Blog
News, insight and tips from the social web.
The Hoop blog covers the evolving digital landscape, social media, mobile communications, content marketing and also includes 5 top finds and Fish on Friday. Feel free to make comments.
-
Jakob Nielsen: 'mobile sites vs full sites' debate. The Hoop view. »
Jakob Nielsen's views on mobile sites have caused some controversy in the developer community. Hoop look into what he said and whether he has a point or is off the mark.
Recently, one of the world's leading web consultants Jakob Nielsen discussed his thoughts on the mobile sites vs full sites debate, based on his company's - Nielsen-Norman Group - research. The post has been a subject of controversy since, with many people blasting the developer for an outdated view on mobile browsing.
[Image from Use It]
Nielsen stressed that companies should have a mobile optimised site, highlighting why full sites do not work for users on mobile devices. The user experience conversation has been going on for a while and, as any company that is aware of the growing numbers of mobile users will know, having a site optimised for smaller screens can bring about a very decent ROI.
Nielsen said:
"Good mobile user experience requires a different design than what's needed to satisfy desktop users. Two designs, two sites, and cross-linking to make it all work."
Hoop's business developer Gabriela Lacaci gave her thoughts on mobile browsing.
"As a non-technical person, I believe we should have everything. That is, desktop website, mobile responsive design and apps. I find it time wasting to have to revisit the same sites through mobile browsers, when an app sits nicely on your screen. However, this can easily be worked around by making apps that solely redirect to a mobile optimised site. A mobile optimised site for mobile users visiting the main site is a definite for me. And yes, if necessary, have more than one if the main website is a mammoth for content and activity.
I say: if you have too much content, cut it, you are probably saying too much anyway. If it's complicated, simplify it. We want it to be easy and are likely to spend more the easier it is to get to the checkout page. Personal conclusions? Apps, even if just to link to, and tablet/mobile optimised for users of these. As for desktop, maintain older versions for now but don't invest in them, instead phase into responsive designs. And please remember, I am not a technical person.
As a non-technical person, Gabriela is a voice of the public, even though her digital savvy allows her to articulate it much better than most. She realises there is a noticeable difference in experience when browsing a site optimised for mobile. Gabriela also indicates her liking for apps, because of the convenience of hitting the site instantly, rather than dealing with loading time.
So yes, Nielsen was spot on in his assessment that there has to be a different design for mobile users, including cutting out unnecessary content and taking into consideration 'fat thumbs'. What the web design community isn't happy about however, is his inability to mention responsive web design, eliminating the need for two different sites.
As conversations continued online, web designer Josh Clark labelled Neilsen's advice on mobile as "just 180-degrees backwards." Clark continues to state that many people use mobiles as their only access to the Internet, stressing that users should not be patronised and offered a limited experience or forced to browse a full site on a tiny screen.
"When you see a 'full desktop site' link on your phone, you're looking at an admission of failure."
Clark argues that building separate sites for different platforms during an era when new devices - with differing resolutions, screen sizes and portability - hiting the market every week is poor strategy. There is also the issue with separating mobile and full site URLs. According to Clark,
"[Nielsen's] suggestion that there should be a distinction between desktop and mobile website URLs is damaging, too. Any piece of content should have one address on the web, not several. When I'm on a phone, that content should be formatted appropriately for the small screen, and when I'm on a tv-based browser, it should be formatted appropriate for the giant screen. But the URL – the 'uniform resource locator' – should be uniform across devices, one place to go no matter what I'm using to browse.
Nielsen was given the opportunity to respond to the large amount of criticism on the same site, in an interview with Tanya Combrinck. When he was questioned about his apparent neglect to mention RSW, Nielsen response was rather baffling.
"...I was writing about user experience, not implementation. As mentioned above, responsive design is one of the ways to achieve different user interfaces for different devices. It should be up to the engineers to determine the most efficient way of achieving the user experience goals. All we usability people should decide is how the site should work for users, not how this is implemented."
It seemed apparent that he was talking about implementation in his blog post, but now he is arguing that it was about user experience. Was he only talking about user experience? Does implementation not affect the user experience? Surely, if implementation became so hard to maintain because of several sites for different platforms, it would directly affect the user... and their experience!
