BIB_14: Wolff, W. I., Fitzpatrick, K., & Youssef, R. (2009). Rethinking usability for Web 2.0 and beyond. Currents in Electronic Literacy, (John Slatin Memorial Issue). Retrieved from http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2009WolffFitzpatrickYoussef

In this article, the authors point out the gap in web usability studies in the Web 2.0 environment. They summarize some characteristics of Web 2.0 that differ from Web 1.0 such as user-generated content, seamless interaction between websites, and transformation in software and hardware system structure. The author surveyed Web 2.0 sites and provide case studies that reveal some issues in web usability of Web 2.0 arise from the functions and terminology. The authors conclude that more research needs to be done to further our understanding of Web 2.0 usability.

This article provides a starting point for us to conceive usability in Web 2.0 and the authors have proposed some interested issues and directions of the future web usability studies. The case studies, however, only show a fraction of the issues that need to be considered. Also, the methodology employed, which is website inspection, is very limited because it only offers us insight from the site of design, but does not say anything about the user's experience. Nevertheless, since there has not been much literature focusing on Web 2.0 usability, this is a useful article for my dissertation project.

RR_14: Web 2.0 and usability

A run of Google search for “Web 2.0” today will yield more than 340 million hits. Web 2.0 is here, despite the fact that some view it as another “marketing ploy” in the IT industry after the dot-com boom (Dilger, 2010, p. 15). “Web 2.0” was coined by Dale Daughtery and O'Reilly in 2003 to distinguish the emerging web that was “qualitatively different” from its earlier version (Wolff, Fitzpatrick & Youssef, 2009, par. 2), which signified a “turning point for the web” after the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001 (O'Reilly, 2005, par. 2). According to O'Reilly, “Web 2.0” is not a concept that has “a hard boundary,” but rather one that has “a gravitational core” (par. 7). It is visualized by O'Reily as “a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core” (ibid). These principles include, according to O'Reilly, the web as platform, harnessing collective intelligence, data management as a core competency, end of software release cycle (constant and frequent iterative development), users as co-developers, lightweight programming models, design crossover multiple devices, and rich user experience. More recently, O'Reilly and Batelle (2009) also emphasize on the high-level of automation, or the machine's ability to “learn” about its users and “sense” the world, as well as other deeper and more extensive developments of the characteristics of Web 2.0.1 Web 2.0 , as part of the complex world of technologies today, is messy and fast-changing, but 'Reilly's description of Web 2.0 perhaps is among the most systematic and comprehensive. In order to make use of this concept to inform usability, I will focus a brief discussion on two most fundamental and interdependent characteristics of Web 2.0: (1) web as a platform, (2) web as a database.

First, Web 2.0 is a “platform” (O'Reilly's, 2005), and websites existing on this web have gone beyond a collection of web pages. A Web 2.0 site does not only provide information from its owner to its audience. Rather, it provides services to its users, such as helping them manage their bookmarks (delicious.com), helping them store their documents and access from multiple locations (dropbox.com), or helping them keep up to date the blogs they are interested in (Google Reader and other readers enabled by RSS). The boundaries between websites and applications are blurred in Web 2.0, and the web has become a platform to run applications with which the users can do something. B. Dilger (2010) summarizes this characteristic succinctly: “As opposed to the 'strategic positioning' of the Web as a conduit for information delivered in discrete units metaphorically called 'pages,' Web 2.0 imagines itself as a platform much like a computer operating system on which applications are run and services delivered” (p. 17).

Second, the web has becoming a huge database. As O'Reilly (2005) has pointed out, data are of core value in Web 2.0. Different from Web 1.0, where information is usually provided by the owners of a websites, in Web 2.0, a great amount of data are generated by the users, either consciously (as in the cases of twitter, blogging, and folksonomy) or unconsciously/automatically by simply using the web (as in cases of search data and IP addresses). Through data management, Web 2.0 “mixes” the user data and creates a sort of “collective intelligence” (O'Reilly, 2005), one of the web's most valuable assets.
Consequently, Web 2.0's functionality is increasingly complex and heterogeneous, websites within the web and the web and other media and technologies are highly interconnected, and the users' participation is deeper then ever. These consequences have profound implications to web usability.

