Showing posts with label fail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fail. Show all posts
Too many passwords!
When a website forces me to use upper case, lower case, numbers, and symbols in my password...
via 9gag
Youtube user experience fails
In this fantastic video from YouTube user NanoBite, titled YouTube is a Completely Functional Site Programmed by Competent People, the latest interface design is picked apart and revealed to show some pretty fundamental flaws in the user experience design.
What's great about this video is that it runs like the highlights reel from a usability testing session and shows you exactly the type of thing that happens when those that build an online service get so comfortable with using it that they forget to think of their users who may not know all the intricacies of the design.
What's great about this video is that it runs like the highlights reel from a usability testing session and shows you exactly the type of thing that happens when those that build an online service get so comfortable with using it that they forget to think of their users who may not know all the intricacies of the design.
Sorry, that username is already taken
That classic online problem; finding a username that's both memorable and not already been taken.
This is a fantastic collection of (often hilarious and ridiculous) user names that have already been taken.
sorrythatusernameisalreadytaken.tumblr.com
This is a fantastic collection of (often hilarious and ridiculous) user names that have already been taken.
sorrythatusernameisalreadytaken.tumblr.com
Automated Telephone Menus
If you have ever had the misfortune of encountering an automated telephone menu then you will already know exactly how terrible the user experience is on these things.
If you haven't here's how they work: rather than talking to a real person you are played a recording of a person introducing the service you have just called up (the recording has been edited and compressed so much that it sounds like a robot voice). The user is expected to select their options by timing their response precisely and pitched perfectly. The voice recognition software is often incredibly flawed at best, and the resulting user experience is enough to put you off ever
This brilliant recording demonstrates just how frustrating automated telephone menus can be:
A fantastic parody of an automated telephone menu is here by the Fonejacker:
If you haven't here's how they work: rather than talking to a real person you are played a recording of a person introducing the service you have just called up (the recording has been edited and compressed so much that it sounds like a robot voice). The user is expected to select their options by timing their response precisely and pitched perfectly. The voice recognition software is often incredibly flawed at best, and the resulting user experience is enough to put you off ever
This brilliant recording demonstrates just how frustrating automated telephone menus can be:
A fantastic parody of an automated telephone menu is here by the Fonejacker:
How Bad Online Shopping Experiences Look Like In Real Life
Google Analytics has produced a trio of excellent videos to help E-commerce sites improve their customer service by pointing out what not to do.
By putting the common mistakes and bad practices that online merchants make into a real life shop, the videos show how alienating bad user experience design and marketing can be for potential customers by ruining the experience of shopping online.
For instance, one of the videos highlights how frustrating it can be to check out online when there are too many security measures and hidden costs for customers to get through.
via Google Analytics
By putting the common mistakes and bad practices that online merchants make into a real life shop, the videos show how alienating bad user experience design and marketing can be for potential customers by ruining the experience of shopping online.
For instance, one of the videos highlights how frustrating it can be to check out online when there are too many security measures and hidden costs for customers to get through.
via Google Analytics
French reporter fails with touch screen
LCN News anchor fumbles with touch screen timeline, The reporter was trying to present a timeline of the conflict in Gaza when things went pear-shaped unruly graphics slipped out of view, expanded wildly and vanished from the screen.
Getting to know Windows 8
With the launch of Windows 8 also comes two very interesting "usability testing" videos.
The first is from the New York Times and features some very heavy handed facilitation of the testing sessions (check it out at 22 seconds in where the facilitator is clearly telling the participant what to click on. Obviously, lurking behind the participant, pointing at things to click on, and generally leading the user is not a good way of gathering useful insights about a new interface. As a promotional piece, the video is great but some of the techniques used in the sessions made me laugh.
The New York Times invited five computer users to try their hands at navigating Microsoft’s new tablet-friendly redesign.
Next up is a bizarre piece of video from Three Sheets Research which looks at how users handle new interfaces when drunk.
This video is part of a set of web usability tests, focused on drinking customers, conducted by Three Sheets Market Research. Following the release of Windows 8, we wasted no time in trying out Microsoft's new operating system on a drunken subject. Jennifer, a 40-year-old mother of 2, is an active consumer of PCs, software and alcohol. She agreed to sit down with us the afternoon following the product's launch to share her thoughts on Windows 8, all while imbibing several rounds of her favorite tequila.
The first impressions of a new interface are crucial and the subtle hints provided by the user experience are designed to ease the user in by introducing the fundamental interactions and then building the experience up around them. Providing users with prompts should only be done if the task they are carrying out has been totally failed and there are no new insights being captured. Also, introducing a user to a new interface when they're drunk is totally useless as they might as well start again when sober.
Any new operating system will be difficult for a first time user, whether drunk, sober or just a bit slow. It is possible Jennifer will eventually learn how to use the software. But it is doubtful that, even the morning after, she'll ever fully recover from her initial impression of Windows 8 as confusing and unwelcoming.
