-
Get a monthly update on best practices for delivering successful software.
The value of wireframing even with incomplete information
The task of wireframing in application development, as I've come to know it, should begin after user research has been performed, and a complete set of requirements gathered. But what happens when, for whatever reason, you just don't have access to user research, or a full set of requirements? What if all you have are some rather unspecific, vague notions of what the user should and should not be able to do? Is wireframing at this juncture useful? I say yes. With incomplete or even almost non existent information about target users and or requirements, wireframes can still be a valuable tool in the interface designers toolkit.
The key to a wireframe's usefulness is that it is a visual document. Presumably it will be presented to one or more product stakeholders, and they will have the opportunity to review it and comment. Having something visual to respond to is one of the easiest ways to generate ideas, and identify incomplete specifications. A good assumption is that if a product's requirements are incomplete, someone at the wireframe review will notice the gap by responding in the context of the visual presentation. "Where is the Cancel button? Oh...not in the requirements? Well it's obvious that on this screen the user will need to be able to cancel, so we have to add that as a requirement."
In this way, a wireframe can be an ever evolving document, which begins by starting the requirements conversation. Of course ultimately, just prior to feature development, the wireframe should have all of the necessary specifics so that the developers can use it as a guide (along with the relevant user stories).
a) The increasing prevalence user-generated information on the Internet
b) Push-web triumphs over pull-web
c.) Social media
d) An attempt to sell subscriptions to Om Malik's new "research" service
Answer: d. GigaOm Pro: Fresh Internet buzzwords, unsullied by the taint of the latest crash. Can I have my Web 2.0 back, please?
I've just come across Yahoo's new home page, which features a clean streamlined look, the ability to add your favorite pages as links right on the homepage, and most interestingly, a module that gives you access to (a subset of) your Facebook account. This module, which appears when you hover your mouse over the Facebook link on the let hand side of the page, will--after sign in--open up your facebook friend feed right there on the Yahoo home page.
Apparently Facebook has been giving third party websites the ability to connect to their users via Facebook for 8 months now (through a set of API's collectively called Facebook Connect). But the Yahoo home page is the most high profile example yet. This is certainly the first time I've come across it.
The benefits of Facebook connect Facebook is obvious. It'll gather more information about its users, and become more ubiquitous within the wider web, as users remain connected to its platform even while not actually on the facebook.com.
Change has come to America, and so, too has it come to whitehouse.gov, the official website of the President of the United States.
One minute into the 44th Presidency, the website sports a radically new look (I'd love to hear how that was handled), and all the neccesary updates as a new administration moves in have already been made. But the changes promise to be much more than cosmetic. According to a statement on the White House Blog, Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House, "Millions of Americans have powered President Obama's journey to the White House, many taking advantage of the internet to play a role in shaping our country's future. WhiteHouse.gov is just the beginning of the new administration's efforts to expand and deepen this online engagement."
Efforts will be made so that whitehouse.gov "puts citizens first" through three main priorities. Again, from the same statement:
"Communication -- Americans are eager for information about the state of the economy, national security and a host of other issues. This site will feature timely and in-depth content meant to keep everyone up-to-date and educated. Check out the briefing room, keep tabs on the blog (RSS feed) and take a moment to sign up for e-mail updates from the President and his administration so you can be sure to know about major announcements and decisions.
Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government. You can also learn about some of the senior leadership in the new administration and about the President’s policy priorities.
Participation -- President Obama started his career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he saw firsthand what people can do when they come together for a common cause. Citizen participation will be a priority for the Administration, and the internet will play an important role in that. One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it."
Read the full statement
I may have visited whitehouse.gov three or four times in my life, but I'll be back quite a bit after reading this, excited and hopeful about the ways that the new administration will use technology to connect to the people.
Topics: Design, government, Web 2.0
Google is at it again. Entire industries have sprung up around their search engine, adwords/adsense universe, and now they are set to do the same thing with healthcare data.
One of the major barriers to entry for companies offering services around processing healthcare data has been access to data. Who has the data? Typically the insurance companies. At least they have it in the kind of quantities that makes doing serious data analysis worthwhile. Managed care organizations are in second place, but from there you get to piddling amounts quickly. As you move from the heavily consolidated payer end of the industry to the heavily fragmented provider end, the comprehensive data view of the patient is balkanized to the point of uselessness.
