Archive for category clutter

Amazon’s list of products is a mess

Posted by jasonwong in bad design, clutter, visual search on January 29th, 2010

Amazon, like any shopping website should, lets you browse their great deals. Today, there was this:

Oooh, cheap laptops? How could I not click. Then, I was presented with this unholy mess. Seventeen laptops on the same page. All have the same picture, extremely similar specs, and virtually identical names. (Click for full size)

There were some filtering options on the left side but they would not be very good at narrowing choices, considering how similar these all were.

One part shame on Acer for creating SO MANY similar models: the AOD250-1694, the AOD250-1695, the AOD250-1842, etc. etc. etc.

One part shame on Amazon for presenting all of these options in what is quite possibly the worst method for displaying this kind of information. There should be a much easier way to, at a glance, compare these laptops, or the filters should actually involve computer factors.

Either way, I’m not buying an Acer laptop today – certainly not from Amazon.

No Comments

I am giving a Google Tech Talk today!

Posted by jasonwong in attention, bad design, clutter, eye movements, good design, visual search on December 16th, 2009

My friend from graduate school, Ricardo Prada, now works at Google in the User Experience Group. He saw that I was in the Palo Alto area for a week on a work project, and he invited me to give a Google Tech Talk. It was an opportunity that I could not turn down (not that I would ever want to!). After about a month of work on this talk and hours of practice, today is the day. Here is the talk announcement:

techtalkannouncement

Google tends to record these talks on video and put them up on YouTube, so I hope this occurs with mine. I’ll link to it as soon as it’s up.

No Comments

DoD myPay website: Security vs. Usability

Posted by jasonwong in bad design, clutter on July 12th, 2009

myPay (https://mypay.dfas.mil/mypay.aspx) is a service of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. This service is relevant to civilians because they can log in and view their pay stubs. Security is important, and the Account Access section is built for security. From the website:

To better protect your myPay PIN, DFAS has installed a VIRTUAL KEYBOARD for you to enter your myPay PIN. This keyboard reduces threats from malicious software (e.g. spyware, keyloggers, etc.). The virtual keyboard displays the keys in random order and requires you to click on the appropriate key with your mouse. To learn more about this feature, see our Security FAQs.

And here is what the Account Access component looks like:

Picture 1

So, since this blog focuses on human factors, let’s look at the usability of this system. First off, the virtual keyboard for the PIN is a giant pain in the butt. Having to visually search through a row of ten numbers placed randomly and then having to click on them is time consuming and effortful.

There are several issues that stem from this. Your PIN, or Personal Identification Number, apparently can contain letters. This is evident from the letter keys in the virtual keyboard (which, of course, makes the visual search and clicking even more difficult than before). If the website is designed for security, the PIN should be renamed PASSWORD, which people understand contains more than just a series of numbers. PIN implies 4 digits, sometimes more. So even if the virtual keyboard is designed to secure your PIN, the fact that most people would use a string of numbers is not secure.

Secondly, the virtual keyboard that requires you to click on the buttons is designed to guard against keyloggers, which is software designed to capture your keystrokes and send them somewhere so that your passwords, credit card numbers, etc. can be stolen. However, if the site is so concerned about keyloggers, why is the virtual keyboard ONLY active for the PIN? You do not even have the option of using the virtual keyboard for your LoginID – you must use the regular keyboard and open yourself to the possibility of keylogging software on your computer.

Even worse is the fact that your LoginID starts off as your social security number – the whole nine-digit number that citizens are supposed to keep incredibly private. You can change it to a regular username, but nothing more than eight letters. So this highly secure website either opens up your social security number to keyloggers or restricts you to an eight-character LoginID.

So here is my big issue with this. Security measures are oftentimes a human factors nightmare (for example, those scrambled letter CAPTCHAs you have to decipher before signing up for a website). However, they must be fully implemented for maximum security – no compromises. And this site is nothing but compromises. A virtual keyboard that only works for the PIN and not the username, a password that encourages using a short string of only numbers, and a LoginID that is either one of your most important personal identifiers or else a too-short character string that must be typed on the keyboard.

6a00d83455460669e2011570f798db970b-500wi

This site fails at Human Factors because it tries to be convenient while still being secure, and in the end, it fails at both. This is not to say security and usability are mutually exclusive, but the designers of the myPay site managed to achieve this goal.

,

No Comments

Mint.com: Form over functionality gone wrong

Posted by jasonwong in bad design, clutter, data visualization on February 1st, 2009

Mint.com is a money management website. You enter in your logins and passwords for your banking, credit card, and loan websites, and Mint.com collects up-to-date financial information and presents it to you on one screen. This is much easier than logging in to many separate websites, and it is free, so it is better than paid applications like Quicken.

One design choice that bothers me, however, is how they don’t present the change. If you have $125.70 in one bank account, the website will show $126. This is an aesthetic choice (presumably designed to reduce clutter) that I think is annoying. We are all used to dealing with cents, so I don’t know why rounding off to the nearest dollar makes things less confusing.

Nonetheless, I opened up my Mint.com page today and saw this (a snippet from the whole page):

mint-mainpage

One of my credit cards had a small balance, but it was showing the cents this time: $8.00. I found it interesting that they would show the cents for a small balance. Even more interesting, though, when I opened up the Transactions page was this:

mint-balancepage

I actually had $7.98 on my card! Mint rounded that up to $8, but also showed the cents, making me think this was a fully accurate representation of my account balance. Instead, Mint got more specific by showing me cents but got those specifics wrong.

It is strange cases like this that makes me desperately wish Mint.com displayed cents all the time. This way, everything is perfectly accurate without much cost to the user. Again, we are all used to dealing with cents. Including them will not increase clutter by all that much. We can handle it, Mint. I promise.

4 Comments

Infographics: FiveThirtyEight’s Senate Map

Posted by jasonwong in clutter, data visualization, mental map on January 1st, 2009

FiveThirtyEight.com is a political site that was incredibly useful during the 2008 US Elections for its incredible number crunching, statistical models, and data displays. Now, with the election over, the site is planning on introducing information about votes in the Senate.

The question that FiveThirtyEight is trying to tackle is how best to display the information. In my opinion, there are several important pieces of information for each data point (each Senator):

  • How they voted
  • What party they belong to
  • Where they are from

FiveThirtyEight has four different versions they are testing, and they can be seen here. An example is posted below.

senmap

A couple of things jump to mind immediately.

First, the distorted map is interesting. Every state is given two squares instead of using an actual geographical map of the US. This keeps states that are near each other close, but it can be difficult to find one specific state because this map is not immediately familiar. I think it’s kind of odd.

Secondly, there are two Senators from every state, which is a difficult thing to show. The solution of giving each senator a square so each state is two squares is not bad, but it is not especially intrinsically informative.

Finally, it is interesting that some maps throw out “Nay” information. For example, in Version A, Nay votes are crossed out, but the state name virtually blends in with the background so you cannot identify the state from which someone voted Nay. Similarly, Version D removes a majority of color information from the Nay votes, turning the square primarily black and putting the state name in the party color.

The question that should be asked is simple: what information needs to be immediately understood? The answer may very well differ. In some cases, if the vote is across party lines, the Yays and Nays should quickly indicate party affiliation. If it’s a more regional issue, then the map should be geographically accurate and filled in using similar color blocks.

As long as all the information is present, it may be worth considering using different maps or coloring schemes depending on the point that needs to be gotten across. It seems like there is simply too much information to be conveyed that any important points can be instantly seen. Instead, these maps appear as a graphical jumble that will likely be difficult to interpret.

No Comments