Pharyngula::Jakob Nielsen is obsolete

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Jakob Nielsen is obsolete

PZ Myers • 48 Comments (last page)

Sharon has a good critique of web design guru Jakob Nielsen, who has deigned to tell us what all is wrong with weblogs. It's mainly a list of things he doesn't understand; I was very unimpressed. Here's his list of terrible mistakes we're making.

1. No Author Biographies

OK, kinda. I like seeing bios, but as everyone who reads weblogs knows, what we tune in for is the author's voice, not their CV. This is entirely optional.

2. No Author Photo

Another optional feature. You know, his first two items completely ignore the fact that many very good webloggers are anonymous, and that doesn't hamper their appeal. As you'll see below, though, this is apparently an important feature to Dr Nielsen.

3. Nondescript Posting Titles

That's actually useful. An article titled "Blog Post #217" is not informative, and he does offer good hints for titling stuff. I'll give that one a thumbs up.

4. Links Don't Say Where They Go

There is a grain of truth to his complaint that a link like this—"here"—isn't very enticing or informative. Weblogs tend to be link heavy, though, and context is important. I'll agree with him that links could be clearer.

5. Classic Hits are Buried

True enough. Entries are often ephemeral, and sometimes it's very hard to find a memorable post from the past. Google helps (I use the 'site:' modifier in google searches a fair amount), but it's often the case that much vanishes into voluminous archives. That is one reason I've got that "Taste of Pharyngula" block over to the left.

6. The Calendar is the Only Navigation

Hasn't he heard of categories?

7. Irregular Publishing Frequency

Here he starts wandering way off base. "pick a publication schedule and stick to it"…is he nuts? That's what RSS is for, to pick up articles as they are published.

8. Mixing Topics

We're supposed to specialize and stick to just one subject: "Specialized sites rule the Web." Malarkey. My favorite sites tend to have a general theme, but part of the pleasure of reading them is their discursive nature. When Neilsen sits down to have a conversation with someone, does he start yelling at them if they wander off the pre-arranged topic?

9. Forgetting That You Write for Your Future Boss

This is his worst suggestion of them all: muzzle yourself now in preparation for your future corporate overlords. Screw that, bozo.

10. Having a Domain Name Owned by a Weblog Service

More cluelessness: he's complaining that having a blogspot or typepad address is like having a geocities website, and that no one will take you seriously. Hmmm...Atrios, Majikthise, Ezra Klein, Hullabaloo, Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Lance Mannion. It's the voice not the vehicle. As long as the host is reliable, we don't care, and I attach no stigma to using even a lowest common denominator service like blogspot.

I give him a 3 out of 10. Not very good.

Need I mention that I find his site violates my personal usability guidelines? No RSS feed, no commenting, no trackbacks. He does have a biography page with a photo…and "Additional high-resolution photos are available for download." And here I thought weblogging was a vanity activity.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3167/hIfJ8gZt/

Comments:

#44455: — 10/18 at 12:16 PM

6. The Calendar is the Only Navigation

Hasn't he heard of categories?

You're being a little unfair here, considering that almost all of the text beneath that heading addresses categories and how best to use them.

#44457: bill — 10/18 at 12:22 PM
I blogger guilty on all counts.

Nielsen is just uptight 'cause he didn't get invited to the Viking orgy.

#44459: Jenn — 10/18 at 12:26 PM
I will die before I let go of the punny title! I demand that the search engines bow to my will and use the body of my post to make more accurate searches.

Categories would be nice though, I have to admit.

#44461: — 10/18 at 12:30 PM

<blockquote>6. The Calendar is the Only Navigation

Hasn't he heard of categories?</blockquote>

I don't understand what your complaint is here... Nielsen is saying that having only a calendar to navigate posts (Which is fairly common) is bad. But having categories is good, so that's why he said: "Most weblog software provides a way to categorize postings ..." and "Do use categorization ..." It's almost as if you're reading that problem he's listing as the way to design a blog.