This data problem even effects the valuation of companies. I've seen healthcare analytics companies that provide services to hospitals and clinics valued at less than $10 million, while another company that provides the exact same services to insurance firms is valued at ten times that price. Here, as in all things, follow the money.
Continue reading »
Topics: Google, Healthcare, Web 2.0
I spent a lot of time at Web 2.0 Expo session-hopping - and a lot more time hanging in the speaker's lounge fine-tuning my own talk. That's the curse of going on the last day. You can't fully enjoy the rest of the conference. That said, I had pretty strong reactions to some of the keynotes. The big platform announcements from Microsoft (Live Mesh) and Yahoo (SearchMonkey plus), were OK, but I was most struck by author Jonathan Zittrain and Mozilla exec Mitchell Baker.
Topics: Web 2.0
Of each particular thing ask: What is it in itself, what is its nature?
-- Marcus Aurelius

We get asked quite often to convert Web 1.0 applications into Web 2.0 applications. We do it so often that we've developed tools, written frameworks, published articles and whitepapers and given conference talks on the topic.
So far, there are and remain three different approaches:
Which one to chose? That depends on what kind of application you have. Is it a Web 2.0 application masquerading as a Web 1.0 application, or is it really a rather dull Web 1.0 application that you need to tart up with a few widgets?
Topics: Ajax Development, Web 2.0

I launched this blog just a little over two years ago, on March 21st, 2006. Appropriately enough, my first post was about User Experience (UXD) and Ajax. The blog has come a long way since then -- we've added another full-time blogger (Brain Dillard), published nearly 700 articles of original Ajax and Agile related content, and covered the major new innovations in Ajax and Web 2.0 -- but in many ways Ajax technology is still struggling with the same issues that I wrote about back then:
As it stands, Ajax is still in its infancy (or in its wild west phase -- pick your metaphor), and Bill's simple three part "patterns" are emblematic of this.
Topics: Ajax Development, Design Patterns, Desktop RIA, Web 2.0, Web Development

OK, onwards in our effort to convert Web 1.0 apps to Web 2.0. Today we'll focus on some of the differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0 from the user experience perspective. When we think about our web interface, we usually think about the links, forms and controls we've put in place. But the reality is that often things go wrong with our app -- sometimes network problems, system problems or application errors -- and we get errors like 404 or 503, or a "page did not load." How does the user respond to these issues?
Usually they make use of the Stop, Reload, Back and Forward buttons. Most times application developers see the use of these browser buttons as a problem, to be mitigated ("Please don't submit this form twice..."; "Don't use the back button or your order will be submitted twice..."). If you think about it a little more carefully, you'll find that these buttons form a vital safety net for web applications, without which users would be crying in frustration at the "Unable to connect..." pages and spinning cursors that have brought your app to a halt.
Topics: Ajax Development, Best Practices, Tutorials, Web 2.0, Web Development
Every month I check in on the state of advertising and Ajax. Nielsen has ditched the page view, but they've really shrugged their shoulders at how to measure traffic for advertising purposes on Ajax-enabled web sites. To make things worse, even Google, a pioneer in many things Ajax, is mum on Ajax and Adsense. Just search through their help forums for all of the unanswered questions on how to make Adsense work with Ajax sites. This deafening silence on Google's part (not even a "don't do it"), leads me to believe that they are either working on a solution but don't want to tip their hand, or that they are just as out to sea as everyone else.
So, the modest good news is that some people are working to solve the measurement problem. In the case of search recommendations, Baynote measures interest in the targets of search results, then reranks those results based on that interest. In other words, if someone goes to a search result, scrolls through the page, leafs through a couple of DHTML tabs, etc., then they probably found the page interesting. If, on the other hand, they only spend a second deciding that the page sucks, then go back to the search results, then they probably found the page uninteresting.
Topics: Advertising, GWT, Tools, Web 2.0
Came across an interesting web tool today...Writemaps: A site map generating tool that allows you to build, edit and share site maps.
It's got limited features, but it has two big things going for it:
1 - It's web based, and you can share your files via url. So anyone with a web connection can view and edit what you've created.
2 - It creates presentable sitemaps. The page representations (nodes in the site map tree) have subtle gradients and drop shadows, and the tree diagram contains only right angles, giving your sitemap a polished professional touch.
A few other notes about this tool:
Can't print or save as image, but you can save as XML.
It's got an undo button! (how many web apps do that?)
