Opting out of marketing programs

I was recently looking at comparison websites, and was amazed at how they get potential customers to overlook the ability to opt-out of marketing programmes.

Money Supermarket had a pre-checked check box as default on their form which I then had to un-check to opt-out.

The pre-checked check box certainly isn’t ideal, but it’s better than hiding options.

In order to opt out of Compare the Market’s marketing material, the opt-out area is located in the Terms &Condition’s (T&C). Who reads the T&C? When I accessed the T&C’s, I had to then tick the box to opt-out as the default was to receive information.

Go Compare dealt with this in a very interesting way that I’d not seen before. This time, instead of the check box, it said ‘If you'd prefer not to use this service, please click here’, so there was no check box visible on the page - See image below:

Aside from the fact the link text said 'please click here', once you clicked the link, the section revealed a previously hidden extension with a checkbox for me to tick if I wanted to opt-out of receiving marketing material. Only if you spot the textual link, read the small print, click on it, do you then get the option to opt-out – it’s pre-set for you to receive marketing information.

Surely these examples have the opposite effect that the company wants to happen. Customers will sign up unknowingly, and as a result receive calls/emails from insurance companies. Customers often use websites and in particular comparison sites because they want self service quotes and avoid inconvenient phone calls. Disguising privacy options and opting customers into sharing their details automatically with others will have a damaging impact on the relationship between the company and customer.

Evidence presented here clearly shows that best practices are required whenever customers provide personal information:

• Don’t have the check box pre-checked. Allow customers to opt-in rather than opt-out.
  
• Don’t hide the check box in the T&C’s.
• Display the check box to opt out initially, that’s what customers will scan for.
• If the page refreshes due to an error, make sure once the customer has chosen to opt-in or out, their choice remains fixed: they should not have to input their choice again.

Good Vibrations via my mobile

For the past week I have been in that rapture of getting a new phone and enjoying all the new features and improvements from my previous one. After a long flirtation with the iPhone, I finally committed myself to the HTC Touch HD, and I have no regrets.

I have actually been using the HTC products for my past 3 phones, although branded as the Orange SPV range, before HTC had the brand confidence to lose the alias. Among the many features (like the iPhone, it lets you flick things around the display, and also has great photo image quality and connection speeds) one of my favourite is not something I see or hear but rather feel.

The HTC Touch is the first phone I have that uses vibrations for more than letting me know when calls or messages are incoming when I am in a movie or meeting where a ring would be a nuisance. The phone uses haptic feedback via a short vibration or bump to let me know when little things have happened such as:

• my call has been answered
• moving to a new web page
• closing an application
• the little ball in the 'Teeter' game is bumping into a wall (see video of it being demonstrated on the HTC Diamond)

Its a tiny feature but I am surprised at how much it adds to my overall experience and enjoyment of the phone.

I recall doing some experiments in haptics, the sense of touch and psychophysics way back in my university days but this is the first product I have had that has elegantly integrated it into the usage (aside from the Wii on the gaming front). Thinking back to my previous phone I realise that often when I made a call I had to alternate between holding the phone to my ear and looking at the display to see if it had been answered, particularly in a noisy environment like a gig or a bar. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but still one that is better off solved through a gentle vibration.

No doubt haptics will be integrated into more things and, used wisely, should be a positive contribution to mobile phone and consumer product usability. I certainly am looking forward to it as products make best use of all of our senses.

Communicating across web accessibility barriers

Recently I had the opportunity to communicate across several barriers and technologies in a fascinating demonstration of how people and technology can be combined to overcome accessibility challenges.

After speaking at the Andicom Conference in Cartegena Colombia, I attended the commercial exhibition and particularly the U-city, a demonstration of ubiquitous computing in various areas of everyday life.

As User Vision provide many web accessibility services such as usability testing with disabled users and accessibility audits, I spent quite a bit of time with the project Conectando Sentidos (Connecting Senses) the Colombian Ministry of Communication’s programme addressing accessibility in technology.

There, in addition to seeing their demonstrations of magnifiers and refreshable Braille displays (photos below), I met for the first time a person who was both deaf and blind. I have long wondered how people without either hearing or sight can communicate, especially using today’s technologies.









The team set about demonstrating by having me engage in a conversation across several potential barriers, as shown in the photos:

• What I said in English was first translated to Spanish by one team member

• Another person communicated the message to Juan, the deaf & blind person by holding their hands & arms and manoeuvring them in a way to convey the message in a form of physical sign language

• Once he understood the message Juan used sign language to communicate to another person via a web cam and web connection

• The person at the other end of the web cam replied, their response was translated by movement again to Juan, and the process continued.

Considering the number of steps and modes of communication, the process was relatively rapid. Once we got the hang of it I found myself explaining who I was and why I was there, and learning about their involvement with the government’s accessibility programme.

The demonstration was a fascinating display of overcoming barriers through innovation and technology, and for me a great insight to how communication is achieved with people who are both deaf and blind.