#44462: Alon Levy — 10/18 at 12:33 PM
Actually, I sort of agree with point #8. My favorite weblogs are those that specialize in something, with only the occasional delve into general political bickering.

#44466: Orac — 10/18 at 12:45 PM
I agree with a lot of what you say, but Nielson isn't totally without merit. For example, this piece of advice was quite good:

"Certainly, you shouldn't post when you have nothing to say. Polluting cyberspace with excess information is a sin. To ensure regular publishing, hold back some ideas and post them when you hit a dry spell."

To which I would add: Whenever you think of something to blog about, write it down somewhere on a list, so that you have ideas to tide you over inevitable dry spells.

He's more right than wrong about publishing frequency, as well. Most people don't use RSS readers.

On the other hand, as far as specialization goes, he's partially right. I think it's a good thing to have an overall theme to one's blog (for me, it's skepticism and the scientific method, particularly as applied to medicine), but one shouldn't be limited by one's theme. For example, if I feel like doing an occasional post on politics or current events, I do it. Ditto music, humor, and the occasional personal post. But the vast majority of my posts stick to the theme.

Oh, and as about the calendar thing, if you use Blogspot, there are no categories to use (which is one reason why I'm seriously thinking of switching to TypePad or some other blogging platform).

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44469: Orac — 10/18 at 12:49 PM
It also occurs to me. Nielen's website is butt ugly. This guy is a web design guru?

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44470: PZ Myers — 10/18 at 12:57 PM
Dry spell? Who ever has a dry spell?

I agree that themes are good, but any blog that stuck singlemindedly to one theme would, with few exceptions, be a rather boring site. One wouldn't return to it often except when you needed information on that one narrow topic.

His site is plain verging on ugly, but it is very functional. But then, so was Soviet architecture.

OK, everyone, I will concede that his point #6 is OK, bringing him up to a score of 4 out of 10.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#44471: — 10/18 at 01:07 PM

It also occurs to me. Nielen's website is butt ugly. This guy is a web design guru?

Nielsen has always stated that his website is a good example of why one should use a professional designer, if one wants to make a company website.

Now, people might expect me to leap in defense of Nielsen, as he is one of the big Danish IT people, but frankly I think he is overrated. He had some good points back when the internet was a fairly new phenomenom, but he is out of touch, and some of his ideas are downright stupid (his concept that three testers are enough to find all flaws in a websites is one of the stupidest I've heard).

At this stage, Nielsen should just be considered a relic of the past, and be ignored.

Trackback: My readers are disloyal and low-value Tracked on: Creek Running North (65.58.240.229) at 2005 10 18 12:43:03
... or so bleats Jakob Nielsen, who is a prime example if ever there was one of a person with an ossified world view. While categorizing the things bloggers do wrong - a couple of which he gets more or...

#44472: — 10/18 at 01:07 PM
Nielsen is an officious little twit whose ranting becomes ever more tiresome and irrelevant. Thank you for swatting him down; all I ever hear regarding him is a collective slurping hubbub of ass-kissing.

Love your blog, by the way.

#44473: — 10/18 at 01:09 PM

It also occurs to me. Nielen's website is butt ugly. This guy is a web design guru?

Orac, I just realized that I didn't correct the misconception in this. Nielsen is not a web design guru, but a web usability guru. Back when he started, he was among the first to focus on this area, and bring up the cognitive aspects of web design.

#44474: — 10/18 at 01:10 PM
About the only things he left out are that blogs aren't published on paper and don't have editors. Surely part of the success of blogging is due to the individuality of each contributor and their determination to do things their own way (even if that way may be annoying to some readers)?

Personally I find blogs that only stay on a certain topic to be much less 'personable and easy to relate to' than those simply without photos - but if Nielsen feels the opposite way, then he's welcome to visit different blogs to the ones I do.

#44475: Ron Zeno — 10/18 at 01:16 PM
LOL! Nielsen being discussed on Pharyngula.