Think about a time when you might have been drunk and first turned on a new mobile phone, played a new video game, or tried to buy a ticket from a ticket machine that you'd not used before. Unless you were incredibly persistant the experience will have been written off and you would have mentally started afresh the next day. The initial experience is considered null and any negative impressions should be considered alongside the fact that you weren't in "learning mode". Unless of course, the interface was designed to be used whilst drunk as is the case with SingStar which was usability tested on groups of drunk people before launch to see if it was simple enough to use after an night out - which was the exact scenario that Sony Computer Entertainment wanted their users to be in..
The first is from the New York Times and features some very heavy handed facilitation of the testing sessions (check it out at 22 seconds in where the facilitator is clearly telling the participant what to click on. Obviously, lurking behind the participant, pointing at things to click on, and generally leading the user is not a good way of gathering useful insights about a new interface. As a promotional piece, the video is great but some of the techniques used in the sessions made me laugh.
The New York Times invited five computer users to try their hands at navigating Microsoft’s new tablet-friendly redesign.
Next up is a bizarre piece of video from Three Sheets Research which looks at how users handle new interfaces when drunk.
This video is part of a set of web usability tests, focused on drinking customers, conducted by Three Sheets Market Research. Following the release of Windows 8, we wasted no time in trying out Microsoft's new operating system on a drunken subject. Jennifer, a 40-year-old mother of 2, is an active consumer of PCs, software and alcohol. She agreed to sit down with us the afternoon following the product's launch to share her thoughts on Windows 8, all while imbibing several rounds of her favorite tequila.
The first impressions of a new interface are crucial and the subtle hints provided by the user experience are designed to ease the user in by introducing the fundamental interactions and then building the experience up around them. Providing users with prompts should only be done if the task they are carrying out has been totally failed and there are no new insights being captured. Also, introducing a user to a new interface when they're drunk is totally useless as they might as well start again when sober.
Any new operating system will be difficult for a first time user, whether drunk, sober or just a bit slow. It is possible Jennifer will eventually learn how to use the software. But it is doubtful that, even the morning after, she'll ever fully recover from her initial impression of Windows 8 as confusing and unwelcoming.
Think about a time when you might have been drunk and first turned on a new mobile phone, played a new video game, or tried to buy a ticket from a ticket machine that you'd not used before. Unless you were incredibly persistant the experience will have been written off and you would have mentally started afresh the next day. The initial experience is considered null and any negative impressions should be considered alongside the fact that you weren't in "learning mode". Unless of course, the interface was designed to be used whilst drunk as is the case with SingStar which was usability tested on groups of drunk people before launch to see if it was simple enough to use after an night out - which was the exact scenario that Sony Computer Entertainment wanted their users to be in..
New York City Subway Stairs
Dean Peterson's local subway station has something unique about it. One of the steps on the stairs leading out of the station is fractionally larger than the others which causes a lot of people to trip up on it.
Live Webcast Fail
This epic fail on a live webcast is brilliant. Reminiscent of the movie Inception, the host of this webcast tries to click to see a live stream of himself running the webcast..
Social media overkill vs smart televisions
This morning, I read the presentation below on how damaging it will be to our mental processes if the filter on information fails. As we hurtle along through life in the digital age, constantly increasing the amount of data we produce and store, reducing our attention spans, and becoming addicted to consuming snack-sized pieces of information, there are few people who are considering the negative impact this may be having on our overall enjoyment of our spare time.
Charlie Brooker has provided some hilarious, but as always, poignant commentary on this phenomenon in the form of a clip from his annual review of current affairs.
Below is a fantastic example of how UX designers at the forefront of technology and the immersive television experience are planning for users to experience entertainment.
Read more about this here http://lab.syzygy.de/
The Dark Side of Social Media 2012
View more presentations from Sander Duivestein
Charlie Brooker has provided some hilarious, but as always, poignant commentary on this phenomenon in the form of a clip from his annual review of current affairs.
Below is a fantastic example of how UX designers at the forefront of technology and the immersive television experience are planning for users to experience entertainment.
GOAB. A TV Experience Concept from SYZYGY on Vimeo.
Read more about this here http://lab.syzygy.de/
Classic user experience fail - solved!
Love this classic problem with the hot and cold taps and how simply it can be fixed.
How to not handle negative commentary online
In a rare opportunity to observe a social media train wreck in real time, I have provided some commentary on today's now infamous Sapient Nitro video:
In time, today's online activity will form part of several case studies on how not to handle a PR stunt gone wrong.
This was one of the first articles on the subject and it points fun at the video but misses some pretty vital questions to what happened this morning.
http://wallblog.co.uk/2011/11/15/how-not-to-make-an-agency-promotional-video-ii-by-sapient/
Sure, the video is ridiculously terrible. Sure, it got absolutely slated online but this was mostly by the industry, and mostly on Twitter to a predominantly UK audience - which is unfortunate given the video was not correctly credited and clearly was not produced by the Sapient UK office.
