sell the ad and then none of us get paid.” And so on and so forth.

They were all in good fun and we were all representing the camps we were hired to represent. The war between good design and profitability hasn’t subsided, we just have many years of analytics to use in our arguments now.

Which brings me to another web usability study, this one done back in 2006, which addressed where users expected to see common site navigation elements: the home button, search box, internal links, ads, and about us links. It’s an interesting and short read and the visuals make it pretty clear where users expect these elements to go.

I realize that 2006 seems like a long time ago in web ages, but not much has changed. Actually, that’s not true. Years of web experiences and analytics have proven these standards over time and now we no longer really fight about this stuff.

It’s commonly accepted now that your home button should be in the upper left hand corner, your links should be underlined, you cannot hide your search box and that you should point the users’ eyes to the most important elements using the Rule of Three or the “Golden Triangle”, whichever term you use.

Reading the foundations of these “rules” reminds me that I need to not take them for granted and really think through how I apply them. So to my current and former design colleagues: I appreciate you – I’m walking a mile in your shoes now, and I get it. I really get how hard it is!!

I Passed

Hooray and thanks to Laura who provided us with a link to WAVE, a very useful website to help us “test” our sites for accessibility. (As I, like most of you, couldn’t get the screen reader simulator to work on my browser.)

There were a couple of best practices types comments, which I will heed on my final project. I once had someone tell me that accessibility was “all about the alt text.” I know there is so much more to it than that, but I admit that I am happy to be a bit of a stickler for alt text.

My portfolio passed the WAVE Accessibility test

Accessibility

This week’s readings on concerns of accessibility, were eye opening.

I’ve worked in web companies for 12 years and I can tell you from personal experience that only one of my teams ever discussed issues of accessibility during the course of a brainstorm, build or launch of a major site. And that’s terrible. Now I work for a company that provides services to government contractors and as such, accessibility is more at the forefront in people’s minds. Could be because it is more at the forefront of our customer’s minds, but whatever, it’s a start.

This is one of those rare instances where it seems that the government’s Section 508 compliance mandate is more ahead of the game than private industry. I also think this is a good place for digital historians to lead the industry. As Roger mentioned, if we think of these issues at the front of a digital history project — at the very stage of the brainstorm — accessibility requirements will fit more naturally into the flow of the project. As someone who is thinking about her intensely image-heavy project, it’s something I’m thinking about.

Comments This Week, March 29

I commented on Roger’s and Laura’s Accessibility posts.

I’m also playing with my new online, scholarly identity, so forgive me if I try on new blog titles and such.

Image Assignment and Comments

My image assignment is up. As I mentioned before, since the images for my final project are not old enough to need restoration and since I will not be working with engravings, I have a bit of a mishmash of family photos for my assignment this week. I do have historic photos of Mrs. Lee to use on my final project. I got them from the Glessner House Museum and someone there must have done their own restoration work, because the images are pretty good. My family photographs, on the other hand, needed a lot of work. I figured I’d take a gamble and work on badly aged images that I never would’ve attempted to touch before.

I still have issues remembering to create layers on which to perform my tasks, but by the end of the assignment I was better at reining in my spot healing wanderlust. (Ooh, spot! Fix it. Who cares what layer you are on.)

Additionally, my naming convention and file organization became very important — all things I will think of on the front end of the next photo project, instead of during it.

This week, I commented on Alexa’s restoration of John Horn, Lisa’s Photoshop addiction, Carrie’s assignment, and Laura’s assignment.