Accessibility - More than just checking the boxes

With the new WCAG 2.0 guidelines in full flow, I find myself presenting a number of introductory courses to clients, analysing the new guidelines in some detail.

At the beginning of each course though, I always stress that whilst the course itself is all about the guidelines, the same can't always be said of Accessibility. Time and time again when testing with disabled users, the real issues, the real bona-fide, "can't go any further" barriers are not necessarily attributable to violations of the guidelines themselves. Meeting guidelines and making your site accessible doesn't always go hand in hand, nor should it.

I'm not suggesting we ignore the guidelines. Of course we should adhere to them. What I am saying is that we shouldn't view the guidelines in isolation. By all means, audit against the guidelines but if you want the real insight, straight from the horses mouth so to speak, then you should really test your site with disabled users.

As a general rule, disabled users encounter more issues than able-bodied users. Not only do they experience the same usability issues but they also have an additional layer of difficulty on top, whether that difficulty is caused directly as a result of their disability or by badly marked up pages, poorly presented content or inadequate assistive technology.

As designers, developers (and occassionaly even as accessibility specialists) we often make assumptions about the types of difficulties users with disabilities will encounter. I never fail to be surprised during disabled testing when a user fails to fall over what looked like a glaring hurdle. Conversely, I am also never surprised when a developer tells me that their site is fully accessible only to find that it is almost unusable for users with particular disabilities.

The key thing to bear in mind is that technically accessible is not always accessible in practice. Building a fully accessible form - labels, logical tab order, properly titled buttons, optimised error messages - is one thing. However, if you give this form 40 fields then at the very least it is laborious to navigate for keyboard and screen reader users. For users with a severe physical disability, entering information into 40 fields may become virtually impossible.

The guidelines stipulate that we must provide text equivalents for non-text content. Again, this should be easy enough to achieve. Do this incorrectly however and the constant reading out of over-elaborate and unnecessary alternative text may result in blind users giving up and potentially using a competitors site which doesn't suffer from additional "noise".

Still on the subject of blind users, many navigate using the 'links list' in JAWS or the equivalent in Hal or Window Eyes. Clearly naming your hyperlinks is a requirement of the WCAG guidelines but there is a world of difference between clearly naming then and sensibly naming them. Many a time I have witnessed a blind user looking for contact detail access the links list and press 'C'. After all, pressing 'C' to jump to 'contact us' would make sense, right?

Of course it does. Except if the link to your contact page is labelled 'Talk to us' or 'Get in touch' that is. When pressing 'C' doesn't bring up the required link, it's guesswork time and the blind user ends up pressing random keys or (as is usually the case) listening through all of the links until something sounds right. Testing with disabled users gives us this critical insight into not only which tools are available to them, but exactly how they use them in their day to day interactions with the web.

These examples are only a handful of many similar experiences, gathered from hours of testing with disabled users. Any one of these issues taken in isolation should be enough to highlight the merits of disabled testing. The fact of the matter is that any project where disabled testing takes place regularly highlights numerous accessibility barriers either of the same severity or of a greater severity than those detailed above.

And no amount of 'box checking' is going to solve them.

Navigation methods in mobile web usability

During my experience testing mobile websites, it has become apparent that users are split on their preferred navigation style. I have come to realise that this is a complex issue to resolve. Normally as a usability consultant, consistency is something which I regularly find myself recommending to clients. While the same principle applies in mobile sites, it may be better to alter the design according to the type of handset the user owns and keep the style consistent throughout their experience.

The split related to the type of navigation style used and how well each method worked: a traditional search form or a 'drill-down' type of navigation. The 'drill-down' method allows the user to search for something by selecting a series of options or answering a number of questions, similar to a decision tree.

Using a search form is the ideal solution for some. It is common on the web and therefore familiar to users across multiple platforms. It also gives them a sense of control. Most importantly users perceive a search form to be the quickest route to a set of results. This is most attractive as users always want to find information in the quickest way possible.

However, search forms were originally designed for the web and not for mobile browsing. Not all mobile phones have full keyboards therefore typing on a mobile phone is not as easy or convenient. It is made even more difficult when trying to type on the move or with one hand, for example, the URL may use characters not commonly used during day to day texting. Also, someone commuting to work by bus/train for example is less liked to have both hands free. In this situation, a system which allows someone to navigate with one finger would be easier to use.

So which navigation works best? The answer is both but is dependent on the type of handset being used and maybe even the users' experience with that device. Sophisticated mobiles such as the iPhone can cope much better with traditional websites. Older phones or phones with small screens cannot manage full scale pages as well and this forces the user to scroll horizontally. While Blackberry's and other PDA's have more keyboard functionality, many have to contend with a limited number of buttons.

In a situation like this, longitudinal diary style studies would provide valuable feedback from users who experience the mobile web in real life situations. The findings would go some way to resolving the split between searching traditionally and drilling down through a site. It would also help to determine which mobiles work best for each navigational style.

WCAG 2.0 - ready to go?

So version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are here, but are they worth all the fuss?

