Marketing-speak is killing me

A lot of my work involves looking at other websites to see what's going on in terms of structure, interactivity, etc. And one thing that I keep noticing is just how often websites are plagued by utterly-meaningless, corporate marketing-speak. Here's one example from a financial institution's home page:

What does that mean? I will give the copy writer a little benefit-of-the-doubt -- they at least understand that a major issue people have with financial institutions is trust, and being valued. The problem is that this says absolutely nothing about how they plan to establish that trust or "commitment." There is no action to take here. There is no proof of their claim. It would be like having a slogan that says "We are good" and leaving it at that without an explanation of why. Note that they don't even tell you what they do here -- the only thing that establishes any sense of financials is that the two guys in the generic stock photo are in suits. But they could be lawyers, politicians, who knows. And yet this is the largest piece of real estate on their website's home page. Who would be convinced of anything here?

I'll contrast this with a better example from a similar company:

This is a little better. I could still do without yet another generic stock photo, but I know that research shows people do respond to photos of other people, and at least the photo does roughly connote either retirement or saving for your child. But where this site gets it right is that it is establishing a bunch of things with its headline and copy very quickly. It tells you what the company does, how that can help you, how they accomplish that (including a product name), what it will mean for you, and then invites you to action. It's not just saying "we care about you." It's saying "we understand what your problem is and we are offering you this solution." Much more effective.

It's the old "show, don't tell" adage. It's a lesson too frequently forgotten.

Offer an answer before the question gets asked

I'm going to give Bank of America a thumbs up and a thumbs down for two recent changes that raised my curiosity.

First, the positive. Bank of America (and a few other accounting/banking sites I've seen) seem to be switching to sign-in process that involves entering your username on one screen, and then your password on the next screen, rather than doing both at once. I don't know the research behind this, but my assumption is that this must be a more secure way of managing the login.

However, the first time I noticed that I wasn't being asked for a password, I got concerned. Did that mean that now someone only needed my username to access my account? It raised an alarm. However, right below the username field I noticed a link that said "Where do I enter my passcode?" Even without clicking the link, my concerns were relieved, because it was clear just by providing the link that I would, indeed, enter my passcode at some point to sign in. This is an example of smartly predicting a user's question and providing an answer without them having to ask. It saves the company time and money by reducing customer service requests, and it reinforces the user's confidence by being transparent and anticipating their questions.

Now the negative. I recently deposited a somewhat large check in my account. The pending deposit showed up immediately on my online banking. A few days later, however, a negative "deposit hold" for a slightly different amount appeared. Had it been the identical amount to my deposit I would have been less worried, but the fact that it was a different number, and that it was showing as a separate debit to my account rather than just a note on my original deposit, had me concerned that someone had somehow erroneously withdrawn that money from my account. There was no additional information, and even a search through customer support gave no explanation of a "deposit hold." I suspected things were probably fine and it was just an odd line-item while waiting for my deposit to clear, but to be sure I sent a message to customer service. They eventually confirmed that it was just a note until my deposit fully cleared and not to be worried.

However, they missed two key opportunities to provide information in advance, left a customer worried for a few hours, and ended up expending the time/cost involved in responding to an individual customer request. Had they included a clearer note with the "deposit hold," or even at least had an easily searchable answer in their customer support, they would have saved money and prevented any cause for concern.

I've seen similar examples of anticipating questions/concerns online, such as ING Direct adding a simple disclaimer to accompany a slight site redesign: "We gave our site a minor facelift. So if you notice anything different after you sign in, don't freak out. You're in the right place." Another smart move.

Anytime you are designing for the web, it's smart to brainstorm what questions your users might have, and to make sure the answers are provided or easily findable in advance. It's a win-win addition.

Pointless "innovation" (the new iPod Shuffle)

Before I began this blog, I attempted a different style of blogging elsewhere that was intended to focus more on good/bad examples of design. My first example of good design was the iPod Shuffle. The multi-colored clip-on items were only a little bigger than a postage stamp and I loved them. They were perfect for the gym, or if I wanted to ride the subway in town for a night out without having to stuff my pockets with an iPod.