When reading the interview, it feels as if Nielsen is backtracking. He even goes as far as to give negative comments on RSW design, ironically, because as Mat Marquis' Tweet points out, the very platform Nielsen used to ignore RSW was responsive!
Hoop's experience manager Nick Smith uses his expertise to articulate where we at Hoop felt Nielsen went wrong:
"I agree with him that a desktop site is often not suitable to mobile. However, I think his approach to always have mobile separate from desktop is flawed. My approach would be to start with desktop functionality and work out how (if) it translates to mobile.
This is a quite a complex conversation that he's boiled down to a binary decision. His approach doesn't work in the real world. This post seems solely about the user experience, but I think he's not researched well enough if he doesn't take new technology into account (he doesn't explore responsive techniques at all). A friend in UX recently told me he's not sure he can keep up with all of the new technologies in web design. He was staggered at the pace of change and the way it affects his work.
I think Jakob is suffering from this."
Categories: Insight
Tags: Design, Jakob Nielsen, Mobile, Responsive web design, User Experience
-
Responsive web design: another fad in design and development? »
There are high hopes that responsive web design will lead to great online experiences. We take a look at the method of the moment.
Think about the devices you use to access the web. Chances are you use a desktop or laptop computer. But you might also access it through a smartphone, tablet PC, games console or TV. Do each of these devices give you the same useful experience visiting your favourite websites? If not, why not?
The web, up until now, has been designed from a uniform perspective. Taking its lead from print design, web design has strived to reproduce templates across all of the devices that you might use. This was good for a time. But this "must look the same" approach missed the true potential of the medium.
Unlocking the potential of the web
Responsive Web Design is causing great excitement in the industry as it promises to unlock new digital ideas and experiences. RWD is the method of the moment, but before it came Graceful Degradation, Progressive Enhancement and many other design methods aimed at pushing the medium forward. The difference this time is that, where previous approaches chipped away at the surface of pixel perfection, RWD demands a completely new understanding of how a web page works.
RWD increases the value of web content, no matter what device you use to look at it. Value to the visitor is determined by the content, interaction or tasks they can complete. Think of your favourite social network. A responsive version of it would adapt to your device, making it easy and intuitive to catch up on news, find new friends or contacts and update your profile. If the website was not responsive you would need to zoom into the page on a mobile device and struggle with buttons designed for desktop interaction – giving you a poor experience and bad impression of the brand.
The potential for RWD goes beyond mobile. However, the rapid increase in the use of mobile devices, with different resolutions and features like touch screens, has been a key driving force in the return to some of the founding principles of the web. Content is king and, combined with well structured code, you can use it to make your website support your brand values. As many businesses and organisations have found in the digital age; brand value is not about appearance, it is about user experience.
So where do we go from here?
The latest responsive site we launched has seen a surge in traffic from mobile devices. iPhone increased by 275%, Android by 484% and an astonishing 1040% on iPad. There was a clear business case for creating a responsive website in this case. Perhaps there's one for yours?
We're convinced responsive website design delivers a better user and brand experience and we're currently working on new responsive websites for clients and ourselves. If you think your customers deserve a great online experience get in touch.
Categories: Insight
Tags: Business strategy, Content strategy, Digital strategy, HTML5, Mobile, Mobile First, Reputation, thisishoop, User centred thinking, User Experience
-
5 top finds #34 »
Exploring the oceans with the BBC, flashmobbing with Intel, how to combat digital piracy, Panagea makes a come back and Sacha Baron Cohen gatecrashes the Oscars. It's 5 top finds...
1. Diving the depths
Ever wondered what it's like travelling the world's deepest oceans? As four teams race to reach the depths of the Mariana Trench, the BBC take a look at what life is like 7 miles down.
2. Ultrabook pop-up theatre
Intel's marketing team flashmob's its way across LA, demonstrating "the ultra thin design & responsiveness of the Ultrabook™". Well worth a watch!
