Three Minds On Digital Marketing @ Organic

First he attacks new technologies, such as AJAX (which as a 3 year old term isn’t exactly “new”):

“When all they can do is click a link to get a new page, users know how to operate the UI. People are in control of their own user experience and thus focus on your content… the risk is typically too high with new technology because best practices haven't jelled yet. You can't just emulate designs you see around the Web — they're likely to be bad because they were hacked together by geeks drunk on the newest and coolest tech.“

Somebody has to go first in order for best practices to even be developed. And while there is an element of risk I can certainly agree with, considering that Nielsen is talking about AJAX and Flash in particular, he is way off his mark. Users are coming to expect and appreciate richer interfaces as a new standard of simplicity, so long as they are done in moderation and context.

I’m sure you can all think of an occasion recently you went to a “store locator” on a web site and were appalled to discover a static, click-to-reload map interface. Oh, and to think back to the photo upload tools of yesteryear, as compared to their friendly AJAX drag and drop counterparts. Was technology ever so tedious?

Next, Nielson attacks community based content:

“Realistically, most business tasks are too boring to support community features.”

Just looking at the recent PEW study on teens, that 75% are active contributors in online community content, it is presumable that users are not limiting their online conversations and dialogs to merely interesting business tasks. Forums are often the first place I turn to on any boring business site, when I need instant feedback and the site’s content lacks answers.

Lastly, he attacks mashups:

“A ‘mashed’ service will never have usability as good as one that's designed specifically for your needs. In testing store finders and other locators, we found that the most usable maps were custom drawn to highlight a specific store and included surrounding landmarks, recommended parking facilities, and information on how to best access the location using public transportation. A general mapping service doesn't know your customers' needs and thus can't draw the map that will bring in the most customers.”

There are some cities (Venice) where Google Maps does such a horrible job that I find a custom drawn map a necessity. But, for the most part, a Google Maps mashup offers all of the features Nielsen desires plus more, and certainly at a lower cost. I see no justification that a custom drawn map without the ability to get directions, move around in fluid AJAX motion, etc. and the extra cost of creating and maintaining would more often than not be a more “profitable” solution!! With Google Maps you can plot surrounding landmarks, parking, and public transportation complete with notes, pictures, and links, and the maintenance is ridiculously simple compared to a custom solution. Plus, users have come to accept Google Maps as a standard in usability.

All that being said, I see logic in the madness. Just because something is flashy and fancy doesn't make it good, but it doesn't automatically make it bad either. Which brings me to the final few points of Nielsen’s article:

“Instead of adding Facebook-like features that let users bite other users and turn them into zombies, the B2B site would get more sales by offering clear prices, good product photos, detailed specs, convincing whitepapers, an easily navigable information architecture... Before throwing spending money at 2.0 features, make sure that you have all the 1.0 requirements working to perfection.”

Point well taken. That is a statement that anyone in the interactive world should take to heart. Only, he just has such a backwards and "this is the only right way to do it" attitude when getting to that conclusion, that I have hard time taking the article seriously. Instead I'm left picturing this old man of interactive, yelling at the kids to get the AJAX off of his lawn.

On a pure profitability argument, I think one could effectively show that many of the most profitable web companies have been the ones pushing the envelope of innovation… finding ways to both use the new technologies and their communities without having to sacrifice the sacred usability Nielsen preaches. If Nielsen had his way, we’d still be living in a world of blue links, black text on white background, and images under 10K. And what would be the fun in that?

Marta Strickland