Jakob's just fishing for customers. Mostly he targets people with little or no understanding of usability or web design. More importantly, he targets the extremely gullible. He's just another example of a researcher-turned-consulting-guru that left his professional ethics long ago.

Be thankful that biology is a real science. Usability sometimes pretends to be based upon science, but there's little value for even the "gurus" to do so.

#44477: Orac — 10/18 at 01:23 PM
PZ,

I never said one should stick single-mindedly to a theme. Certainly mty own blog would be a bad example of that. But (usually, at least) more of my posts than not do stick to the theme. Fortunately, it helps that my theme (skepticism and critical thinking related to pseudoscience, quackery, and pseudohistory) is broad enough to encompass many blogging sins....

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44483: pdf23ds — 10/18 at 01:45 PM
I've always found that what I most miss in some weblogs RSS feeds for comments on individual posts. (E-mail notification is only a poor substitute, and even that I've only ever seen here on Pharyngula.)

Actually, my main pet peeve with a lot of blogs is the incredibly small font size they use. I can use Firefox to increase the size, but then my scrolling isn't the same. (And I absolutely hate it when sites set their line spacing much higher--or even worse, lower--than the default. PZ, you're guilty here, but Pandagon is worse.)

That said, I think I've only ever /not read/ a blog because of its formatting maybe twice? And in those cases the sin was making the site virtually illegible in Firefox, way too wide for example, or with absolutely terrible layout.

#44485: Jeff — 10/18 at 01:54 PM
I discovered Nielsen while doing research for a web design/programming class I was teaching a few years back. As Kristjan notes, Nielsen is a web usability "guru," not a web design guru.

He's useful for teaching some basic dos and don'ts to novice web designers, but that's about it; he simply can't seem to keep up with the latest technological and stylistic trends...you know, the stuff that makes the web at all interesting.

The fact that he's turning his design-hating, multimedia-bashing, individuality-fearing "usability" scope on weblogs just makes me think he's totally lost it. His strict and archaic demands of web authors (who are not necessarily either designers or coders) remind me of a colleague with whom I once worked, who insisted that all good graphic design is based on the Swiss Grid. Just silly, pointless, and pompous.

#44486: — 10/18 at 01:55 PM
# 8 and # 9 are right. #8 says specialization is the way of the blogosphere. There are no general blogs, all talk to restricted publics. Pharyngula talks to literate people with interest in biology. Re # 9, the instructive case of Chicago U blogger Dan Drezner proves Nielsen right.

Quod natura non sunt turpia

#44487: pdf23ds — 10/18 at 01:57 PM
Actually, I think the biggest shortcoming of blogging as a format is a sin of omission. It fails to take advantage of the ability of the web to provide a persistent forum for debate, where topics and threads don't "die", as they do in blogging and message forums. They would instead be added to, and just as often, refactored and cleaned up and edited and summarized and organized. Wiki provides many of these benefits, but group ownership and anyone-can-edit also impose some severe limitations on the possibilities of the medium, and make it vulnerable to other kinds of problems. Specifically, contentious issues can't really be discussed as productively on Wiki, both because the identity of commenters isn't always made clear enough, and because people too often "disagree by deleting".

I think it should be possible somehow to provide a forum where the persistence of topics and the stateless, timeless feeling of Wiki are combined with strong ownership of posts and (optionally) of comments. How this would be accomplished, though, I'm not sure about, though I do have some specific ideas. (I've thought about this in the past, but my ideas have changed a *lot*. (That site's dynamic portion is non-functional, but I wanted the essays to remain up.))

#44493: — 10/18 at 02:10 PM
Omitting a bio and a photo makes it much easier not to write for your future employer. Nothing is easier than to be forever connected to mistakes by using your real name on the internet.

I tend to think of people as naive if they have personally identifiable details in their blog and don't have tenure.

#44501: — 10/18 at 02:31 PM

Need I mention that I find his site violates my personal usability guidelines? No RSS feed, no commenting, no trackbacks.

If the comments Nielsen received were anything like yours, I'm not so sure it would constitute an improvement.