Cooper (2006) has remarked that when one crosses a thing, be it a camera, a alarm clock, or a warship, with a computer, it becomes a computer. Now, in a somewhat absurd way, Web 2.0 verifies this observation once again: when one crosses the web with a computer, the web becomes a computer. The complexity and sophistication of web applications of Web 2.0 is incomparable to Web 1.0, and the users' web experiences are richer than ever before—think of web apps such as Google Documents. These developments mean that only focusing on aspects of static “documents” such as page layout or “little” IA that only involves “organizing the content of a website” (Redish, 2010, p. 196) is not sufficient for web usability. Instead, we need to take a broader view of web usability, a “big” view that considers user's experience, or the “big” usability” in a richer context and aims at creating websites that “work for its users” (ibid).

In addition, the sophisticated and heterogeneous functionality of Web 2.0 affords heterogeneous user goals when they use the web. This is distinct from Web 1.0, where, according to Barnum (2002), users want to use the web for three reasons, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). In Web 2.0, users can manage their bookmarks (Delicious), citing sources (Zotero), making flash presentations (Prezi), managing your personal library (Library Thing), and above all, interacting with other users. Again, users use the web more and more like using their own computer, only with the added value of collective intelligence and sense of community. Therefore, web usability in Web 2.0 must take into account of the heterogeneity of use; a goal-oriented and user-centered approach in web usability is more than ever necessary.

Another consequence of the heterogeneity of website functionality that affect usability is the emergence of two large groups of websites, which has not been addressed in existing web usability literature. The first group consists of websites that function as applications. Some examples in this group are Dropbox, WordPress, Facebook, Twitter, or, let's not forget, Google. The other group consists of “traditional” websites, which increasingly incorporate Web 2.0 applications such as RSS, sharing, geotagging, and blogs. Some examples include cnn.com, whitehouse.gov, amazon.com, and unesco.org. In the existing literature on web design and web usability, websites are categorized very often according to the entities that they are associated with. For instance, D. Farkas and J. Farkas's (2002) categorize websites according to “purposes” and “genres” into news and information, E-commerce, web portals, persuasion, building and sustaining community, and personal and artistic expression. Nielsen and Loranger (2006) categorize the “genres” of websites largely according to the industries the owners of websites belong to: “from automobiles and financial services to entertainment sites and intellectually oriented medical and cultural sites” (p. 7). Neither of these categorizations can properly place websites such as Delicious, a bookmark management application, Dropbox, a personal file management online system, or wikis, collectively created (usually) informational websites.

The new categorization has usability implications. Because of the different purposes and functions these two groups of websites have, perhaps different usability guidelines need to be developed according to their characteristics. For instance, the homepage designs can be very different between these two groups. Although the recommendations in Krug (2006)'s chapter on home page design in Don't Make Me Think! are still relevant to the first group, recommendations specially for each group need to be added for the severity of the issues they deal with may differ across groups, or even individual websites. One of the recommendations for the first group will be to put a short instructional video on the homepage if the function of the site is complex (e. g., prezi,com and dropbox.com). This is because these sites usually offer a specific and often new service, and therefore, learnability and the support to learning is of high priority on the usability list. On the other hand, this might not be a huge issue for the second group of websites.

Another consequence of two characteristics of Web 2.0—the web as a platform and the web as a database—is the distinct separation of the data and the interface as well as the deep interconnection among websites. In fact, the metaphors of “platform” and “database” already tell us something about this split— a split between content and form. This split enables websites to become tools to manage the shared data. In other words, data travel across the web faster and more easily in Web 2.0 than in Web 1.0 through features such as sharing and sidebarring (Wolff et al., 2009). Consequently, websites are deeply interconnected. By “deeply,” I mean that websites are not just connected by hyperlinks as in Web 1.0, but share and manipulate the same data. The “remixibility” (O'Reilly & Battelle, 2009) of data in Web 2.0 affords the “seamless” interconnection (Wolff et al., 2009) among websites.

