Opening up New Windows

According to Nielsen, the only thing the average user can be counted on knowing is that the back arrow cycles back a page. That's it. Therefore, when linking to another site don't open up a new window.

In general I agree with this rule of thumb. However, I disagree completely when it comes to external links via a blog. First and foremost blog readers are already a self-selected user group. It's true that there are always new users to blogs, who are unaware of the rules of blogging etiquette, but I think that few habitual blog readers are newbie computer/internet users. Now the above phrase is a HORRIBLE one for a IA person to throw out without some corroborating data. I must say I haven't any data so, if anyone can point me to it, I would be very happy.

My hypothesis, still to be backed up by empirical data, is that the user experience is superiour when links to external site opened in a new window. The reasoning is that it allows the user to experience, and to explore the new site without losing contact of the original source material. If the external source is not interesting it is simple to close out the window. If the new site is interesting one can easily click through 10, 20 or more times and would now have a more difficult task returning to the original page than simply closing out the new window.

IE6 and IE6 Blocker

To what extent should we – as designers and site owners – stop supporting IE6? Pursuing through CSS-Tricks I came across the following software IE 6 Blocker which tells users that particular site doesn’t support IE6 and they must upgrade to a new browser. Now, I understand the frustration, but this is ridiculous . (See a previous post regarding the problems with IE 6.)

The first priority of all site owners and IAs is to make the content available to as many people as possible. If people want to use Lynx – well, let them. It is a basic violation of web conventions to tell the user what browser to use; as bad as accessibility and usability violations. I remember when IE first came out and Microsoft was thought of as a monopolistic entity about to consume the world and many sites put up "Netscape Only" splash screens. It was a bad policy then and is bad policy today.

Additionally IE 6 still constitutes about 20% of the market. What sense does it make to eliminate 20% of your users from accessing your site. IE6 will be a force until corporate and government agencies upgrade to a new platform. Only when large sites which cater to corporate clients, like CNN, stop validating for IE6 can I see smaller sites joining on.

The only way I can see dropping support for IE6 making any sense is if your web app requires scripts not available in old browsers. However this is a business decision that should not be made lightly.

A better idea, should you want to drop IE6 support, is to develop to web standards; then check IE6 for any major breakdowns that prevent people from using your site. After the major issues have been cleared do not allocate any extra development time for minor items. At this point it would make sense to flag IE6 users, put a small banner at the top of the page saying that your site is no longer fully supporting IE 6 and ask people to “Upgrade to IE7 as this site may not function perfectly with older versions of IE.”

Usability Testing: Does a Warm or Cold Drink Change the Results?

There is an interesting program on BBC Horizon which explores how seemingly irrelevant externalities affect our decision making process. You can see the video here: How to Make Better Decisions

One of the experiments shown on the program indicated that you will feel more positive about a newly met person if you're holding a warm beverage. Conversely if you're holding a cold beverage you will feel more negative about that person. (Does it also imply a website?) This resonated with me as I just went through a hiring process and have been very dissatisfied with the person selected. If we had been drinking Red Bull instead of coffee would we have come to a different decision?

IP Anonymity as regards P2P and Criminal Activity

It appears as if systems are far less robust, in regards to tracking users, than is perceived. A now "ancient" Cambridge study (from 2005) Anonymity and Traceability in Cyberspace by Richard Clayton concludes that the data stored by ISPs, while useful for business purposes, are less conclusive for criminal proceedings.

One should not be surprised that systems maintained by ISPs to provide traceability to ISP accounts become less precise once one is no longer using them for ISP purposes and start trying to trace back to actual people.

The authors stresses that not only would the traceability evidence have to be accurate enough to stand up in court but the prosecution would also have to account for numerous blocking and diversionary scenarios put in place "by the real" criminals and not necessarily the individual being charged with the crime.

If you're at all interested in the subject of internet privacy this paper is a worthwhile read.

A Brave New World - Is it Time To Freak Out

The following article was in TechCrunch earlier this month.

Is it officially time to freak out in Apple’s general direction?

Not only does Apple remove applications from the App Store—I Am Rich was taken down yesterday, for example—but it’s now emerged that the company can remotely disable applications from individual iPhones.

Obviously, Apple should be able to protect itself and its users from malware - but should it have gotten rid of "I am Rich?" From a public relations perspective the answer is "hell yes;" and from a general business perspective the answer is "of course." Any business from a small mom and pop to Walmart can determine what is and what is not sold in their store. They may make a mistake in allowing a product in, surely they have the right to correct their mistake.

There may be times when a company bows to public pressure but is that necessarily a bad thing?

A Brave New World

One of the beautiful things about increased computer power and bandwidth is the development of new apps and the ease by which one can add new technology for fun, life and business. One of the bad things is that others (hackers, companies and government) can know what you are doing. Your applications can be monitored without your knowledge or permission, with others knowing where you are and what you are doing in real time.

In time will purchased applications be removed or edited without your permission? Will newspapers, books and video be edited without your knowledge? The keeper of this knowledge (the company from which you download the information – and the government which has over site) can alter this data at whim. Without real care we can create a 1984 dystopian society.

I am very positive about the future of technology but we must take care to make certain that we keep our privacy, that the concept of people being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” applies to on-line data as implied in the 4th Amendment. Computer companies (Microsoft, Apple) are now having their devices call “home” to detect piracy and malware. While I completely approve of this we must keep in mind potential problems that may come in the not too distant future.

Should External Links Open into a New Browser?

I’ve been having a debate with a client who wants all external links to open up in a new window. The reasons were two-fold. First it was a personal preference - he liked to have each website in its individual browser. (Why?) And second he didn’t want his site visitors confusing his site with someone else’s. (Huh?)

Here’s the interesting aspect of this conversation – the client is an intelligent, educated man, reasonably technologically adept who has been using computers since the 1980s and has been on the internet for over 10 years. And yet – he thinks this way?

Here’s what Jakob Nielsen has to say:

Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since current operating systems have miserable window management).

Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied in taking over the user's machine, the strategy is self-defeating since it disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to previous sites. Users often don't notice that a new window has opened, especially if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be confused by a grayed out Back button.

Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. When they want the destination to appear in a new page, they can use their browser's "open in new window" command — assuming, of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the browser’s standard behavior.

The only exception to this would be when linking to .pdfs or .xls files or some sort of non-html file.

Designers and site owners should not think that it is their business to decide when users should have a new window. It's their computer, their decision to make. Furthermore the whole point of hyperlinking is the seemless linking from one point to the next. Opening up another window breaks the connection between sites.

Another reason, less important simply because opening new windows is a bad idea, but very important in the coming few years is the increasing use of cellphones with small screens. Mobile devices don't always support multiple windows and even when they do the user experience is quite limited in keeping track of the open windows.