#44503: Johnny Vector — 10/18 at 02:34 PM
Hmm. Let's discuss the only blog I read with religious ahem regularity (this one).

1. Author biography. Check.
2. Author photo. Check.
3. Good posting titles. Check.
4. Links that say where they go. Check.
5. Classic hits exposed. Check.
6. Categories. Check.
7. Regular publishing frequency. Check.
8. Limited range of topics. Check.
9. Remember you're writing for future bosses. Check. (tenure!)
10. Real domain name. Check. (two, no less)

Sorry PZ, actions speak louder than words. You're a usability geek, like it or not.

His site is plain verging on ugly, but it is very functional. But then, so was Soviet architecture.

Hah! You've never been to the former Soviet Union, have you?

Kristjan:

He had some good points back when the internet was a fairly new phenomenom, but he is out of touch, and some of his ideas are downright stupid (his concept that three testers are enough to find all flaws in a websites is one of the stupidest I've heard).

Er, when did he say that? The closest I can find is when he said that 3 (five, sir) testers would find most of the problems. If you still think that's stupid, how about some data to back it up? That's what I like about Dr. Nielsen; he uses actual data from actual tests to support (and modify) his theories. Huh. Science.

#44504: Orac — 10/18 at 02:35 PM
That is a concern, but anonymity on the web is ephemeral anyway if you have a persistent presence. The longer you blog (or participate in online discussions in Usenet or other forums), the more likely that you will be "outed," unless you are very, very careful. There are only two ways I can think of to avoid it. Either never write anything controversial, so that no one ever gets mad enough or curious enough to start digging, or switch 'nyms periodically. If you post controversial stuff, blog long enough, or become popular enough, sooner or later someone will link your real name to your blog and it will be posted and out there forever. It's almost inevitable. Once that happens, a diligent potential employer could find your blog by doing a few Google and Yahoo! searches if you've ever slipped up and mentioned your real name or if anyone has ever posted anything linking you to your blog. Believe me, I know from personal experience.

Fortunately, if you Google my name the first things that pop up are my University and Medical Group web pages, but it doesn't take much additional digging to find a page linking me to my blog. A certain altie who really doesn't like what I've had to say over the last four months or so debunking the claimed link between mercury in vaccines and autism made sure of that.

So why do I maintain the 'nym?

I figure, why make it too easy to figure out who I really am or to link me with my blog?

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44506: Orac — 10/18 at 02:38 PM
One more reason to keep the 'nym: I like the Orac persona.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44510: — 10/18 at 02:47 PM

Er, when did he say that? The closest I can find is when he said that 3 (five, sir) testers would find most of the problems. If you still think that's stupid, how about some data to back it up? That's what I like about Dr. Nielsen; he uses actual data from actual tests to support (and modify) his theories. Huh. Science.

Johnny Vector, you want to read these articles:

Why and When Five Test Users aren’t Enough (pdf) and Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing (pdf)

In fairness to Nielsen, he does qualify his statement, but I still get tired of hearing the same 3-5 testers are enough canard.

#44511: — 10/18 at 02:50 PM
Orac, you could also go my way, and try to flod the interenet with posts in your name (when you have a uniqie name like I have, it's a little hard to pretend that it's not you).

#44517: — 10/18 at 03:25 PM
Waitaminute,

I attach no stigma to using even a lowest common denominator service like blogspot

Blogspot is lowest common denominator? Oh, the shame. One more reason to keep an anonymous blog, I guess....

#44522: — 10/18 at 03:41 PM
Actually, most of Neilsens' comments make entirely perfect sense, from a strict usability engineering point of view. Regular schedules - stupid practically but from a straight usability perspective you shouldn't have to rely on an intermediary service like RSS, so that makes sense. No mixing topics? Again, no fun, but if you want a website with the most consistant and usable content that's what you have to do. Domain names? Not always practical or necessary, but for mnemonics, it often makes sense simply because "myblog.com" is shorter than "blogger.com/myblog/"

You have to keep in mind that JN takes the absolute strictest, most pedantic stance possible. He's still advocating, all these years into the web, strict use of browser-default colors for links. Does he expect people to follow every guideline? No, and he's said as much. He's nit-picky on a grand scale and he knows it. But he's sort of the anti-Curt-Cloninger, counterbalancing the it-doesn't-matter-as-long-as-it's-pretty school of web development.