One of the implications of these developments in web usability is the need for standardization in some aspects of design. If “seamless” connection has become not only a goal, but a requirement for Web 2.0, standardization has also become necessary. For instance, testing for different browser has been recommended by usability specialists before Web 2.0 took off (Barnum, 2002), but in the context of Web 2.0, as more competitive browsers are available such as FireFox, Safari, Chrome, IE, and Opera, it has become an integral process in website development. Beyond that, designers of traditional websites discussed earlier need to make sure that the content on their websites can be easily used by other websites. Issues such as tagging the images on the page for easy capture, and using technologies that are compatible with most websites have become important usability issues. On the other hand, designers of the first group of websites (such as Google Reader) are compelled to design better interfaces that can work with a variety of contents.

In addition, in terms of learnability and memorability, the standardization of terminology and visual elements such as icons that emerge with the new functions of Web 2.0 sites has become a problem. Traditionally, web usability requires compliance to conventions (Krug, 2006; Nielsen & Loranger, 2006). However, the fast changing Web 2.0 sites and emerging new features make this task a difficult one. This has been noted by Wolff et al. (2009) who argue that although the varied use of the same terms is considered poor in traditional usability, it is possible that Web 2.0 users are better at adjusting to the “shifting definitions” depending on the contexts of use (par. 25). In any case, these issues pose new problems for usability researchers to work on.

Not surprisingly, standard interface design has also been observed by many (Arola, 2010; Dilger, 2008). However, not all welcome this change. Arola (2010) argues that the standard design of Web 2.0, or “template,” such as that of Facebook renders the design and its rhetorical function invisible, and also takes away the users' power to express their identities through designing their own web page. It is important to acknowledge that standard designs of Web 2.0 sites do tend to efface individual user's “faces” in a way. However, Dilger (2008) is right to point out that function is the core of Web 2.0 sites. The simplicity and standardization of design relieves the users from the burden of interface designing and learning new interface constantly so that they can focus on what they want to do. In fact, making the interface transparent, a principle of good design, is in a way making the interface “invisible” to the users (which is the opposite of the critical view to making the interface “visible” (e. g. Arola, 2010; Selfe & Selfe, 2009). It is important that users should be invited to critique the design, but at the same time, to those who are interested in usability and user-centered design, this trend does not pose “threat” but new web usability challenges to meet.

Last but not least, Web 2.0 websites thrive on users' participation. Many have pointed out the characteristic of user generated content (Dayton, 2008; Wolff et al., 2009). However, they have not stressed enough the importance of user participation to Web 2.0. In Web 1.0 era, websites can function without the users' participation—at most they are just unpopular—but in Web 2.0 era, some websites, mostly those in the first group as discussed earlier, cannot even function without user participation—just imagine a Facebook without faces. As O'Reilly's (2005) has pointed out, users add value to the websites in Web 2.0. They go to many websites to use the information provided by other users or users as a collective whole. Therefore, designers of Web 2.0 must design websites elements that afford users providing, obtaining, and sharing information. For instance, we need to design elements of the websites to make it easy for users to tag an image or an article, to share the pages on other sites, or to leave comments. We need to study where to position links, buttons or icons for these purposes, and so on, just as we did with the search engine and other elements in Web 1.0 environment.

In addition, usability researchers need to understand how much control and what kind of control the users should have to strike a balance between efficiency and flexibility. Users are co-developers in Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005), and designs must afford users' innovations and creative ways to use the web—what Sun (2004, 2006) calls the “user localization.” An example of user localization is MySpace users' taking advantage of a glitch in the design of the Web site to use html codes to customize their profiles, post pictures or videos in their comments or blogs, and so on. Another example is twitter users' use of “@” or “#” (“hashtags”) to indicate reply to other users' tweets or tag a topic (What are hashtags? 2010; What is an @rrply?, 2010). Good design in Web 2.0 environment should afford these unintended uses created by the users to meet their specific goals.

To summarize, all the discussions above share a common theme: the user must be positioned at the center of Web 2.0 design. The user is an agent who not only uses the applications, interacts with the machine and other users, but also generates data that add value to the web, who constantly innovates the web use, and who enjoys both a material and a virtual existence. Therefore, the tools of user-centered design and usability research are invaluable in understanding and designing usable websites and applications.