When I first encountered the draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines many moons ago now, I wasn't so sure. As time has passed however, I am warming to them tremendously and am really looking forward to using them regularly in my day to day work.

I can appreciate the criticisms - too vague, technology agnostic to the point of providing little implementation advice and complex, inaccessible documentation to name but a few. I can however also appreciate many of the clarifications made in WCAG 2.0 and the increased measurability of some of WCAG 1.0's vaguer checkpoints, particularly around colour contrast and scalability.

Much greater emphasis has also been placed on Multimedia content and this is only right given the way the web has changed. Users with cognitive impairment will also benefit greatly from much more specific guidelines around understandable and clear content which fall under the 'Understandable' priority.

Further information about WCAG 2.0 can be found in my (previous) article 10 things you should know about WCAG 2.0. With the exception of point 1, all of the points are still valid now that WCAG 2.0 has been released.

Only time (and implementation experience) will tell if WCAG 2.0 stands the test of time and is indeed robust enough to adapt to what is a fast moving environment. In the meantime, I'd like to welcome WCAG 2.0 to the world and all of you to WCAG 2.0.

Usability and the gaming industry II

Controls
People have different preferences; do you use your computer mouse on the left or right of your keyboard? Games should also allow players to have control of their controls. Provide the ability to remap controller buttons to suit personal preferences.

Having controls that don’t do what a player expects will lead to frustration and loss of interest in the game.

Don’t over complicate controllers by thinking every button must be used. If there isn’t the need for it, don’t do it.

Remember to consider the menu system, and objects within the game. Opening doors, swapping weapons, jumping onto ledges…

Tutorials/Learnability
Create a safe environment to make mistakes. Players need to try buttons, actions, and commands to see what is and isn’t possible.

Tutorials are important, they should always have a level of engagement for the player to see how they will become immersed in the game. Do not leave the creation of tutorials to the end of the development of the game.

Gradually introduce sophistication in game play throughout the game. New things to do should be introduced to the player bit by bit, not all at once.

Use loading screens to educate the player in new skills.

Menu systems
Entering/exiting games...
Allow the player to press any button to start a game. Don’t make them unnecessarily stop and think about how to start.

Once players have cleared a section of a game, it should then be available for them from the start menu so they can go back to it if they wish. Allowing players to jump in and out of game play as they wish will increase game play. Making it difficult to enter a game where they want is more likely to result in the player switching off the console.

Saving games...
If you give players the option to save their game at an appointed place, once they’ve reached the save place, don’t ask them if they want to save.

What’s the best way to allow players to save games?

• Save at an arbitrary point,
• after a task has been completed,
• at particular save points within the game,
• quick saves.

Quick save might not be required depending on the games difficulty level, but providing the facility for those who wish to use it is a good balance. I liked the Resident Evil save, where you collect typewriter ribbons so the save is built in as part of the game play, although this is due to change with the release of Resident Evil 5. The long and short of it is that the save function should depend on the particular game. Testing should be done to see how players would expect to save.

Pausing games...
All players need to be able to pause a game knowing they will not lose anything. How this is done should depend on the game. ‘Guitar Hero World Tour’ deals with pausing well, players are given a countdown of 5 beats to get back on track. This could be further improved by allowing the player to decide how many beats they require.

Other features...
Swapping between easy and advanced modes should be easy. Whether it is the single player who wants more advanced game situations and wants to swap, or whether it’s two people paying one after another at different levels. Quite often it can be a frustrating experience to swap between modes, and can put new players off a game if it is difficult to choose easy.

Cut scenes
Cut scenes are often used to advance the game plot, develop characters, and provide background stories, mood changes, essentially to immerse the player deep into the game. Many games are greatly enhanced with clever cut scenes.

Players should always be able to skip cut scenes. It is the player’s choice that matters, not how important the scenes are to the story.

Ensure cut scenes have subtitles, and use a clear font. Even if players don’t listen to the whole thing, they can skim read conversations.

Game play
A game should be a challenge to play, not a challenge to use. Players should not have to sit for hours trying to work out how to do a particular jump to get onto a higher up object. A player should always know what they can & can’t do, avoid the ‘what the hell am I supposed to be doing’ moment.

Get the player involved from the start. Don’t have a drawn out start to a game as they will become bored before even starting.

Give players the ability to change design features to make game play more interactive. E.g. in GTA, players have the ability to change the radio station in cars and the volume of music.

Allow players to reread mission instructions. If a player fails a mission, they should be able to reread the mission. If they have paused the game and gone back to it later, give the player the ability to reread missions throughout game play.

In order to reach levels of high emotional states, players must be given calm periods as well as high intensity periods. Tim Home uses a good analogy of a roller coaster to describe this. “The fun lies in going up and down on the ride. Staying at the same elevation is about as much fun as riding a monorail.” Having the game on a consistent level will tire the player out, or perhaps bore them stupid.

At the moment, I’m in the future racing league of WipEout HD for the PS3 which is a total joy - You can you go retro and have a similar look from when I was playing it in 1997. I feel like a child fighting over who's shot it is.