Personally, I tend to subscribe to a more Jeff Zeldmanish philosophy, since Neilsen is too pednatic, but Neilsen is, when it comes down to it, the go-to-guy for usability engineering.

#44524: AndyS — 10/18 at 03:42 PM
I get a kick out of the reaction of bloggers to thoughtful criticism. In fine blogging style you immediately attack.

PZ writes,

Need I mention that I find his site violates my personal usability guidelines? No RSS feed, no commenting, no trackbacks.

Neilsen says on his site that it's designed for quick response for low-bandwidth users, that he's not a visual designer, and that it is a one-man show — also, it is not a blog.

I like seeing bios, but as everyone who reads weblogs knows, what we tune in for is the author's voice, not their CV.

An author's "voice" may get my attention but, since there are so many silver tongued spinners of shaded truth, I really do want to see a CV or something like it.

Here he starts wandering way off base. "pick a publication schedule and stick to it"…is he nuts? That's what RSS is for, to pick up articles as they are published.

Like someone else said, RSS readers are not my cup of tea. Twice a year I give a few a try and set them aside.

My favorite sites tend to have a general theme, but part of the pleasure of reading them is their discursive nature.

Never seen a blog with a general theme, only sites with some specialization where the author from time to time tosses in something completely different for variety. Much like Pharyngula and Leiter Reports — my two favorites.

[Forgetting That You Write for Your Future Boss] This is his worst suggestion of them all: muzzle yourself now in preparation for your future corporate overlords.

Spoken like a true tenured academic. I mean, heck, I wish everyone had the means (courage, security, etc.) to speak out on any and every topic, but you sound like the stereotypical cloistered ivory-tower denizen.

You muffed this play, PZ. Your post has too many of the qualities I see in among the reactionary Christian right when they are responding to a biologist writing about evolution. But, heck, even Willy Mays dropped a ball now and then.

When asked about Western civilization Ghandi said, ‘I think it would be a good idea.’

#44544: — 10/18 at 04:43 PM
Not to get distracted, but Nielsen's site is BORING. VERY BORING. Granted, there may be some interesting content there, but from a design standpoint it's PAINFULLY AGONIZINGLY IMPRESSIVELY BORING.

#44552: Orac — 10/18 at 05:45 PM
Don't hold back, now, RH, tell us how you really feel about the site...

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#44555: PZ Myers — 10/18 at 05:51 PM

Neilsen says on his site that it's designed for quick response for low-bandwidth users, that he's not a visual designer, and that it is a one-man show — also, it is not a blog.

Exactly.

So why is it appropriate for Nielsen to apply invalid criteria, developed for more generic websites, to a weblog? There are sets of conventions and informal standards and expectations in this medium of which Nielsen demonstrated he is unaware. That's his big screwup here -- that he stepped into a domain with which he was unfamiliar and started flinging criticisms.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#44557: — 10/18 at 06:09 PM
Numbers 1 and 2 are both about establishing a relationship with the reader. Today, relationships are built by linking from a trusted site to a new site, tracking back to links to a trusted site and, occasionally, finding a new random site that catches your eye via Technorati, etc. Number 1 and 2 will help those who randomly or through search find your site to build a relationship without reading 20 entries.

Also, as scientists are often fond of pointing out - the layman should trust an expert more than they do. A biography helps establish expertise (as much as you trust the bio).

So 1 and 2 aren't _necessary_ for a good blog but having them could help increase a __mainstream__ reader's respect for the blog.