3. "Right vs. Pragmatic"
Marco Arment, cofounder of Tumblr and the brains behind read-it-later service Instapaper, has an interesting take on the current publishing battle raging between old media publishers and the digitally-savvy user of the 21st century.
4. Pentagram rebrand IDA
Hot off the success of branding the new Windows 8 OS, Pentagram recently unveiled a lovely new visual identity for the International Design Alliance's IDA Congress. You'll find the details over on Logo Design Love.
5. Sacha Baron Cohen does the Oscars
So Sacha Baron Cohen's got a new film out this year – what better way to market it with a bold stunt at the Oscars? You can't deny the man's got guts, even if Ryan Seacrest was left more than a little unimpressed.
Categories: 5 top finds
Tags: Content management, Design, Digital strategy, file sharing, flash mob, SOPA, User Experience
-
5 top finds - number 30! »
It's the 30th 5 top finds in the series, and we're celebrating with the new EU directive on cookies, Google's descent in the popularity rankings, pure internet gold(fish), the save Herne Hill velodrome campaign and web addiction is bad for you shock.
1. (Un-edible) cookies (with an illogical direction)
If you've not heard the EU directive (and now UK law) that's made the majority of websites in Europe illegal, don't worry. You've got until May 2012 to comply with what is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous laws ever. As of May last year, all European websites have to...
"gain consent for the use of cookies or similar technologies to comply with the law."
Or face a fine of up to half a million pounds. Wonderful!
To explain what a cookie is and why the law is entirely flawed (you can't track that a user has requested your website to not use cookies without using cookies), we thoroughly recommend watching the entertaining video above.
2. Google face a bit of an uproar with Search+
If you've not been following the repercussions of Google's announcement about integrating content from (only) Google+ into search results, it's worth reading through some of the responses.
Ex-TechCrunch boss Michael Arrington writes of how Search+ is reminiscent of Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (which led to antritrust lawsuits) in the 90s; Harvard advertising law specialist Ben Edelman writes about the (il)legal implications of Google's initiative and "search engine guru" Danny Sullivan explains what's wrong with Search+. All well worth a read.
3. Goldfish, but not as you think they are
We like fish (if you hadn't noticed) here at Hoop – so when we saw the video above we knew it'd somehow end up on the Hoop blog. Truly amazing stuff from Japanese artist Riusuke Fukahori.
4. Save Herne Hill velodrome
As well as liking fish, you may have noticed us Hoopsters are pretty keen on bikes. When we spotted this post on the Brooks blog, about 91 year old (1948 Olympic medallist) Tommy Godwin returning to Herne Hill velodrome and riding the race-winning bike again we then discovered an audio interview with Tommy on the Guardian travel section. Both are well worth reading!
5. Addicted to the internet
Ever struggled stealing yourself from reading updates on Facebook or staying on top of the latest tweets? According to preliminary research from Chinese scientists; there may be such a thing as 'web addiction'. The sample size is tiny (only 17 addicts sampled) but this research could potentially pave the way for treatment for those of us who just can't get off Facebook.
Categories: 5 top finds
Tags: Bikes, facebook, Fish on Fridays, Google, Google+, SEO, Social search, User Experience
-
Net or native, you decide. »
After our discussion around going mobile, we take a look at the positive and negative aspects of developing mobile and web apps.
The market's going mobile and businesses need to catch up. Fast.
But should your business develop a native app (i.e. an app that needs to be installed on a mobile operating system) or a web app (i.e. a mobile-optimised site that's accessible on any operating system)?
You could follow e-commerce giants eBay or Amazon's lead and do both. They both have a fully functioning website, as well as a native app for iOS, Android, Blackberry and Windows mobile devices. Amazon and eBay users are already using both platforms for purchase; in January eBay reported almost $2bn of the $53bn profit made from marketplace business was from mobile. Last month, Amazon announced that its customers had ordered more than $1bn worth of products on mobile devices.
But if you've not got the development or financial might to match the e-commerce powerhouses like eBay or Amazon, you'll have to decide which route to take. We recently had this discussion at Hoop HQ, so we thought we'd compile a list of reasons to go down either road. Which route you take entirely depends on what your app needs to do – as we've tried to explain below.
