In comparison to the online presence of the majority of government agencies, Energy has taken the best of Web 2.0 and successfully applied that philosophy to the way they present themselves to the public.  The end result is an open and intuitive web site that clearly and powerfully communicates DOE’s mission and the diverse range of vitally important energy projects the agency oversees. Additionally, the use of several social media platforms to connect and engage with DOE, and their urging of the public at large to actively participate, is what truly gives the site its Web 2.0 ethos.

Clear navigation, transparent headings for their sub-pages, plenty of white space and clearly defined information areas (via layout and design) all contribute to the openness and clarity of the site.

The prominent positioning of the blog entry on the Home page and the various social media pathways open to the public to engage with the Department of Energy, especially via Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s Facebook Page, as well as Twitter, You Tube and Flickr accounts, speaks to their willingness to connect with the American public.

Finally, the use of localization and segmentation tools via their “More From Energy” and “I Am” sections, gives any visitor the ability to quickly get to the information they want to access.

All in all, a fantastic site.

Nicole Burton, user experience evangelist at the GSA Office of Customer Service Excellence who helps manage the program, says although the tests aren’t statistically significant, the most serious problems are fixed, and the technique improves customer service. Burton and her team did not have to purchase any new technology or equipment to launch the program. She says usability testing can be carried out with the technology available in most modern offices.

So it’s not a full blown usability survey or user experience design undertaking; they’re not saying it is. It can still be useful, as Ms. Burton explains. With no acquisition process or contractor expense, GSA is helping other agencies tackle big usability issues and improving customer service. How can you make fun of that?

Not every website tweak needs huge time, effort, or expense. Grab a copy of Don’t Make Me Think and see what you can do to improve user experience on your site. Or, if you’re swamped, give me a call.

Do owners of other types of sites give usability some, if not equal, attention? Do government agencies worry about the usability of their sites? They don’t sell, but they do have a mission to meet. They provide information or push an agenda for the public good. And they serve the government itself. Take USAJobs.gov as an example. The big story these days is the retiring government work force and the challenge associated with hiring the new breed. Well if USAJobs is a pain to use (and I’m not saying it is), then there go your applicants. Want to fight rising health care costs? Then let’s make sure Health.gov is easy to use.

The mission for government agency websites is to make information easily available, or to persuade viewers to take a certain action. So purchases may not be on the line, but usability should still be a concern. Why make the effort, and spend the money, to stand up a site that your audience can’t easily use? No matter the scope of your web effort, focus on usability from the early stages of design and information architecture, and then conduct usability testing during the production process. As Steve showed us, it doesn’t have to be expensive or derail the time line; on the contrary, usability testing can both save money and keep a web design project on track.

See, browsers are not like televisions. Different brands don’t all work the same. Imagine being a video producer and delivering your product to a broadcaster, then stopping by Circuit City for the big debut. Wouldn’t that be a surprise if one TV shifted the picture out of frame while another resized the image to bizarro dimensions, and a third finally displayed the video correctly. Well, you could just produce three versions of your show, right? One for each kind of TV. That’d be a hoot. We may not have to generate completely separate products, but web developers do wrestle with a similar scenario.

Despite the best efforts of organizations like the WC3, browsers just don’t all work the same way. They don’t display content the same way. Pieces move or resize or disappear completely. Depending on the goals of your organization, those differences can have large impact.

The latest stats show Internet Explorer 7 holding 21 percent of the market. IE6 holds 33 percent, Firefox 36 percent, and then a steep drop down to Safari, Mozilla, and Opera. Notice the name Netscape isn’t even tracked anymore! Depending on your goals and audience, you may need to test your websites/applications on all of those browsers (not to mention platforms like Mac or PC) to make sure everyone is seeing the same thing and enjoying the same experience.

So how do you decide how much time and effort to put into cross-browser and platform testing? That depends on what you’re doing. If you’re facing a closed audience with predictable systems, you may be able to cut down on testing. For example, a DoD agency targeting an internal audience can feel pretty good about things as long as they’re targeting Internet Explorer 6 (until Feb 12?) and Windows XP. Meanwhile, that same agency may have a public-facing website, one offering critical information or training, one that could reflect on their image and mission. In that case, how accommodating should it be? Is it OK to serve up content that may look wacky on a Mac because it holds such a small share of the market? I’m happy to say that’s not my call. But I could help you think through it. And would you believe it comes down to time and money? I know you’ve never heard that before.