As for writing with respect to your future employment, it _is_ good advice that can, by personal choice, be disregarded. If you want to be in politics or work for a conservative organization, don't post about how awesome the orgy last week was. If you want to work in medicine, you probably want to avoid posting about the healing power of magnets. *chuckle*

Again, its not a necessity but bloggers should consider the potential future consequences of their writing instead of throwing whatever comes to mind up as many novice, personal bloggers do.

#44568: AndyS — 10/18 at 06:55 PM

So why is it appropriate for Nielsen to apply invalid criteria, developed for more generic websites, to a weblog? There are sets of conventions and informal standards and expectations in this medium of which Nielsen demonstrated he is unaware. That's his big screwup here — that he stepped into a domain with which he was unfamiliar and started flinging criticisms.

I fear you have a big case of weblogitis. It occurs frequently among those read a lot of blogs and especially severe cases are found among the authors of high-traffic blogs. One symptom is a knee-jerk reaction to a nonblogger offering design ideas. This is especially apparent when a internationally recognized expert in usability is doing the offering.

(For the record: this is all in fun, as someone has already mentioned Pharyngula actually conforms to nearly all of Nielsen's advice and it's one of my two favorite blogs.)

So why is it appropriate for Nielsen to apply invalid criteria, developed for more generic websites, to a weblog?

I think it has to do with something called by a very pompous sounding name: methodological naturalism. As I recall when I had usability experts working on a software product I was responsible for, human factors engineering is a well-developed field that grew out of industrial design. They were certainly effective on our project even though none of them had ever written a line of software. This was early 1990s and Nielsen had already made a name for himself.

What's the "invalid criteria" he applies? Everything he talks about is pretty much standard stuff in any form of communication: have some focus, provide a means of navigation, say something about who you are. Even #10, Having a Domain Name Owned by a Weblog Service, is not unreasonable for a new blogger. That there are notable exceptions is no reason to say it is not good advice.

None of his points are universal. Clearly there are many, many reasons why some weblogs are widely read and some rarely so. Look at Leiter's success. Until the recent makeover his blog was black-on-white with no visual appeal whatsoever. But that's not to say, as some have here in the comments, that usability is just hocus pocus.

There are sets of conventions and informal standards and expectations in this medium of which Nielsen demonstrated he is unaware.

And there are well-founded, formally tested human factors standards and usability guidelines that can improve upon those sets of conventions and informal standards.

Take the convention of using "here, here, and here" to provide links to, say, supporting arguments. There's an obvious tradeoff between making the text of those links more meaningful and the time it takes to do so. Most of us readers understand that and accept the current state of affairs — but it is less usable.

Since you are already one of the cream of the crop in terms of the success of your blog, I can understand that you don't find Nielsen's advice very compelling, but it is very good advice to a serious, new blogger who wants to reach a large audience as quickly as possible.

PZ, you are like a trained attack dog when it comes to defending evolution and atheism. I love you for that, keep up the good work. But as with any dangerous weapon, be careful where you point it. It would be a shame if you became, well, more like Joe Carter.

When asked about Western civilization Ghandi said, ‘I think it would be a good idea.’

#44571: Ron Zeno — 10/18 at 07:08 PM
AndyS wrote:

And there are well-founded, formally tested human factors standards and usability guidelines that can improve upon those sets of conventions and informal standards.

Yes, but unfortunately Jakob can't tell the difference between the well-founded guidelines (http://usability.gov/guidelines/guidelines_notice.html) and the tripe he recommends. Luckily for Jakob, neither can most others.

Trackback: Blog Post #407 Tracked on: Yet Another Web Site (209.239.38.36) at 2005 10 18 19:39:15
Look here. ...

#44585: Chris Clarke — 10/18 at 09:11 PM
That "internationally recognized expert" is repudiated as often as he is lauded these days, by people who know what they're talking about. That's one.

Two: Not only is number eight a matter of opinion masquerading as fact, but it's arguably based on faulty logic. I write a generalist blog with a middling amount of traffic. I write to have a place to write without the necessity to justify or sell it, as I do in the rest of my professional life. Traffic is secondary. But i've got it. People who are interested in a generalist blog - the "low-value readers with two much time on their hands" that Nielsen insults so outrageously - will revisit a generalist blog, if it's well-written. (Those "low-value" readers seem to be able to keep Harpers afloat.) Just as people uninterested in perl coding willl stop visiting a blog devoted to perl, a generalist blog will attract readers interested in a generalist blog. Not rocket surgery there.

