Identify or Die: Do You Know What This Symbol Means?

Take a close look at the icon above. If you saw it on your car's dashboard, would you know what it means?

You better: Your life may depend on it.

According to cars.com, one out of three drivers surveyed did not understand this difficult-to-decipher warning light. Which means that more than a third of drivers on the road today are in danger of creating a major accident if this symbol suddenly lights up.

The article says the icon is supposed to be "idiot proof," but as we've learned in thousands of usability tests, there is no such thing when it comes to symbols. The real "idiots" here (Hey, if they are going to call us idiots, then I'll throw it right back at them) are the designers and developers who don't label their icons. Everyone who sees a symbol for the first time has their own image of what it represents.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a word will prevent a thousand pictures - and in this case, save your life.

No, I won't tell you what the symbol means (Take a guess below first), but you can read the original article and explanation here.

Company forums, personal information and the World of Warcraft

Those of you who have forums on your Web site understand that spammers and trolls can be a real nuisance. Perhaps you can relate to the trouble Activision Blizzard has with dealing with the multitude of undesirable posts on their official World of Warcraft forums.

On July 6th, Activision Blizzard, Inc. unveiled a controversial plan to help regulate the forums: Anyone posting on forums would have their real name displayed. The philosophy is that with real names associated with each posting, personal accountability will come into play and subscribers will be more civil. There was immediate backlash from WOW subscribers and users concerned about this proposed policy change. Personal privacy advocates were particularly concerned about publicly displaying real names in connection with Warcraft. Posters also worried about the possibility of cyberstalking and out-of-game harassment.

In an attempt to show how "harmless" the proposed change would be, a forum moderator posted his real name in the Blizzard Forum discussion on this topic.
Within minutes, community members posted all matter of personal information on him. Using only Google searches and his real name, they found and posted such info as his:

• Cell phone number
  
• Twitter and Facebook accounts
  
• Personal photos
• Mailing address
  
• Maps to his house.

The community used this opportunity to illustrate how much information can be easily gathered, and how it could be dangerous when your real name is displayed in the forums.


There are simpler ways to combat undesirable posters than by publicly displaying personally identifying information. In her post, forum moderator Nethaera provides the basic methods used in forums to ensure that useful information will be seen and found by users:

• Having the community rate posts (the Slashdot commenting model)
• Highlighting posts based on rating (YouTube's "highest rated comment" model)
  
• Improving forum search
  
  YouTube has successfully adopted most of these methods to improve the comments on their videos (highest rated comments, voting up/voting down and automatically hiding spam/comments with a low rating).

The lesson is that spammers and trolls will make it on to your company forums, as they find their way onto EVERY board. The undesirable posters can manage to defeat almost any automated security precautions you can set up. The presence of an active group of forum moderators (employees of your company or a trusted enthusiast of your brand) goes a long way to creating an active, safe community. Even though forum trolls and spammers are a nuisance on forums, you do not need to take the drastic measures of posting your customer's personal information to combat them.

-by Kyle Kulakowski

Stock photography vs. reverse image searches

For companies with respected online brands using stock photography can be a terrible disservice to all Web site visitors and your online reputation. In user tests at Interface Guru, we have found the more tech-savvy users (like engineers and programmers) are particularly intolerant of stock photography and will think less of a brand if they see it used on a Web site.

Stock photography recognition is no longer a skill limited only to the more fluent Web users. There are now tools called reverse image search engines available to all users. With these specific search engines, users can instantly discover the source of an image on a Web site as well as find other Web sites using a particular image.

Caption: A sample Tin Eye search found 77 uses of this image

Here is a quick breakdown of the more popular reverse image search engines:
1) TinEye (http://www.tineye.com/) - Exact match of an image uploaded or image URL linked by the user. Arguably the most popular of the reverse image searches, it even provides plugins for Firefox and Chrome browsers. With a simple right-click on an image, users can check to see if your graphics are used elsewhere on the Web.
2) Byo (http://labs.ideeinc.com/) - Searches for images based on similar colors.
3) Gazopa (http://www.gazopa.com/) - This engine will search based on color and shape similarity.
4) RevIMG (http://www.revimg.net/) - This reverse image search is focused more on art and architecture. It looks for the exact image (just like TinEye), but users must specify the artistic category that applies to the image before they can conduct the search.
5) Google's Similar Image Search (http://similar-images.googlelabs.com/) - While less robust than specific reverse image search images, this functionality is now built right into Google Image search returns.