I will say this: There are standards out there, and if we stick to those when building, our chances for success are good from square one. Further that, simply having the experience and awareness of cross-browser/platform issues is another big advantage. Finally, it’s about paying attention your audience and making educated decisions. My decision would be to dump IE6. One version of that browser is enough for all of us.

“That gaudy blue hyperlink color doesn’t work in this design! I have dust blue tabs and a buoyant green reflective button here…man, let’s make the hyperlink fit in with this.”

And before you know it, the hyperlink is so meshed with the page design that you can’t find it—and guess what? It’s not useable, clickable, actionable if I can’t find it! Check out this page from AT&T (note, a big-shot company, not some teenager’s MySpace page).

Now tell me, when you are ready to drop the five large for that smartphone, what do you do? I swear, despite the big “Buy it Now!” message, I scrolled to the bottom of the page looking for the link that would let me make the purchase. That color-themed “Buy it Now”? That’s no link, people, that’s a heading. Sure, I realized that after a second, but why make is tricky like that? Now I feel foolish and blog with scorn!

Listen, AT&T isn’t the only culprit. In fact, our company, Mind & Media, is prepping to launch a redesigned website that, among other things, addresses that same problem. We are (were) pretty much a two-color company, as is AT&T. They’re blue and orange, and we’re purple and teal. It’s tough to agree on a hyperlink color in a rigid style guide like that.

Like AT&T’s main page, M&M’s uses one company color for headings and one for links. But then you have subpages and subheadings, and here come the design issues faster than handcuffs after curfew. The choice is either stick with standard bright blue for links, which I just can’t do (I DID say I’m a designer), or inject something new. We went with option two, and you’ll see it soon enough. So c’mon, AT&T, companies, and designers everywhere, make an effort to create usable sites. Make those links easy to find. You might get more folks buying and fewer sweating the hyperlink.

For further reading on usable sites and even the humble hyperlink, check out Coding Horror. I read his much-dugg post from yesterday, and I’m sure that’s what got me churning. Cheers.

User-centered design (UCD)
User-centered design is a design philosophy in which users, their needs, interests and behavior define the foundation of web-site in terms of site structure, navigation and obtaining the information. UCD is considered as a standard approach for modern web-applications, particularly due to the rise of user generated content. In Web 2.0 visitors have to be motivated to participate and therefore need conditions optimized for their needs.

Walk-Up-And-Use Design
A Walk-up-and-use design is self-explanatory and intuitive, so that first-time or one-time users can use it effectively without any prior introduction or training.

Is it just me, or shouldn’t those two definitions simply fall under the heading “website design”? Why must those ideas be singled out like alternatives or options? Why not have an entry called Crap Design? Crap Design is creating a site without regarding site visitors intent on accomplishing something. Try to avoid crap design. The site you’re creating is not for you, it’s for your users. Build it for them.

Here’s a usability challenge for you:

Build a site for an audience who can’t read. My five-year-old can recognize just a few words, but damn if she can’t find her way around a couple of kid game sites (noggin and pbskids) with little to no difficulty! It’s amazing to me. No directions, no instructions, just intuitive design. Sometimes I just sit and watch her and try to learn from the site layouts.

They got it right for sure. She showed up to play games and they made it easy for her. We could learn some lesson there, eh? No matter what you call it.

But I hadn’t expected to be.

I haven’t had good experiences with PDAs and smartphones. The Treo 650, for instance, was a nightmare when it came to bulk, reception, and sound quality. And gradually the idea of hunkering down over a tiny glowing screen with a stylus seemed less and less cool. A friend reminded me, “You work in an office—you should want to spend less time at the computer, not more.” So I bought the simplest clamshell I could, resisted the temptations of the Crackberry, and felt liberated from my gadget obsession.

Then the iPhone ad campaign began. I admitted to myself I was curious, but I reminded myself how much I hated smartphones and tiny screens. I had trouble believing that any touch screen could be genuinely comfortable. I’ll go see a floor model, I thought, and that will be that.

Of course, that’s like an alcoholic walking into a bar to look at a “floor model” of the latest brand of vodka. Once a gadget freak, always a gadget freak. I went to my local AT&T/Cingular store after work—after the lines had died down and the mobs had left it looking like the remnants of a party: dirty floors, disorder, and a significant number of stragglers snapping up the final stock. I asked myself if I wanted to be one of these people. One guy received his new iPhone over the counter with a classic air of paranoid covetousness—like Gollum possessive over his precious (and it should go without saying that there is significant overlap between tech early adopters and Lord of the Rings devotees). The staff had long since run out of the decorative gift bags.