BIB_12: Sapienza, F. (2008). A shared meanings approach to intercultural usability: results of a user study between international and American university students. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 51(2), 215-227.

In this study, Sapienza reports the results of a user study between international students (non-native English speakers) and American students using an U.S. university website. He concludes that even among culturally heterogeneous users, there can be a space for shared meanings mediated with one shared language (in this case, English), which makes it possible for us to speak of a universal web usability. He calls this approach a "shared-meanings" or "shared-context" approach. 

Sapienza's study shows that international students can use English-based website effectively and efficiently. However, while he talks about a space for "shared-meanings," this space is mediated by a shared language, that is, in fact, a dominant language. If the international students do not have a choice, they will have to adapt to the English environment. Sapienza argues that there is no localization necessary, but this is at the cost of the international users. 

BIB_12: Vatrapu, R., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. (2006). Culture and usability evaluation: The effects of culture in structured interviews. Journal of Usability Studies, 1(4), 156-170.

This is another article examining the effects of participants' cultural backgrounds on methods of usability studies. The authors reports a controlled study comparing the results of interviews with two groups of participants, one Indian and the other Anglo-American conducted by two groups of interviewers from the corresponding cultural groups of the participants. The results led the authors to conclude that culture (both on the participants' side and the interviewers' side) is a significant variable in international user testing and usability studies.

This article echoes the work of Hall et al. (2004). These are useful finding for researchers and practitioners to design their research and minimize bias that results from the lack of consideration of the participants' and the researchers' cultural background or identification, as well as the nature of the research questions.

BIB_12: Hall, M., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2004). Cultural differences and usability evaluation: individualistic and collectivistic participants compared. Technical Communication, 51(4), 489-503.

In this article, Hall et al. concern examine the effects of the participants' cultural background characteristics on usability evaluation. The authors draw on Hofstede's cultural dimensions--masculinity vs. femininity, strong vs. weak uncertainty avoidance, high vs. low power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, and long-term vs. short-term orientation--to classify the participants' cultural characteristics. They then conducted a study comparing two groups of participants' evaluation of a website using think aloud protocol. The results led the authors to conclude that cultural background of the participants is a relevant variable that may affect the feedback from the participants collected using various usability methods. It is also a factor that affect the discrepancy between behavior and self-reported results.

This is an interesting article. Actually, it support my criticism of the article by Donker-Kuijer et al. that examines the effect of color temperature on web usability. This article should be read with Vatrapu & Pérez-Quiñones's (2006) article that also looks at the cultural factors that affect the rigor of usability studies and choice of methods.

BIB_12: Amant, K. S. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international website analysis and design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 73-91.

In this article, Amant examines the application of prototype theory in website design targeting different cultural groups. Specifically, his discussion focuses on how prototype theory can shed light on the use of metaphors in web design that are appropriate for target users of specific cultural backgrounds. Prototype theory, a construct from cognitive psychology, explains how human beings use prototypes to classify objects. Amant argues that this theory offers a method for us to understand how users from different cultural groups interpret icons based on their culturally constructed prototypes so as to design appropriate visual presentations of information on websites.

This article is an example of the studies that have been done in technical communication that examine the cultural factors and web design and web usability. Like many other studies, this study focuses on the visual presentation of web information. Prototype theory, while useful in determining what metaphors to use when designing websites, it does not offer a method to understand deeper needs of users from different cultural groups.

BIB_09: Donker-Kuijer, M. W., De Jong, M., & Lentz, L. (2008). Heuristic web site evaluation: exploring the effects of guidelines on experts' detection of usability problems. Technical Communication, 55(4), 392-404.

In this article, Donker-Kuijer et al. interrogate the assumed benefits of using heuristics in web evaluation. They conducted a study using observation and think aloud protocol to compare usability experts' unguided web evaluation practices and those using heuristics. The researchers are interested in answering three research questions: (1) What does the unguided expert evaluation tell us about the validity of the heuristics? (2) Are there any differences between heuristic and unguided expert evaluation regarding the number and types of annotations made? and (3) Do high-level heuristics (experts are given a limited number of more or less general guidelines that are formulated as design aims rather than as specific design specifications) and low-level heuristics (experts are given a large set of detailed guidelines that are formulated as design specifications rather than as design aims) have different effects on the annotations made by experts? The results led the authors to conclude that heuristics are useful but using them in practice is time-consuming, they have different focuses and thus appropriate choice of heuristics is important in practice, there's no difference between the results using high- and low-level heuristics,  and experts' experience is an important factor in their evaluation.