Today Apple announced the new version of the Shuffle. It is not all that drastic a change, and there are some new features I like, such as the ability to hear the song/artist name spoken to you while listening and the addition of controls to the headphones.

But most of the other changes seem either pointless or actually negative.

• The Shuffle is now even physically smaller than before -- but was anyone even asking for this? The previous Shuffle was tiny as it was -- it weighed less than an ounce already. I can see the benefit in reducing weight with slightly larger objects, even something as small as a cell phone can benefit from being a few ounces lighter. But when you are changing something to be tenths of an ounce lighter, will anyone care?
• There are now no buttons on the Shuffle itself. The idea of adding inline buttons to the earphones is great -- but making that the ONLY way to interact with the device is a mistake. You are now requiring your audience to use only specially designed earphones with the device.
  
• The size of the storage has increased to 4GB. There really isn't any harm in adding more storage, but for many people the 1GB (or 2GB) was probably sufficient. And the new 4GB is over 60% more expensive than the old 1GB. Is that price increase worth a memory jump that many may not need? For now, the old 1GB version is still available, but it will undoubtedly be phased out.
  
• This is purely cosmetic, but -- why only silver/dark gray options for colors? Apple has an affection for clean lines, which I love, but when your object is about half the size of your pinky finger with no buttons or interface on most of the surface, you risk going from "sleek" to "lifeless." A little color would at least allow some personality.

I have to wonder, why did Apple bother? The voice reading of tracks was a very nice touch, but otherwise there is little innovative here. In terms of convenience, the size of the Shuffle was no longer an issue. The area probably most asking for innovation is the headphones now -- wires still get tangled, they are aesthetically unpleasing sometimes, and can get caught on things. Why not focus their innovative efforts on something like making wireless earphones standard? And if that is a difficult goal, why even bother at all with tweaking something that was already extremely effective as is?

Usability Case Study: Comcast

I've heard a lot of horror stories about Comcast -- terrible customer service, too expensive, half-assed installations that sometimes end up destroying walls -- but when I moved this past weekend into a new apartment in Boston, I had to say goodbye to RCN and sign up with Comcast.

I try to keep an open mind, so I was willing to let the bad stories I'd heard recede, and look at my Comcast experience with out prejudging. Some of the experience was bad, some was good. Overall, for Comcast, this can serve as a case study in how they could improve their sign up process.

1. Signing up online
The first thing I did was visit the Comcast website and try to put together the package I wanted. We needed cable and internet, but no phone, and they did have a bundle for those two things. But they only had ONE bundle -- oddly enough, with the most basic cable offering they have, which excluded a few too many channels for my liking. When I tried to build my own bundle with the next level of cable, any bundle savings were erased, and there was no option to upgrade the basic bundle. Here I was, a customer wanting to spend MORE than the basic bundle offered, but the online system offered no way to do this. I gave up.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: System should genuinely show all options, and make it easier to customize your package.

2. Signing up by phone automated prompts
Defeated by their website, I decided to just call to set it up. The very first thing that comes up in their automated prompt is "Enter the phone number where you would like service." This is a problem on many levels. First, Comcast offers phone service, so you could conceivably NOT have a phone number yet for the place you want to have it installed. Second, and here's what applies in my case, I am a cell-only person and do not have or want a landline. So the place where I want service has no phone number. Hoping to get to a prompt that makes more sense, I hit #. It asks me for my number again, and I hit # again hoping I'll get an operator or something. Instead it reads me back the phone number of the line I am calling on, assuming it is where I want service. Since I am calling from a landline at work, this is definitely not the number I want, so I hit a series of other buttons hoping to get out of installing cable at my workplace. Eventually, I somehow get a live person.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: I suspect this may be the case, but a simple change in language could go the distance -- "Enter the phone number you would like to use for your contact information. If you are ordering phone service as part of your package, press *." This addresses both problem scenarios -- you don't have a landline, or you are adding a new landline.