The assumption Nielsen makes is that repeat traffic is the only metric by which to measure the success of a blog. Which is just stupid. Repeat traffic is important - I'm happy when I get it. But having a place to work on writing and to get feedback from a handful of interested people is my main goal.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#44597: — 10/18 at 10:44 PM

If you want to work in medicine, you probably want to avoid posting about the healing power of magnets

Given that more than 50% of the public believes in and uses alternative medicine, posting about magnets will probably increase your clientele. I think there are much more snake oil medicine sites out there than legitimate sites.

Blogging is a vanity activity? I presume most human endeavors are moved by vanity - in academy, in business, in politics. Vanity is good.

Quod natura non sunt turpia

#44601: Alon Levy — 10/19 at 12:52 AM
Jaimito, there's no evidence Daniel Drezner and Sean Carroll were denied tenure because of their blogging.

#44602: — 10/19 at 01:34 AM
I am by no means a usability expert, nor am I an expert in cignitive psychology. However, I have a brother who has written several reports, including a B.Sc. (Comp) project, on the very subjects. He took a good hard look at Nielsen's idea, and compared them to actual cognitive psychology, and found out that Nielsen doesn't stand up very well.

One of Nielsen's big flaws is that he believe it is very important to always give users of a website what they expect. This stops development, as you have to do things the way they were done before.

#44604: Sharon — 10/19 at 03:34 AM
What was irritating about Nielsen's piece was its lack of understanding of the diversity of bloggers and readers. Many of his points were not automatically wrong (except #10, which is just ridiculous). What he got wrong - which, in itself, demonstrated his utter ignorance of that upon which he presumed to issue commands - was to express them as absolute, one-size-must-fit-all Laws. What is a 'mistake' for one blog may be perfect for another. An author autobiography is of some importance when a blogger regularly makes claims to expert knowledge about something; it's of little significance on more personal blogs (where, often, the tagline, or a couple of sentences in the sidebar, will tell you all you need to know). Some blogs specialise; some do not; some have core themes but also regular digressions on things the blogger finds interesting. Blog titles may focus on delivering information, but they can work well in other ways: wordplay, irony, humour, summary, a simple evocation of the feelings of the blogger... Any good blogger knows that they cannot please everyone all the time, and they don't try. Oh, and a blogger who thinks of readers as 'low value' and 'high value' users isn't likely to keep too many for very long.

#44605: — 10/19 at 03:44 AM
An implication of what Chris Clarke says above is that a generalized blog is a specialized (niche) blog - it's for the niche market of readers who enjoy a broader, less disciplined topic spread in a single location.

The issue of identity as a 'rule' of blogging is totally bogus, though. In some contexts self-identification is beneficial as giving readers a means to evaluate the blogger's credibility; on the other hand, anonymity may be essential or useful as freeing the blogger up to write without inhibition. Personally, I find it irrelevant in most cases - I have no idea who Orac is, and the only pic I've seen is of a plastic box full of wires, but I still read his blog daily and certainly have never found the anonymity alienating.

#44607: — 10/19 at 05:19 AM
Alon, no evidence of a direct link between blogging and Dan Drezner's defenestration will ever be available. Things are not done that way. However, I firmly believe in the causation on the strength of Drezner's own confession, in his posts, that he was aware of risking his tenure by blogging. If he says so, who am I to doubt him? And by extension, Nielsen is right on point # 8. Regarding Prof. PZ Myers's out-of-hand rejection of # 8, "tenure is talking", as someone else observed.

Quod natura non sunt turpia

#44611: pdf23ds — 10/19 at 06:49 AM
"Oh, and a blogger who thinks of readers as 'low value' and 'high value' users isn't likely to keep too many for very long."