You can zoom in/out on your map views.
It's dead easy to get started.
In summary, there's a lot of potential here, and I think I might give it a try on my next project.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Topics: Information Architecture, Task Flows, Web 2.0
When the marketing folks say a trend or bubble has lost its bloom, it must be true. But the examples they give are telling:
Talk of a second dotcom bubble has been fuelled by a flurry of web 2.0 acquisitions in the past two years, with media owners jostling for supremacy in the digital space. Most recently, Microsoft announced its $240m (£117m) acquisition of a 1.6% stake in Facebook in a deal that values the social networking site at $15bn (£7.3bn).
In October last year, Google snapped up YouTube for $1.65bn, while Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp splashed out $580m on MySpace in July 2005. “Some of these valuations bear little or no resemblance to reality,” says Andy Hobsbawm, European chairman of Agency.com.
Hmmm, Facebook, MySpace (in 2005! Feel the churn!), YouTube? With the exception of YouTube, these are all Social Networking sites. Web 2.0 is more than social networking, and a bubble is more than three corporate behemoths staking out territory at overblow valuations.
For those of you toiling in the fields of Web 2.0, RIA applications, don't even break stride. This is nonsense.
Topics: Web 2.0
Amidst all the hardware news at Apple's Mac-focused media event last week, it was easy to overlook the announcement of some tweaks to the widely reviled .Mac web-services suite. Easy to overlook not because the announcement got no play, but because the improvements were so underwhelming. Even with 10 times the online storage space (10 gigs, up from 1 gig) and a slick new Ajax-backed photo service, the upgraded .Mac suite still costs $100 a year. Meanwhile, most of its individual features continue to lag behind the functionality and performance of free services from a host of other providers.
Commentators here, there and everywhere have predicted - and in many cases advocated - the death of .Mac for a long time now. I wonder if Mac newbies' continuing propensity to pony up for the service has something to do with Google's inability to parse the period in ".Mac" and return some relevant search results for such phrases as ".Mac user reviews." [Here's a hint: search for "dot-mac sucks" instead.] There's no shortage of users who find the service disappointing, and the latest tweaks aren't likely to change that.
Based on the demo I've seen of the new .Mac Web Gallery, I can see why an iPhoto junkie might be persuaded to dump Flickr and give it a whirl. But why settle for syncing Safari bookmarks when you can use a social bookmarking service or a bookmark-syncing plug-in for your browser of choice? Why settle for viewing your Address Book entries from a primitive web interface when a service like Plaxo lets you edit them online, too? Why merely view iCal entries online when you can actually edit your Google or Yahoo calendar from any browser? Why use .Mac's painfully slow, frequently buggy online backup service when you can switch to Amazon's S3? Why use the old-school .Mac webmail client when all the major free webmail vendors offer snappy Ajax interfaces? Why host your personal site with iWeb when so many other free or low-cost solutions offer more flexibility and power?
No webapp is perfect, and no single provider offers the breadth of .Mac in a single suite. But cheap or free a la carte services from best-of-breed providers work better for all but the most dedicated (or lazy) Mac users.
Leander Kahney over at Wired stayed up late the night before Apple's presentation to say a prayer that Jobs & Co. would radically overhaul the service. But the best that can be said about the "new" .Mac is that its developers finally seem to be dimly aware that there's this whole Web 2.0 thing happening out there. The future promises some upcoming, though as-yet-undefined, .Mac webmail improvements that could help modernize the service. But the suite's most compelling features are the ones that link one Mac to another, such as Leopard's forthcoming Back to My Mac application. True Apple fanboys may get a lot from such utilities, but they're useless for people in the real world - the ones who log onto Windows boxes at work every day and still want access to the data from their personal MacBook Pros.
My real problem with .Mac isn't that its webapps are sub-par. It's that Apple's overall strategy in the PC marketplace is still so focused on a single, unified desktop experience geared toward the mythical "average user." (Thanks, Walt Mossberg, for making that the most overused phrase in technology writing.) It's such a Microsoftian strategy: continually cramming all the the things a typical customer might need into a suite of pretty-good apps and services whose only real advantage is their supposed integration.