Web
Web apps operate through a phone's browser, allowing the app to function on devices running any operating system (i.e. Apple's iOS, Google's Android, Blackberry, Windows WP7, HP's WebOS etc). A web app, as it is accessible on any smartphone with a web browser, effectively has a larger reach than a native app. Developing a web app (rather than native) can be cheaper, as you're not developing multiple OS versions of the same app and can develop using standard HTML or JavaScript skills. A web app also allows you to release and update the app as and when you see fit (a process sometimes limited by native app stores).
With the rapid evolution of technology, web apps are becoming almost as fast as native apps. For example, Apple's latest Safari 5 mobile browser (released in 2010) was developed with a new JavaScript engine (Nitro) enabling it to run JavaScript 30% faster than the previous browser iteration.
Building a web app can (should) utilise web standards, which in time could unlock previously inaccessible features on the mobile device like the camera or address book (which currently only native apps can do). Web apps are subject to tracking and data gathering as with any website (using, for example, Google Analytics) and allow the developer to have complete control over monetisation (something that is limited through native app stores). Because you're on the web, your app's content is accessible and can be shared using the standard social share buttons. This social share function needs to be built into a native app and content (because it's locked into the native app) isn't searchable. Another plus point to web apps!
Businesses are starting to become more aware of the benefits of web apps – the Financial Times recently pulled their native apps from respective app stores and saw over 100,000 people access their web app in a little over a week post-launch. The FT may have created a web app to avoid Apple's 30% sales cut (their Head of Product Development told the Wall Street Journal that the benefit of developing a web app allows publishers to "un-tether ourselves from app stores"), to take complete control of their customers' data and to bypass app distributors to secure "a direct relationship with readers".
Advantages of a web app
- Accessible via the web, so can be used by anyone with a smartphone browser
- Cheaper to develop than a native app as it works on all operating systems
- No time delay on releasing the app or its updates
- Able to track user information via Analytics
- Content is searchable and shareable
- Developer fully controls monetisation
- Built with web standards
Native
Native apps are accessed via an app store but can also be sold via the web (iTunes has a web platform as well as a desktop program) and are therefore inherently more discoverable than web apps (which are limited to being found on the web). Selling an app (even for a nominal fee) through a store immediately starts generating revenue, which you can't easily do with a web app (users don't generally like paywalls, but in-app advertising and purchases seem to be acceptable).
Native apps can connect to a handset's hardware and sensors (like the camera, address book or calendar for example) allowing a richer and more immersed user experience than a web app can. Native apps are specific to the operating system of the handset it's running on – which requires native operating system-trained developers. Native apps also have a homescreen icon and so are a constant reminder of your content (although on iOS you can create a mobile browser bookmark that produces a homescreen icon to what Apple calls a "web clip" – but not everyone knows that).
Native apps lock users within the app, whereas on a web app one stray click will take users away from your content (and you'll probably not get them back). In a native app, this can't happen – increasing your connection with the native app's users. Native apps also support push notifications (if the user gives the app permission to send them), even if the app isn't open. Web apps are also capable of doing this - but it's just not as easy.
Currently, the biggest difference between a web app and a native app is that the latter does not need an internet connection to function (although if the native app requires data download then it will indeed need a connection). However, W3C are in the process of developing local storage capabilities in browsers using HTML5 - which would bring web and native apps level on this point.
Advantages of a native app
- Easier to find than a web app (sold via app stores and the web)
- Quick to generate revenue (in ways less likely to drive users away)
- Can connect to hardware and sensors giving a more immersive and connected experience
- Can send push notifications easily and has a homescreen icon
- Lock users into your content
- Generally doesn't require an internet connection
If you can't decide between native and web, fear not as there is a compromise.
Hybrid
[Watch the PhoneGap promo on YouTube here]
Companies like PhoneGap, Sencha and Worklight provide a development platform that wraps a standard web-based HTML and JavaScript codebase in an open source framework that gives your web app access to the native app's APIs for hardware and sensors, enabling it to act as a native app across multiple platforms. The best of both worlds!