“You bought into the hype, man, you got sucked in.” These are the things that reformed early adopters say to each other. My friend wouldn’t even look at my iPhone he was so disgusted. “I swear,” I said, “I went in to look at a floor model.” And that’s what I had done. And the next day I found an Apple store that hadn’t sold out, and walked out self-consciously transporting, through a crowded mall, the black decorative gift bag that is a mark of pride or shame, depending on your state of mind.

What sucked me in?

First, the iPhone is aesthetically pleasing. Second, it’s a pleasure to use. And that’s about it.

It’s not because I need to check email away from the computer. It’s not because Web surfing is absolutely essential wherever and whenever. It’s not because I get to listen to music while talking on the phone and chatting and emailing and surfing the Web and looking at photos and using Google maps and popping off a beer cap with the built-in bottle iOpener. And after all, the iPhone’s greatest innovation is that it does less than any other smartphone!

Really, it comes down to intriguing innovation in user interface that is hard to resist. The touch interface makes it enjoyable to surf the Web—the only small device I’ve used for which this is the case. And when I say “enjoyable,” I don’t mean merely “functional” or “tolerable,” and I’m not saying that what it does is more useful than other phones; it’s just fun—justifiably unnecessary.

The best way to describe why this is so is to say that the iPhone decreases the distance between you and the tasks you’re trying to perform. That’s an immediacy that technology usually takes away via mouse, keyboard, and stylus interfaces. Getting to use your fingers, on the other hand, is satisfyingly basic—even primal. Hence the iPhone may also be the anti-gadgeteer’s gadget in the same way that the Wii is the non-gamer’s video game. And both I see as an extension of recent trends in social networking, which have become successful by lowering the barrier of entry for users and applying principles of simplicity and immediacy that Google and Apple have adhered to for some time.

The only question left, of course: will it blend? [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dr5zAOc7-0]

Specialized credit/debit card kiosks are popping up in churches.

“Automatic checking account withdrawals are used by some churches, and more recently, ATM-like kiosks are now available in many church corridors and lobbies, where parishioners can swipe a card and receive a printed receipt, which they can either save for the IRS or plunk into the collection basket with a flourish, so pew mates will know they’re not spiritual freeloaders. “

Is it brilliant? Is it sacrilegious? One Digg comment added a Bible verse (Matthew 21:12,13) to the argument.

The driving reason for the appearance of ATMs in churches is a new IRS rule, but c’mon, you can’t tell me the churches aren’t simply loving the idea flat out. The church kiosk is brilliant because it makes an action easy. When something is easy, that in itself is added persuasion to execute the action. Now that’s good usability.

Let’s look at it out of the context of the church because that can be the only factor that’s muddying the waters: Whether you are a nonprofit or commercial entity, doesn’t it make sense to create an environment in which visitors/customers can do what they want to do, and what you want them to do, as easily as possible? If you run an association that relies on membership dues, would you ask website visitors to print out a form, fill it in, then write a check and finally mail it all in, stamp and all? No way. If it’s hard to do, fewer folks will do it. That’s why you make it easy with an online form. The visitor is happy because he or she can easily sign up, and you’re happy you’re getting new members.

What’s wrong with making it easy for church members to both make and track their donations? Churches have been asking for donations since the dawn of time. This news is simply an evolution. An evolution in recordkeeping, sure, but an evolution in usability design as well.

Marketers, writers, designers, programmers, even church administrators, whatever it is you are inspiring people to do, it’s no sin to make it easy.

The marketing engines have been working overtime at Apple. I first heard about the iPhone more than a year ago. Sure, it looks good; that’s a given. But what makes the darn thing so cool is the “look Ma, no buttons” factor. You do everything by touch.

My prediction is that we are about five to 10 years away from a time of no more keyboards or mice. Everything will use touch screens or touch pads. We’ll be like people in the movie Minority Report; they wired up their fingers and moved through computerized interactive environments with fluidity and grace. Like them, we ‘ll put on some classical music and be conducting on our computers.

I’m looking forward to it. Think of all the people saved from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Between the iPhone and Microsoft Surface, the days of keystrokes and mouse clicks are fading fast. I only have two questions now: What will we call the new “syndrome” caused by touch screen usage? And will it be covered by workman’s comp?

Their website says that Microsoft has been working for more than five years on a super secret computer table that can do all sorts of cool things, and you can put your feet on it. Check it out:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqVNAnuQQyg]
It reminds me of the old Pac-Man tabletop games I used to play when I was a teenager — perfect because you could set a slice of pizza right next to the controls. I don’t think I’d put pizza on the Surface’s surface, but they show some interesting applications with cocktail glasses, so who knows?