This piece is an empirical study of how effective and useful heuristics are for experts in web usability. However, I'm not sure if an empirical study is really needed to understand how useful heuristics are to experts considering the cost of such studies. I think interviews or self-reflection of experts will probably do the job (and perhaps more effectively and accurately). The design of the study is problematic. The experts were asked to evaluation a website without heuristics, i.e., depending on their own experience and knowledge, for 25 minutes, and then given a heuristic according to which they reevaluate the website for another 25 minutes. To me, this is very poor research design. The same experts evaluated the website twice, one time unguided and one time with a heuristic. The researchers apparently did not consider the effect of the experts' learning that may affect the results. Also, it is unclear why the heuristic they chose is representative for all heuristics. In any case, I think this article is a good example of researchers trying hard to produce empirical research without a good rationale of its significance and rigor, but just because it is more valued in the field. The lesson learned: not all empirical studies are rigorous or appropriate for all research questions.

BIB_09: Zhu, W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Evaluating Web usability. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 321-337). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

In this chapters, Zhu and Proctor discuss the evaluation of web usability. Defining web usability as "concerned with how easy or difficult a Web site or Web-based software is to learn and use" (p. 321), the authors start with a discussion on the analyses of some of the important aspects of a website: the purpose, the target audience, and the core user tasks. The major section of the chapter is focused on a survey on the methods of web usability evaluation, including usability inspections (heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough), usability testing, prototyping (paper prototyping and interactive prototyping), field methods/observation (ethnographic methods, field trials, diary studies), interviews, focus groups and questionnaires, and web-based methods (automated sessions, web logs, and opinion polls). The authors then offer a discussion on reliability and validity issues, and issues concerning the ethics of working with participants.

This is a great succinct survey of methods available for web usability studies. The methods discussed in the chapter cover both empirical and non-empirical (heuristic) methods, both qualitative and quantitative methods, and lab testing, fieldwork, and textual analysis. The section on rigor and ethics is also very important and useful when researchers apply these methods.

BIB_08: McGovern, H. (2005). Not Just Usability Testing: Remembering and applying non-usability testing methods for learning how web site function. Technical Communication, 52(2), 175-186.

In this article, McGovern points out the limitations of usability testing in understanding how Web sites function, and calls for alternative methods using an example of a project she carried out to redesign a Web site. McGovern argues that usability testing has narrow scope that focuses on specific tasks, and seldom considers Web site characteristics contextually. She then offers a review of research that has been done to address these limitations, such as developing Web heuristics, improving testing procedures, expanding user studies, and applying rhetorical and literary theory to Web usability studies. Based on her literature review, McGovern argues that usability testing alone is inadequate to understand users in specific contexts. She then uses a Web redesign project to illustrate how mixed methods that owe their origins to rhetoric studies, social sciences and humanities, such as rhetorical analysis, content analysis, audience analysis and field work, can help us understand the users and improve Web usability.

This article provides an example of using mixed methods to understand Web users and usability in a specific context. The methods the author uses in her example are those used most by researchers with a rhetorical or a humanities background in general. The limitations of usability testing echoes many authors in technical communication, but I can't help thinking if the increasing attention paid to non-usability testing methods is a reaction to the domination of usability testing (and other scientific methods) in the field. In any case, this is a great article to use when discuss methods in cultural Web usability research because of its emphasis on the context.

RR_02: Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web usability. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.

Nielsen and Loranger's book is perhaps one of the most well researched and comprehensive Web usability on the market. The information delivered in the book—both the discovery of users' behaviors and the guidelines for Web usability design—is very useful. For instance, the severity scores of the usability problems draw attention to the careful design for better search, findability (IA, category names, navigation, links), page design (readability, layout, graphics, amateur, scrolling), and information (content, product info, corporate info, prices) (p. 131). Despite that the book is both a market success and a useful reference for designers, there are a few issues with the book that need to be addressed.