Perhaps. On the other hand, most bloggers have a clear idea about what kind of comment they consider good and what bad. Even if some bloggers have a wider conception of a good comment than others do, their conception is usually pretty clear. I don't see anything wrong with censoring those comments you feel seriously detract from the sort of community you're trying to grow around your blog, and maybe discouraging those commenters that you feel move the atmosphere in the wrong direction. If the other commenters agree with your choices--and they often will--then they usually won't be offended by your actions.

As to point eight. I think a single-topic, focused blog has an easier time of attracting new readers interested in that one topic. A general purpose blog that often mentions topic A will attract some readers only interested in A, but less readily. On the other hand, a general-purpose blog also attracts some readers only interested in topics B, C, or D, and will definitely and strongly attract readers interested in most or all of the topics regularly covered. So it's not obvious that being mixed topic will necessarily decrease your traffic, *especially* if there's some underlying theme or atmosphere or insight or community or something else that itself attracts readers.

More than anything, I think Neilson is just dramatically over-simplifying things. (I think #10 is good, but not very important.)

#44616: Alon Levy — 10/19 at 07:37 AM
Well, Sean Carroll explained that his being denied tenure had nothing to do with his blogging and everything to do with the fact that he just wasn't good enough a researcher, apparently.

#44620: — 10/19 at 07:54 AM
I can't believe he presumes to pontificate on web design on a site that makes drudgereport.com look like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It's so ugly I couldn't even make myself read it.

Maybe Nielsen is the William Dembski of web design theory.

#44644: pdf23ds — 10/19 at 10:11 AM
Again, "usability" and "visual design" are two completely different things. Both can be meant by "web design", but it's good not to confuse them.

#44656: Ron Zeno — 10/19 at 11:05 AM
pdf23ds wrote:

Again, "usability" and "visual design" are two completely different things.

Yes and no. Yes, they are different words/phrases that have different meanings. No, there are no accepted criteria for what is and is not usability in practice (and obviously, no criteria for what is and is not a "usability guru"). Much of what is passed off as "usability" is nothing but visual design - it's just that too few understand the difference.

#44747: AndyS — 10/19 at 04:30 PM
Ron writes, "... there are no accepted criteria for what is and is not usability in practice …"

This is contrary to my experience. Usability in pratice is measured by testing against an intended use with real people chosen to be representive of the population of intended users. I found the process informative and created a better product as a result. (It was a software product used in a factory environment by bluecollar workers. Usability testing showed us time and again that our intuitions about how user would work with the software was way off base. We simply had no experience doing their jobs and too frequently assumed they would go about solving problems the same way software engineers would.)

When asked about Western civilization Ghandi said, ‘I think it would be a good idea.’

#44753: Carl — 10/19 at 07:15 PM
I think people are missing one factor: Nielsen is by profession a consultant to businesses. He's seeing all blogs as basically commercial enterprises, and giving advice on that basis.

In all fairness, I doubt that Nielsen himself was consciously aware of doing that.

Trackback: Designing Jakob Nielsen Tracked on: ...the thoughts are broken... (66.151.149.25) at 2005 10 23 20:34:55
Jakob Nielsen of usability fame recently posted his comments on weblog usability. Disclosure: I subscribe to his Alertbox newsletter. I used to diligently read what he put out. Then I started reading a bit more widely and found that much of the design community and some of the usability community think he is wrong and/or a pompous ass. [Do a little research and you can find a lot of (justified) negative comments about J. Nielsen. The previous link is good place to start from.] I have long since stopped…

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Behe: I call shenanigans

Previous entry: Viking orgy!

<< Back to main

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Jakob Nielsen is obsolete

Info

Members

Syndicate

A taste of pharyngula

Random Dozen

Complete Blogroll
Pharyngula.opml

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Jakob Nielsen is obsolete

Info

Members

Syndicate

A taste of pharyngula

Random Dozen

Complete Blogroll Pharyngula.opml

Complete Blogroll
Pharyngula.opml