3. Signing up by phone with a representative
Once I finally got a representative, which didn't take very long (no 30 minute wait for me), the process actually went quite smoothly. The man was helpful, understood exactly what I was asking for, explained the pricing and the promotional period, set up installation, it was a breeze. The only thing I realized after the call was that he had never taken my email address, which would've been nice so I could've gotten some email confirmation. But, not a big deal.
Verdict: SUCCESS

4. Installation
The installation was supposed to happen between 11am-1pm, and just as scheduled they showed up just after 11am, even though there was a huge snowstorm. They installed everything quickly, and were very nice -- they even took my roommate's old cable box with them to save him the return hassle.
Verdict: SUCCESS

5. Setting up internet
The one thing I had to set up on my own was the internet. They brought the modem but I had to activate it. Which would've been a breeze, except the first thing the system asks for is your account number. Since I had never been asked for my email address, I had no email record with that information. I looked through the documents the installers brought, and nothing had any personalized information -- no account number there either. I had never been given my account number! And the prompts offered no "don't have your account number?" prompt like many online services offer for people in my shoes. I had to call to get it, and this time I did have to wait about 10+ minutes on the phone to get a representative. Fortunately they gave me my number quickly, and then I was able to complete the setup.
Verdict: MIXED
How to fix it: Installation should come with some sort of confirmation sheet or other personalized document including your account number. But ideally, the internet activation should offer a "don't have your account number?" link that lets you enter in other information (SSN, phone number, address, etc.).

6. Ordering TiVo service on the website
Once I got everything set up, I tried to hook up my old TiVo box and realized that my new fancy HD setup did not work with my old school TiVo -- and the TiVo couldn't even communicate with the cable box to change channels, making it useless completely. I had seen billboards around town advertising that Comcast had partnered with TiVo to offer that service. Since I hate typical cable DVRs, I thought this would be a great alternative. I go online to the Comcast TiVo site, and it asks me for my zip code to check availability. Success! It is available locally (which makes sense, given the billboards). Now it's redirecting me to the order page, and... "This package or service is no longer available." What? In fact I can't find anything on the site to actually order the service. Which I know they are offering.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: See #1. Don't tell me you have a service and then don't let me sign up for it. Get your system up to date, Comcast! Furthermore, include pricing information up front -- the page for TiVo did not include this.

7. Ordering TiVo via live chat
Just to try one more avenue of communication, I decide to use the live chat function rather than waiting on hold for a phone representative. No one is immediately available on the chat, but it does tell me what number I am in the queue, which is nice. It takes about 5-10 minutes for someone to show up, but since I am online I am able to do other things so I don't mind the wait. The representative is very helpful, answers my questions quickly, and I am surprised to learn that to get TiVo HD I do not need to buy a box or even pay an expensive initial setup fee, and the monthly fee is actually less than I was paying on my old TiVo. A pleasant surprise. The installation is set up quickly, and I'm done.
Verdict: SUCCESS

Overall, I was impressed by the actual human interactions -- people were friendly, and although not every phone call/live chat was answered immediately, the waits weren't too terrible. As for the website, it proved almost completely useless. It did not show all the options available, and in the case of TiVo, didn't even show the service at all. Even worse was the automated phone system, which started of on such a wrong footing that I got worried I was going to accidentally set up something at the complete wrong location.

Now I am not someone who hates using websites and automated phone systems to complete transactions -- in fact I prefer it greatly. If I can set something up without having to talk to someone, I am happy, as it saves me time and I can do it whenever I want. And, as far as I know, it greatly reduces the cost to the company. One client I worked with once mentioned that it cost them $14 per call due to the costs of maintaining that system and paying for call representatives. It would be to Comcast's extreme benefit to improve their system. And considering they are a company offering internet service, it speaks quite poorly of them that they cannot even offer a successful online interface.

Now let's just see how billing goes...

The economy and usability fail each other... again.

In this story from CNN about the economic stimulus bill, there is a quote from a Republican which has a lot of validity to it:

Some representatives expressed frustration over how little time they had to read the 1,000-plus page bill.

"You can't be serious. This would be humorous if it wasn't so sad," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia. "What's in it? Have you read it?"

I blogged before about how usability could improve the mortgage process, and I think it could stand to do a lot to improve how bills are handled as well. No doubt the fine print of bills are necessary, but, at some point you have to be realistic. No one has time to read 1,000 page bills. It would take, probably quite literally, a few days straight of reading to get through it, let alone fully digest and understand it.