Continuing the point of severity, I found the concept of “severity” not a very useful attribute because of its complexity. According to Nielsen, the severity of a usability problem is determined by its frequency, impact, and persistence (p. 125). The calculation of the severity score based on the scores of the three attributes (rated on a 10-point scale) is to “multiply the frequency rating by the impact rating, then multiply that number by the square root of the persistence rating and divide that by the square root of 10” (p. 123). Granted that factoring in three attributes and comes up with a single score of severity is a very attractive idea and is useful to a certain extent (such as to give an overall idea of what are the most severe areas of usability problems as the authors have done), I do not think this score can be of practical use when guiding the design, because the three attributes, frequency, impact, and persistence really describe different aspects of a problem and need to be considered holistically in a real situation when a designer or a usability specialist are trying do decide which problems are to be fixed under the specific financial, technological, and personnel conditions. In other words, in a real design situation, using a single value to determine what usability problems should be prioritized is problematic. In fact, the authors surely understand the messiness of the prioritizing usability problems in a practice. Nielsen and Loranger have pointed out that severity should not be the only factor when making the decision of what problems to fix: “when enough little irritations add up to a bad user experience, people are likely to leave and not return” (p. 132). However, they failed to offer a better method of application of their data. In fact, providing a discussion of how to consider and balance the treatment of problems based on the three attribute rather than simply meshing them together into one single attribute will be more helpful in a practical situation.

Another issue with the book is related to cultural usability and Web localization. Although the authors claim that their research is based on testing with users from all over the world, the guidelines still fail to address possible cultural differences in Web usability design. In fact, the guidelines are more suitable for cultures of, using Hofstede's and Hall's cultural categories, high individualism, low power distance, high masculinity, and low-context, characteristics of the U.S. (see Singh & Pereira, 2005).

For instance, when analyzing a Web site with “high-severity usability problem,” the authors write, “The problem on this bank's "About Us" page is that it does not tell enough to establish trust and credibility. Yes, the bank says that it is a "home of traditional banking," but it doesn't back that up with facts such as when the bank was founded, how many branches it has, how solid it is, or any other specific information that would make you feel comfortable handing your money over to it” (p. 127). What the authors have pointed out is surely a usability problem. However, some would argue that this problem is considered more severe in the U.S., a masculine, highly individualist culture, and low-contextual, where statistics and facts are highly valued, than in more feminine, collective culture, and high-contextual, where community and family are valued more than hard numbers. The language on the Web site such as “take advantage of nearly 150 years of banking experience,” and “We're proud of our history of helping thousands of families and individuals to save money, buy homes, plan for a wedding or college education, prepare for retirement, and to make banking—and everyday life—easier and more convenient” is very appealing to an audience that values community and family. The images of seniors and a middle-aged couple are also appealing to a high-contextual culture. On the other hand, the problem with the lack of specific statistics might not be a huge problem in high-contextual cultures. In fact, according to Singh & Pereira, politeness and indirectness are highly valued in high-contextual cultures, and “the use of indirect words like 'perhaps,' 'probably,' and 'somewhat'” can emphasize the politeness on Web sites in these cultures (p. 145). Throughout the book, issues of cultural specificity have never been brought up, which is a disappointment.

This problem can be seen as part of an larger issue with this book, namely the logocentric tendency that noted by scholars concerned with the importance of context in usability. As Sun (2004) has pointed out in his dissertation Expending the Scope of Localization: “Nielsen’s view of usability attends to issues within a narrow scope: Contextual factors such as social and cultural aspects are detached from the use of product functionality. This view favors the system and defines usability as attributes measured by quantitative methods” (p. 37). This tendency can be seen throughout the book. For instance, the extensive use of statistics, and the emphasis on directness, efficiency, and simplicity. These characteristics are not necessarily bad things—quite on the contrary, they add much strength to the book—but not recognizing the complexity of contexts is a weakness in the book.

