Re: Target browsers for web development

Some great points - comments below.

On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 12:22  PM, David Heller wrote:

> 1. Definition of "educating": I think Josh put it best in trying to
> separate
> educating about the content or context of the app/site vs. the enabling
> technology. Todd talked about the confusion a user had between JS and
> Java.
> Why do they even know these technologies exist. More and more of my
> users
> don't even know what HTML is and to be honest, that's a good thing.
> How many
> people know that MS Word uses a combination of COM components and
> written in
> C++? It just works.

Currently, there are differences between a browser that uses HTML,
Java, JavaScript and Word using COM and C++ - you can't disable/enable
COM and C++ in Word. So, one of the reasons users are aware of this is
that browser manufacturers enable this type of user-level control on
browsers that you don't have (need) in Word. If I understand you
correctly, David, you're advocating developing the browser technology
so that users aren't aware of JavaScript, Java, etc. from the
perspective of "they don't need to know about it, because it just
works." If this is the case, I'm in complete agreement that we should
get there. I really can't see any reason why Web-based technologies
shouldn't "grow up."

One additional difference is that you don't have bandwidth constraints
in using Word on your local machine as you do a browser over a network
(Net). This is one of the many reasons that manufacturers enable
user-level control over disabling Java, Plug-ins, etc. as it provides
the perception that the experience is more responsive (faster).

Now, I'm all for the technology "growing up" so that users don't have
to be aware of it. We're not there yet. We won't be there for years.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be advocates to get the technology
to that point. Would you agree, David?

Sounds as if we need a combination of education for the current
situation, where appropriate, and pushing the companies to bring these
technologies up to speed.

> 2. Learnability: GREAT point. Learnability to me is NOT about teaching
> standards and technology, it is about a UI that has facilitities that
> enable
> easy recall of the system's functions. Again, even if you want to take
> it to
> the extreme case of having to popup a window that tells the user, this
> feature means X (click here to never show this window again), that is
> still
> teaching the user about the context of the app, not the technology that
> enables the app.

And when the browser is the UI? When the browser is the context of the
app? Doesn't the browser fall into this category? I'm not advocating
shoving standards in their face, or the education of those standards.
I'm advocating a usable system with or without a standards compliant
browser with the option for those who don't have a standards browser to
find out more about what it is - that's education. Again, it's a small
2-3 %, but there's no reason why they should be left out in the cold.
Are you saying that we shouldn't provide them the ability to find out
about standards if they should so choose? That we should let them stay
in the dark and not show them where the light switch is, giving them
the option to turn on the lights, or stay in the dark if they should so
choose?

> 3. Reality vs. Idealism: I don't think this is at issue for us right
> now. I
> think there are ways to let users know information w/o being
> interruptive
> and to me that is key. As I explained in my response to George's TV
> example,
> there is a big difference between having an opening credit of
> "Broadcast in
> High Definition Wide Screen" vs. when a show starts, the show blocks
> the
> screen until you acknowledge that you read it. To me the difference is
> between educating vs. advertising, but since a dictionary might come
> out any
> moment I won't focus on terms too much.

Correct. And what I'm advocating is the former, not the latter. Give
them the content, provide a message that let's them know the content is
accessible to any device, but that they're not using a standards
compliant browser. I'm not advocating blocking them out entirely, which
is what ESPN is doing.

Just out of curiosity, are you advocating that we leave users in the
dark with 8 year old browsers that don't work correctly, or don't
support standards? I'm not speaking long-term, as I think, if I
understand you correctly, you're advocating bringing the technology up
to speed. And I'm with you on that one. But what about right now?
Should we leave them in the dark? And if so, then how are they to find
out about it? What do you suggest?

> In the end folks, technology is not an end-user concern and the more
> you
> expose it the more you are failing your users.

I agree that exposure to the underlying technology should be kept to an
absolute minimum.

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel

_//message first [method second]
-=========================-
User Experience Architect
Cornell University Lab of Ornithology
[P] (607) 254-2477
[F] (607) 254-2415
[E] [email protected]
-=========================-

In theory, theory and practice are the same,
but in practice, they're not.

The only thing necessary for evil to exist in the world is for good men
to do nothing.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): [email protected]
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:[email protected])
    --------------------------------------------------------------