As an agency Sapient aren't mental, they didn't lose their minds, this was an innocent PR stunt from an award winning agency that was misread by its audience. Sapient could have easily allowed the negative commentary to flow freely and positioned the video as a tongue-in-cheek promo piece that was not meant to be taken too seriously (which is exactly what it is). If they had done that then they would have benefitted from trending on Twitter and looking like an agency that has no qualms with poking a bit of fun at themselves.
However, as soon as they started heavily moderating negative comments on Facebook and Youtube, they created a beast. The backlash was so strong that they were backed further and further into a corner (negative comments were pulled within a minute of being posted and the conversation swiftly moved from the moderated Facebook and Youtube pages to the unmoderated Twitter where it soon trended) until they resorted to pulling the video offline altogether.
In terms of damage control this was already far too late and Youtube account HelloYouCreatives had already ripped the video and put it back online for the benefit of referencing it in articles and enabling free commentary. As quoted from their blog, "we've re-hosted it as we believe that people should be free to comment."
Meanwhile, a twitter account has been set up as a way of trying to limit the damage and open a conversation. But this was too late in terms of people already viewing, posting their comments, and then watching them being deleted, and then reposting negative feedback about a brand that was ineffectively trying to control the freedom of speech online.
As poor as the video effort is, what is totally shocking is the complete incompetency and naivety with which Sapient Nitro handled the resulting commentary. As soon as they decided to moderate negative comments, they were doomed. Why was this not accelerated up the ranks to an experienced staff member who knew how to handle things? You cannot create a video about a digital agency and then expect to try and control feedback from the digital industry. Furthermore, you cannot push anything into a social space and then control the commentary on it - there is no longer a conversation and deleting comments has the same effect as shouting at everyone until they stop talking in ways you don't like.
An absolutely schoolboy error from Sapient Nitro, and an incredibly unfortunate one given that the activity of one branch of a global agency represents the agency as a whole. They're going to have to work hard to pull themselves out of this funk and it's a lesson to all global agencies to connect their online presence in a lot tighter and more reactionary way.
In time, today's online activity will form part of several case studies on how not to handle a PR stunt gone wrong.
This was one of the first articles on the subject and it points fun at the video but misses some pretty vital questions to what happened this morning.
http://wallblog.co.uk/2011/11/15/how-not-to-make-an-agency-promotional-video-ii-by-sapient/
Sure, the video is ridiculously terrible. Sure, it got absolutely slated online but this was mostly by the industry, and mostly on Twitter to a predominantly UK audience - which is unfortunate given the video was not correctly credited and clearly was not produced by the Sapient UK office.
As an agency Sapient aren't mental, they didn't lose their minds, this was an innocent PR stunt from an award winning agency that was misread by its audience. Sapient could have easily allowed the negative commentary to flow freely and positioned the video as a tongue-in-cheek promo piece that was not meant to be taken too seriously (which is exactly what it is). If they had done that then they would have benefitted from trending on Twitter and looking like an agency that has no qualms with poking a bit of fun at themselves.
However, as soon as they started heavily moderating negative comments on Facebook and Youtube, they created a beast. The backlash was so strong that they were backed further and further into a corner (negative comments were pulled within a minute of being posted and the conversation swiftly moved from the moderated Facebook and Youtube pages to the unmoderated Twitter where it soon trended) until they resorted to pulling the video offline altogether.
In terms of damage control this was already far too late and Youtube account HelloYouCreatives had already ripped the video and put it back online for the benefit of referencing it in articles and enabling free commentary. As quoted from their blog, "we've re-hosted it as we believe that people should be free to comment."
Meanwhile, a twitter account has been set up as a way of trying to limit the damage and open a conversation. But this was too late in terms of people already viewing, posting their comments, and then watching them being deleted, and then reposting negative feedback about a brand that was ineffectively trying to control the freedom of speech online.
As poor as the video effort is, what is totally shocking is the complete incompetency and naivety with which Sapient Nitro handled the resulting commentary. As soon as they decided to moderate negative comments, they were doomed. Why was this not accelerated up the ranks to an experienced staff member who knew how to handle things? You cannot create a video about a digital agency and then expect to try and control feedback from the digital industry. Furthermore, you cannot push anything into a social space and then control the commentary on it - there is no longer a conversation and deleting comments has the same effect as shouting at everyone until they stop talking in ways you don't like.
An absolutely schoolboy error from Sapient Nitro, and an incredibly unfortunate one given that the activity of one branch of a global agency represents the agency as a whole. They're going to have to work hard to pull themselves out of this funk and it's a lesson to all global agencies to connect their online presence in a lot tighter and more reactionary way.
Online Checkout - In Real Life
Great video from Google Analytics illustrating how shopping online is meant to be easy.
Starbucks have dark UX
Very dark user experience noted by James Chudley on the Starbucks wifi connect form. As a user you can only access the wifi if you agree to the Starbucks T's & C's which also includes agreeing to be sent junk mail by BT! Sneaky...
Read the Terms and Conditions here: http://ie.starbucks.com/en-ie/_Card/Starbucks+Card+Rewards+Wi-Fi+Support.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)