Given that Safari is being positioned as the platform for iPhone software development, it seems likely that core pieces of the OS X desktop experience will eventually get better browser-based simulations. But as a Mac user, I want the data on my machine to play well with third-party webapps, too, in my user-agent of choice. The whole advantage of the web desktop model is that all of my data lives in the cloud and, thanks to public APIs, I can interact with it through a broad range of providers. I can use the out-of-the-box UI or create my own. I can aggregate Remember the Milk into my gCal with a widget instead of waiting for Google to come up with a first-rate to-do list manager. I'm not locked into a single piece of hardware, operating system or software vendor. But locking me into a monolithic suite seems to be the whole point of Apple's desktop strategy, .Mac included.
Right now, all .Mac does is sync data between Macs and allow me to access a subset of that data, in read-only mode, through the browser. That's simply not good enough, and it hasn't been for a couple of years now. Apple should be integrating each of its elegant, easy-to-use but fairly vanilla desktop apps into a web-services architecture. That way, I can use my Mac as an oasis of no-fuss desktop computing at home, but still have the power and the flexibility to do what I need to do from any other machine or physical location.
I get why Apple's user interfaces are geared toward somebody with my grandmother's level of technical proficiency. But why not set up .Mac so that third parties can create more powerful and varied UIs on top of the underlying services? That might actually be worth $100 a year. In the meantime, .Mac and the Macintosh platform are positioned as one-size-fits-all, all-or-nothing propositions. And there's nothing new about that, media event or no.
Topics: Ajax Applications, Business Reasons for Ajax, Google, Mashups, Safari, Web 2.0, Web Services, Widgets
For such a simple idea, widgets (or "gadgets" or "modules" or - ugh - "badges") are ridiculously complicated. Take three basic web technologies (XHTML, CSS and JavaScript), wrap them in a fourth (XML), and you should have a really simple, powerful way of deploying a platform-independent UI for your remote data. Yet between Yahoo Widgets, OS X Dashboard, Google Gadgets, Vista Sidebar, Netvibes Widgets and the umpteen other flavors out there, broad deployment is time- and cost-prohibitive. Pretty much every major implementation is incompatible with the others. Often, a single vender offers multiple overlapping versions of its platform, such as Google Desktop vs. iGoogle and Windows Live vs. Vista Sidebar. I'm all for healthy competition and the innovation it produces, but couldn't each big player at least release a unified API for all of its properties?
Amid all of this chaos, what's a would-be widget author to do? Probably the same things as widget users: weigh the options and pick a side. True, the WC3 is beavering away on a standards spec, but we all know how long that's going to take. By the time anything gets signed off on, the fad will either have died out or, perhaps worse, have become a long-term part of the web ecosystem. Imagine hundreds of thousands of legacy widgets written in proprietary formats, a huge number of which will never get refactored to meet the standards. And that's assuming the various widget platform vendors even agree to sign on. It's easy to imagine Google jumping on board, but much harder to hope the folks in Redmond will follow suit. Who knows about the other players?
True, tools have sprung up to translate certain types of widgets into certain other types. But these are stopgap solutions with often unpredictable results. Even when the widgets work, they often don't look pretty in their new homes. And nobody yet has come close to a write-once, run-anywhere SDK for widgets. Translation is the best option the marketplace has produced.
That said, I'm keeping an eye on UWA, the new Netvibes "Universal Widget API." This is another translation methodology, but instead of a third-party application that performs a one-way port of an existing widget, it's an actual spec for authoring widgets once and then compiling them to the various platforms. Thus far it mainly supports Netvibes itself, iGoogle and Dashboard. But Vista support is on the roadmap, and Yahoo support has been discussed. Best of all, they're planning to open-source it. If this API ends up being halfway as useful as it promises, perhaps it will offer a good middle path while the official standard takes shape.
[Lest I end on a completely hopeful note, here's a somewhat related digression: I'm also often depressed by the way the aforementioned standard web technologies get used in widgets. To a certain extent, pretty much all of the widget platforms force you to develop kludgy code. iGoogle and other Web-based platforms scale their widgets based on the size of the browser window. Some developers spend the time to come up with intelligent liquid layouts, but the limitations of fixed-height iframe wrappers make design compromises inevitable. A lot of the third-party widget-assembly shops just slap together some fixed-width design based on the worst-case scenario and built the entire interface out of a sliced-up PSD file. Forget font-scaling and other basic accessibility considerations. It's like the 640x480 viewport all over again, but in miniature. The more things change...]
Topics: Accessibility, Ajax Widgets, Open Source, Web 2.0, Widgets