There are definitely advantages and disadvantages (nicely summarised in the slide below from a presentation by Worklight) to developing an app on either platform, or both, but at the end of the day it entirely depends on your requirements and your resources.
Do you want to develop a mobile app or have you got any suggestions or points we may have missed? Feel free to leave us a comment below or let us know via email or Twitter.
Categories: Insight
Tags: Apps, Business strategy, Digital strategy, e-commerce, HTML5, Mobile, Native app, User Experience, Web app
-
Google+ or minus? »
Does Google's latest social venture follow their past (failed) endeavours or is it 'the new Facebook'?
There's one thing that Google has always struggled with. The company is primarily built around search, its complex algorithms and engineering (although their repertoire has grown significantly since their stint in a Silicon Valley garage) – so it's no surprise they've never really nailed social.
However, we think that's now changed. It's worth noting that not everyone shares this view – but we think Google have made a decent (if not awesome) attempt at producing their own social network. And as we've already mentioned, the numbers seem to be backing this up.
A month ago, on Tuesday 28th June, Google rolled out the first few invites to their new social network; the rumoured half a billion dollar Google+.
It's fair to say Google+ is the topic of many a conversation. The above video (courtesy of the talented people over at Epipheo) surfaced on the web at the end of last week and is one of the best introductions to the new Google+ product we've seen. Even Paypal's co-founding CEO and Facebook angel investor Peter Thiel has been writing about it.
So, first thoughts when using Google+.
Award-winning developer Andy Hertzfeld (of 1980s Apple Macintosh fame) was part of the UX team behind the product's development, so it's no surprise that using Google+ is a pleasant experience. Its killer feature is Circles – Hertzfeld's primary contribution. Facebook has become the go to social network, with 750 million active users, but anyone and everyone is on there. Yes, the functionality to group Facebook friends into select lists does exist, but like the FB privacy settings quagmire, the whole process is more pain that it's worth.
Google+ circumvents the lists issue by making it simple – a theme that runs throughout the product. When creating an account, you simply drag and drop contacts together into friendship Circles who you can then share content with. So instead of sharing content with every contact you have, as on Facebook, you simply choose which Circles you want to share with. You can also view each of your Circles' content via the Google+ Stream (a bit like the Facebook News Feed). There have already been a few arguments about privacy and content sharing (oh, and plagiarism) but, in our opinion, G+ trumps FB on this one.
There are other standout features from Google+ which promise to be extremely useful once the floodgates are opened to the masses (G+ is still on a closed field trial) – and all the bugs are ironed out.
Hangouts – video chat for up to ten people (which could be hugely useful for companies who can't afford expensive videoconferencing software), and Huddles – a group chat messaging service via the Google+ mobile app (currently Android and iOS) are just two of the impressive functions Google+ has.
Then there's Sparks – a way of filtering search content that is relevant to you. Sparks is one of the big clues of how Google could actually make Google+ work – and beat all the other social networks into second place.
So is Google+ a Facebook killer? No, in its current iteration it isn't, and the lack of open access is one of its biggest weaknesses. We've noticed a lot of the platform's current users are already complaining about a lack of other users – which may drive them away from the product before it's properly ready.
As Matthew Ingram on GigaOm points out, Google+ is more likely to damage Twitter than it is Facebook. Google+ is also currently hampered by a lack of integration into other social networks (although given the recent Facebook vs. Google spat that's unsurprising) – which will slow its uptake to the mainstream.
The incentive (or lack of) to entice users away from Facebook, Twitter and other social networks of note will make or break Google+.
So how does Google do that?
If Google can fit the rest of their portfolio (search, advertising, mobile, video, blogging to name but a few of their other services) into this social venture, they'll have something that none of the other networks have. A truly social all-web encompassing experience. The future of the internet or a step into the world of 1984?
If you have any thoughts on Google+, or anything else you've seen on the Hoop blog, let us know via email, Twitter or in the comments below.
Categories: Insight
Tags: Apple, Digital strategy, facebook, Google+, iPhone, Mobile, Social media, Social search, User centred thinking, User Experience, User Interface Design
