Noded
Posts
Is it “Good Web”?
Posted by Jaan on June 15th, 2009 | 4 comments
You make sure your sites validate, you run user testing, and ensure accessibility. But once that work has been completed, do you check your sites for “Good Web”?
Grammatical vagaries aside, my theory of Good Web takes a step back from all things verifiable (once those things have been completed). Good Web is about impression, real world fit, whether a site is tangible, and what your snapshot helicopter view of it is.
This means it is about vibe and feel as much as anything. The way we feel about something (occasionally referred to as “a gut feeling”) is based on our knowledge, skills and experiences compressed in to a short decision-facilitating burst of information.
When I’m looking for Good Web in one of my projects I want a feeling of completeness, a sense that everything is where it should be and that the site fits in the culture and environment where it is supposed to be primarily used.
Much if not all of this is very subjective, and that’s the way it should be. After all, you were likely commissioned because you possess a clear point of view that the client wants applied to their project.
Here’s how I ‘test’ for Good Web.
- I quickly scroll the full length of key pages up and down a few times, establishing the site in my mind and seeing what stands out in a positive or negative way. I often do this on my iPhone first so that the page details don’t distract me.
- I look at the laptop screen from 4-5 meters/yards away. What stands out, what does the site tell me when I can’t see the details but I view it in an actual physical environment (like my workspace)?
- I approach the site on the screen as I would a physical object, evaluating how I am about to interact with it. Does it feel like something I want to pick up, push away, or poke at?
- I complete 1 or 2 simple actions like clicking a link, reloading a page, submitting an email newsletter subscription, or changing my local zip code in the weather display. I want to see what things look and feel like in between the pages, how what I just saw lingers in my mind before the next page has finished loading.
That’s it. Usually the sites pass with flying colors. Sometimes I find something I or the team have missed, a rough edge that needs sanding down, a nick that could not have been spotted until all the site elements were available and compiled in to a whole.
Some of the steps above are great to use earlier in the process too, especially in UX and design work. If you do, don’t forget to use them again at the end of the project to get that Good Web seal of approval from your self.
Do you have an equivalent of Good Web? Or do you think it is better to stick with just verifiable methods of evaluation? Do you agree that the Good Web ‘test’ has a place in web development? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments or via Twitter where I will for ever be known as @orvet.
Comments
Add your comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
@orvet
jaanorvet
orvet
orvet
Crunchbase profile
Great post!
Just as Maslow helped us define the hiearchy of needs*, we can create a similar hierarchy for interactive media. I think. This popped up when reading it, so call the concept of “Maslow’s Good Web” a real beta. :)
At the foundation is Technical stability followed by Technical operability. The latter differs from the former that not just are the systems up and running, but they allow us to interact, use applications, or develop it.
Next comes Interoperability, the step where we find design. Information architecture, interaction design and graphical design.
Next level is Interactivity, and this is the level where the usability of the thing is measured.
The final level is what you are talking about. Not just functional design, but sort of when “the web achieves self-actualization”. An experience, as you say, beyond measurement. Of course an individual experience, but hopefully, our team will not be the only ones experiencing it.
However, just like in Maslow’s theory, this level can not be achieved without the previous requirements being satisfied.
The worst approach a designer (of any kind) can have is what I sometimes call “The New Ager Approach”.
Zen monks sit and meditate over a grain of rice for decades.
Well, some of today’s spiritual seekers have no time to spend decades in hope for enlightment, so a weekend course in miracles will do. And when the emotional kicks of feeling like everything is explained to me wears off, there is always another weekend course to join.
Design, Agile, Zen, it doesn’t matter. And we all know about project budget restraints. But when we try to do the light version or take shortcuts, we may get a result. But not a Good Result. For that, we need to climb the entire ladder.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Thank you Sin.
You nail it perfectly when you highlight that essentially Good Web can not happen before everything else is in place.
I very much like your outline for a “hierarchy for interactive media” as it is essentially a clear-cut guide to what sets mediocre sites and apps apart from the magical ones, and how those things relate to each other.
And Maslow’s Good Web is a nice name for it, beta tag and all :D
_What is the difference between a collection of brush strokes on a canvas, a painting and an artist’s masterpiece?_
Maybe I will develop Maslow’s Good Web Beta. Meanwhile, consider it open source, Creative Commons, file-for-sharing and not IP of a large media company, or something. :) And it is there as a map.
Now that we have established that Good Web comes after all the other steps, let’s see how you tried to define what is Good Web.
You didn’t. You described a set of actions you do, in order to establish if this is Good Web or not.
At the end of his life, Maslow talked about “Self-transcendence”, which was a level above Self-actualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-transcendence). This level is of course controversial, some people having the approach “When the devil becomes old, he gets religious”.
But he “estimated that only 2% of the population will ever achieve this level of the hierarchy in their lifetime, and that it was absolutely impossible for a child to possess these traits.”
To return to your approach to Good Web or rather, my initial question.
What defines a masterpiece? While every definition is coloured by its cultural context, within that context it is sometimes judged a piece of art. But, regardless of if we talk about Self-actualization or Self-transcendence, one thing we can agree on is that this is a level which defies ordinary, quantifiable measures. So we have to reach for expressions like ‘feel’, ‘look’, ’sensation-slash-experience’.
We have all the previous steps well established, we even did several iterations _with user testing_. The concept is right there. Now, do we have the skills to lift it to Good Web? Not a da Vinci or a Turner, but, Good Web? Are skills what we need, or enough? Talent? Intense collaboration between several disciplines? Are only 2% of all Web sites and apps ever able to reach the height of Good Web?
You didn’t define Good Web, because it can’t be quantified and defined in that way. So there is no magical formula to create magical ones. But how can our team get there? :)
Good question.
It is two things. One, it is very subjective. Hence the “get that Good Web seal of approval from your self”. It is how a project relates to ones own process, voice and point of views as a web creator. Hence it always changes.
Secondly, it is also objective. Sites that are “Good Web” tend to get the nod of approval from more people. Much of what makes up a strong voice and point of view is larger than one persons individual preferences.
Making Good Web “more” than that is IMHO taking it in a less beneficial direction, moving it away from what it is – a complement and an alternative gage to those things that are fully measurable. It is a last step before completion and the ability to wrapping up one project satisfactorily before moving on to the next.