My newest research at Forrester looks at the practical side of usability…
Forrester surveyed vendors who conduct usability lab tests of digital and physical products like Web sites, desktop software applications, and mobile phones. We found that, on average, these vendors tested 13 users per engagement, conducted tests over the course of two to three weeks, and charged $20,000 or less for this work. But project size and cost varied widely, from small tests (five users for less than $5,000) to massive engagements (120 users for more than $100,000). What will change in 2007? Usability vendors expect increases in both demand and cost.
But New Changes to the Gmail Interface clearly miss the mark Gmail has added some new interface elements, namely a contextual drop-down menu as part of every message.
This menu could have been added for many reasons — maybe to reduce screen clutter, or to highlight key features of the mail service.
But the end result is unmistakable — Gmail is becoming just like every other web-based email service before it (eg: Yahoo! Mail). With the same errors (see the image below). The same clunky interface (how is user supposed to know what that down arrow means at the top-left of a message… or that it’s clickable… or that there’s even a menu there?).
What does it mean when the apps that defined innovation and simplicity become themselves complex and broken because of a poor attempt to appeal to a broad audience?
I know Google and the Gmail team are talent folks and do a lot of testing — and that the kinks with these rounds of interface tweaks may (and probably will) iron themselves out. But bottom line: I expect a lot from a company like Google and it’s designers. These “5 new features” that Gmail now totes atop every page — they’re so far off the mark in terms of clear, clean ease-of-use, and the true value of what a mail app should be.
Of course the question is, how do they compare to Apple’s famous campaign of the dancing silhouettes?
The ads, which try to emphasize the social functionality of zune, show the product in use at a dog park with breakdancers. Or at a hip hop show… So, it’s a very different take than Apple’s — it’s not iconic, like the silhouettes, but emotional and lifestyle driven. The visual style isn’t high production level, it’s amateurish, handy-cam style — almost YouTube-ish, like those Vonage ads, which showed real people doing real stupid things.
So, here zune (or is it “Zune” with a capital Z?) is trying to strike an emotional tone and create a lifestyle product around the products core, social-driven functionality.
But these ads fail and fall short of iPod’s classic campign because: 1) The users featured in the zune ads aren’t representative — they’re fantasies: What couple will really take their dogs to a park with their zunes to exchange music? What park exists where world-class breakdancing and dog-walkers mingle together?
I’m all for fantasy-showcasing campaigns, but if these ads really wanted to be realistic they’d show a 22 yr old, dorky male on a subway, trying to flirt his way into a girls heart by sharing a love song with here — not some niche urban culture than only exists in downtown SoHo.
2) The amount of actual footage of these ads that showcases people using the product, or even shows the product at all, is so minimal. This will leave people wondering — what is this ad actually for? What is the product?
Compare that to the apple ads, which spend every single second pumping up the core of what the iPod is about — technology so simple and hip it will make you want to dance your ass off.
Zune, I’m sorry, but you’ve got to come up with something better if you want to wrestle with the big-boys.
