tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post6774008236592978725..comments2023-10-25T04:44:36.554-07:00Comments on Mike Berry's Blog: How was it for you? The joy of UXAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12160926279265993926noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-57437683847047070462009-12-11T14:58:00.075-08:002009-12-11T14:58:00.075-08:00For the UX on the Search Engine - Bing will win - ...For the UX on the Search Engine - Bing will win - with a couple of decades of Windows and Office behind them MS understand the usibility thing better than anyone. Bing UX is in the same league as Google now - and it will get better.<br />But why does this (Search UX) matter ? 'Real companies' selling real stuff have not all learned these lessons - we all suffer from it, and the slowest of them will die of ignorance.gcrouchbacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-16040139628455395382009-12-07T02:20:13.400-08:002009-12-07T02:20:13.400-08:00Oh and @Tony King... you need that button "pa...Oh and @Tony King... you need that button "pages from the UK". A search on football goals with that clicked on seemed to bring only UK sites?Feehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878413819251951017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-76770296926857784712009-12-07T02:15:09.592-08:002009-12-07T02:15:09.592-08:00You're right that Google search is simple, but...You're right that Google search is simple, but then so are the searches for Ask, Yahoo and Bing. The big difference for me is the quality of the results. I get far more dross in the results from other search engines: pages which aren't really pages, but are instead pages with a lot of links, many of them dodgy.<br /><br />Ask ran a campaign which indicated that they thought their results were as good as or better than Googles, and that they regarded the success of Google as a matter of PR and pulling power rather than quality of service. They're just plain wrong... I tested it out to see, and the results I got with Google were far superior. Less of the dross, more relevant and usable links.<br /><br />Google pays attention to the things which need attention, and it does it thoroughly and well. There are no shortcuts, and the whinging by other search engines that they have created some sort of monopoly by virtue of their size alone is rubbish. The quality of the results keeps people loyal to the brand.Feehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878413819251951017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-70719990632555250282009-12-05T09:17:04.047-08:002009-12-05T09:17:04.047-08:00Thanks for the comments.
Julian: I don't thi...Thanks for the comments. <br /><br />Julian: I don't think anyone is trying to say that UX (or UE as it's sometimes called) is a 100% precise science. There's still room for creative flair and indeed it's essential in the increasingly cluttered world (online and offline) in which we all operate. What UX experts can add is an understanding of how people behave online, what they expect to see and how they look for what they want. This understanding must be helpful to those attempting to engage, inform and persuade them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160926279265993926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-37718262915528256542009-11-30T03:57:52.700-08:002009-11-30T03:57:52.700-08:00Good post but only scratches the surface of the ma...Good post but only scratches the surface of the main issue:how can you reduce an emotional user encounter with your brand to series of mechanical operations: "read this, click here, scroll down, credit card here" etc?<br /><br />For years advertising art directors and typographers have understood the need to catch the reader's eye, to charm, intrigue or otherwise interest them and then tell them something which keeps them looking and reading. (I think they call this 'engagement' these days).These were only ever general principles; part of the challenge was the unpredictability of the audience. Nothing has changed; we just sometimes use computers to access content these days. So nobody should try to tell me UX (or UI Design or whatever) is an exact science. At best it can help you avoid stupid mistakes (which admittedly many websites still seem to be making).Julian Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709786088337086313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446373754980807789.post-66848360583434667352009-11-30T01:29:12.089-08:002009-11-30T01:29:12.089-08:00As usual,very little to disagree with here, Mike. ...As usual,very little to disagree with here, Mike. I am surprised time and time again at the lack of basic digital knowledge of many of the FTSE250 brands that we speak to - whether that be search, social media monitoring or indeed UX. Given that, it's no surprise that the SME market often fail to invest appropriately in UX as they "Don't have the budget" - try convincing them that without it they are wasting money on their site!<br />Where Google is concerned, I think Bing are really taking the battle to them - I now use Bing if I am looking for facts rather than generic search info or something to buy. And if Google don't get their algorithms sorted out soon, they'll lose some of that traffic too - people will soon get bored of US and Australian results for searches in the UK (last night Google 'thought' I would be likely to consider buying a set of football goals from Australia - postage probably prohibitive)!<br />Back to UX in general; I think an organisation needs a strong Head of Digital with a good general understanding to ensure that creative and UX design work together to deliver the commercial aims of the online proposition. After all, a website is no longer a vanity purchase anymore - it's there to provide, directly or indirectly, an income stream.Tony Kinghttp://www.twitter.com/TonyKing1971noreply@blogger.com