Along the same line, the book emphasizes on e-Commerce and business Web sites more than anything else. Although the authors also mention Web sites such as hospital and government Web sites, their emphasis on business makes usability seem limited to retaining users and “converting” them from users into consumers. At the Computer and Writing 2010 conference, researchers Michele Simmons (Miami University) and Meredith Zoetewey (University of South Florida) presented their research on usability of civic engagement. In their presentation, they pointed out the limitation of Nielsen's usability that is primarily for businesses, and argued that for civic Web sites, simple and fast information design could not meet the requirements of citizens who sought more complex, complete, and comprehensive information. They proposed that Nielsen's guidelines of usability should be revised for civic Web site. I completely agree with them, and want to add that this is also true with educational Web sites, where certain challenge for users/students should be part of the design.

The last point I want to make is that the book, although updated from its 1994 version, lacks a discussion on the usability in Web 2.0 environment that has been becoming the Web itself. The only place where the authors mentioned Web 2.0 is in the preface when they talk about the fact that their usability guidelines do not apply to teens' MySpace profile page design. I agree with them on this point, but there is more to Web sites and applications such as MySpace, RSS, Facebook, Wiki, Twitter, YouTube and many others which are called by some Web 2.0 Web sites/applications. I will discuss Web 2.0 with more depth in later posts. The point is, published in 2006, one would assume that this book would mention at least some aspects of the Web we have today, but it seems the Nielsen and Loranger still stay in the e-Commerce era.

References

Singh, N., & Pereira, A. (2005). The culturally customized Web site. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.

BIB_02: Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web usability. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.

Nielsen and Loranger's book is one of the most cited Web usability books. The guidelines in the book are based on the data of the usability testing (716 Web sites with 2,163 users) conducted by Nielsen's usability consulting firm Nielsen Norman Group and additional testing (25 Web sites and 69 users) specifically for this book. The authors revised their older guideline published in 1994, and discuss how to prioritize usability problems. The following seven chapters are dedicated to guidelines for specific issues including search, navigation and IA, typography, writing for the Web, product information, visual design, and the use of multimedia. In the final chapter, the authors stress the importance of understanding the target users and prioritizing function before form, and encourage designers to design usable and elegant Web sites.

This book covers many basic Web usability issues with solid data and confident argument. In fact, the shear extensiveness of their data and experience makes their guidelines credible and convincing. In addition, the book includes a large number of examples with attractive and faithful visual presentation (color images of Web sites), and the authors offers' analysis and evaluation, which I found not only helpful for the readers to understand the material, but also very appealing. Despite that, I found two major problems with the book. First, although the authors claim that the guidelines in the book apply to the Web sites of large, medium and small corporations, eCommerce, governments, and other non-profit organizations, the book has a strong inclination towards eCommerce and corporations. Little attention is given to Web sits of purposes other than those to sell. Second, the authors have not discussed at all Web 2.0 applications/Web sites, which are becoming... the Web. The book was published in 2006, when Web 2.0 was starting to get attention in the industry. The absence of mentioning of Web 2.0 is indeed an appointment.

BIB_01: Barnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research. New York: Longman.

Barnum's textbook offers an overview of usability and user-centered design. Citing extensively the research in usability at the time of publishing and reporting her first-hand research projects, Barnum attends to both theory and practical application of usability testing. In the first chapter Barnum defines key concepts of usability, user-centered design, and usability testing, and discusses basic issues including test models and the cost of usability testing. The second chapter is an overview of other methods used in usability studies other than testing. Chapter three through chapter eight elaborate the process of usability testing and tackle important issues such as audience and iterative testing. Chapter nine is specially devoted to Web usability. The book includes great examples of documents in usability testing such as audience analysis, the plan and report of testing. The appendix also offers tips of successful teamwork.

Although a bit outdated, the book is a great starting point for usability students. I found the first chapter a very nice overview of usability and user-centered design. The chapters elaborating usability testing process are great practical guide for anyone new to usability testing. Barnum projects an ethos that is authoritative yet approachable. Her style is assuring and encouraging, which is also very helpful for usability novice. The Web usability chapter, however, is not very satisfying. Barnum apparently appreciates Nielsen's work greatly, whom she cites extensively. However, perhaps because the Web has evolved at a speed that is incomparable to many other technologies, this chapter seems especially outdated. The lack of visual examples makes it even less appealing and useful.