[Usability] Re: [Usability]Epiphany default toolbar layout

[Curtis Hovey <sinzui cox net>]

On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 12:51, Alan Horkan wrote:
> this message was from a while ago but I am replying anyway despite it
> being a very late reply
> 
> On 20 Apr 2003, Curtis Hovey wrote:
> 
> > > 2 Even for advanced users, the toolbar layout is annoying. The shortened
> > > address field doesnt show as much of a URI, and the auto-completion menu
> > > doesnt show as much of an auto-completion title, as it does in competing
> > > browsers.
> >
> 
> > how a URL is constructed, what a protocol is, or how to make a long
> > path.  How many advanced users can construct, or make meaning of, a URL
> > for a dynamic Web site they didn't construct?  How much of a very long
> 
> Long complicated URL?
> That is the fault of the web developer not the user.  Make the Link user
> friendly (even calling it an URL is less than friendly, don't user
> acronyms, use real words, Link, Location, or something appropriate).

Saddly true.  I've argued with the makers of my application server
(Enfinity from Intershop) for years about this.  They simply don't see
it as an issue.  They don't believe users should explore the site by
guessing the top URL, or that a search engine can make sense of it.

> I really like websites that still work if leave out the http://www.
> I really like when I can take a guess at domain.com/relevantkeyword
> and get
> a) at the very least a search page or site-map
> b) a page generated mod spel suggesting the correct URL
> c) the page I am actually looking for or a redirect to it.

I agree.  All things I have implemented when I can.  But even when the
designers and programmers agree to make usable URLs, some tools prevent
you.  Most of the site I use (.orgs and .nets) have very agreeable URLs,
until you discover their message boards.  Some go over board and make
long URL that know casual user could remember.  When I the same argument
to the Engineers for my app server, they simply state the URL has a lot
of information in it because that content has a lot of information it.
This is bad engineering for sure, but it is the reality.

Complex URLs are not necessarily bad, but they hold no meaning to the
user.  As you cannot remember an article id, (or a product id) from a
week ago, should the browser be prompting me with it for autocomplete? 
Browsers even offer to load URLs they posted too, even though it should
know that may not be a valid request.

URLs are synonymous with the Web, users do expect an address bar.  Users
switch domains too frequently to deny them an fast way to do it. 
usability studies demonstrate users will discover a site by trying top
level directories when site maps, navigation, and search fails.

The address bar needs to be large enough to display meaningful URLs.  It
must be large enough for users to type friendly URLs.  It doesn't need
to remember difficult URLs, or ones that it posted to.    

> > URL (implying a dynamic site) does anyone need to see?  I have observed
> > that most users only use the status bar to check the domain that a link
> > points to, nothing more.  Within the usability list, there have been
> 
> The status bar lies, damned evil Javascript.

A nice browser would not let script manipulate the status bar.

> > many debates about how to hide the URLs from users because they are not
> > user-friendly.
> 
> I agree that URLs are not user friendly but it would be one of the last
> things I would remove (a few links to places like Home would be nearly
> enough), I would probably remove case-sensitivity and
> restructure the file system to be very simplified like the Mac and have
> easy to use fat binaries (I hate sorting out dependencies, even on an
> apt-get system it ain't perfect).

I don't think the Address bar should be removed.  I do think that users
are not using the address bar and status bar as assumed.  I think we
should build what users will use and understand.

-- 
__C U R T I S  C.  H O V E Y____________________
sinzui cox net
Guilty of stealing everything I am.