And furthermore, it reduces transparency -- we do operate in a representative government where we don't expect average citizens to have the time (or inclination) to know everything about every bill, law, and regulation -- but sometimes it would be nice to know exactly what our reps are doing.

So why not have a straight up bulleted list up front of all the items contained within? It could look as simple as this, or even break down each section a little further:

• $12 billion for street repairs (p. 193-195)
• $27 billion for environmentally friendly fuels (p. 344-350)
• $19 billion for school construction (p. 507-524)
• And so on...

Of course, that may oversimplify things, but if you're fairly certain you're on board with street repairs, but not so sure about environmentally friendly fuels, you can focus on reading the fuels section.

This isn't about being too lazy to read, it's about realistically improving the decision-making process. Big long documents shouldn't be impressive -- clearly written and easy-to-understand documents should. If you have to have the former, the least you can do is provide the option of the latter.

(Note: I'm not making any commentary on whether or not I agree with the Republicans' stance on the stimulus bill, but I am more than willing to highlight a valid point!)

Starbucks misses the mark

If you've visited the Starbucks website recently, you may have noticed the floating "Got a great idea?" link that follows you around the site. Generally I don't like floating elements like that which appear without you asking for them, but it gets people's attention, and at least this is a somewhat benevolent gesture.

The major problem? There's no "Close" button. This thing will follow you around on every page forever -- there is no way to make it go away.

They've turned an effort to increase customer satisfaction into a creepy widget that won't leave you alone.

Why are hosting admins so awful?

One of the new challenges I've faced in expanding my freelance work is that I have to interact with a variety of admin interfaces for different clients' web hosts. And they pretty much all suck. Why is that?

To be fair, web hosts have a tricky line to walk -- in many cases, experienced coders will be the ones interacting with the admin interface, and it is appropriate to use more advanced knowledge and to reduce the number of "walk you by the hand" tools. But at the same time, you may be dealing with staff members at smaller organizations who know next to nothing about web coding and yet are in charge of doing things like setting up email addresses and uploading files. Ideally, this would never really be the case -- but in those situations it does make sense to have a few tools and wizards to help.

So why do these hosting companies build interfaces that confound everyone equally? I just logged into one that instructed me NOT to use FTP to upload files (an incredibly simple procedure that is basically "drag and drop"), and that I was required to use FrontPage for fear of corrupting files. Of course, I'm ignoring this, as there's no logical way I'd be corrupting anything, but it's bizarre that this was set up this way in the first place. I'd figure that if you are in charge of a hosting company, you'd probably be an expert on how that sort of thing works, and I can't imagine any expert would set things up to require a particular software program to function (unless there is some devious co-branding going on here).

The worst case I saw was a company that actually professed to be comprised of usability experts. Not only was their administrative back-end completely unusable, but just finding out how to get help was confusing. They listed different methods of help contact for different "plan" levels, but nowhere (even after logging in) did it tell you what plan you were on.

Hosting companies could take a serious lesson from the variety of new admin interfaces that have popped up -- whether it's Facebook or Blogger or Flickr -- and note how simple and clear those interfaces usually are. One might argue they are not as complex as a full hosting package, but that is no reason to bury tools and functionality in unfamiliar terms or to overcomplicate simple processes. If these interfaces are confounding me, someone who works in the web industry and knows how to code a site, I can't imagine how confusing they must be to those less versed in web technologies.

As a side note, this seems to be a persistent problem I find whenever I am researching new ways to do things. When I am lucky enough to stumble on to a tutorial for a new technique, it invariably turns out to be an overly detailed process for something much simpler than what I was looking for. Conversely, when I actually do find information about the technique I'm looking for, it's frequently presented with the expectation that the reader already has an advanced understanding of the subject at hand, thus offering little value to someone who is actually trying to learn something genuinely new to them.

Much like bad hosting admin interfaces, bad tutorials fail to think about their prospective audience. Either cater your instructions to multiple types of users, or say upfront what the user should already know before reading (and if possible, link them to where they can learn that information if they don't already know it).