Caption: Another sample search from Tin Eye

Chris Barton, photography blogger, has an entry where he uses a reverse image search to find all instances of sites using a particular employee stock photograph: http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/03/microstock-why-would-reputable-company.html

In a follow-up entry Chris provides a risk assessment breakdown of all your available options for providing images on your Web site:
http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/04/microstock-how-to-avoid-poisonous.html
He rates stock photography as the highest risk to your organization and creating your own images as the lowest risk.

At Interface Guru, we agree that using stock photography is a risk - you do not know what other Web sites have purchased the image and are using it on their site. Your images on your Web site should be as unique as your company; create your own graphics and images on your Web site and tailor them to match your content.

- by Kyle Kulakowski

Good food, great Web experience

Recently I ordered Domino's Pizza for the first time in years and discovered that the new sauce isn't their only innovation. Their new Web site includes the Domino's Tracker, an application that gives you the real-time status of your order (the Tracker activates after an order is placed, so I'm including a screencap from a recent order). A glowing status bar tells you exactly where your pizza is from the moment you place the order, to when Terrence puts it in the oven, to when Dmitri the delivery driver is en route to your house. It's a great example of online customer service.
One of the drawbacks to delivery service is the open-ended nature of the delivery time. A quoted delivery time of 45 minutes could mean anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes before that pie hits my counter. As the timer ticks down I often end up perched on the edge of my couch, eagerly jumping up each time the outside gate creaks only to be disappointed by my neighbor's face. As a customer, I love the transparency offered by this app. No more guessing about if I have time to take a shower or run to the bank.

That simple addition to their Web site made for such a great brand experience that, a week later, I ordered another pie just so I could get screen caps of the Tracker in action. Now my only question is how long will it take other brands to do something similar?

Babysitting the interface: The myth of self-service

As we prepared for another road trip and the attendant joy of air travel in America in 2010, I was musing about the common sight of a human being helping passengers use the so-called "self-service" kiosk. It was in that frame of mind that I went to Facebook; I had to laugh when I saw this screen with the instruction: DO NOT CLICK THE "Go to Application" BUTTON ON LEFT!

Human intervention with software, Web pages, and kiosks is a regular occurrence across corporate America. You see it first-hand at airport counters, supermarkets, a co-worker's desk. We see it inside call centers and controlled environments. How much does this cost business, education, and nonprofits every day?

Well into the year 2010, we are still seeing an utter failure to budget - or even account for - the design of information structure, meaning: Where will this digital media experience begin and end? How does the user know where he is in the morass of content? How do you know whether you've seen and experienced all the content? How does he get to related content? Did anyone design or plan this experience? What are the opportunity costs related to this basic failure of planning?

In 2000, seven years into the commercial Web, a failure to plan and structure digital media interaction was understandable. Skeptics were still expecting (or hoping) that the Web would die. In 2010, the failure to plan and structure digital media is unforgivable.

If your digital media project lacks a budget item for information design (information architecture, task sequence design, user interface design), it is destined to under-perform and disappoint. Web sites and applications, software applications, kiosks, intranets, instrumentation interfaces - any digital implementation must include planning and architecture beyond simple functionality and appearance.

The Self-Service and Kiosk Association begins to address the usability issue in a blog post by Stephen Kendig, but the industry is just beginning to scratch the surface. If we use the Web as an object lesson, bad information design proliferates more quickly than good design. We will be living in a dystopian reality if the same problem propagates across self-service in a world that seems determined to eliminate human-powered customer service. The current economic woes will only exacerbate the problem.

If we're going to eliminate the human from the equation at all the transaction points of daily life, the digital interface must be bulletproof. Else we are destined for the worst of both worlds - unhappy customers, unhappy workers. Babysitting an interface is no one's career goal.

User Experience: What's Your Fail?

I've been excited to see that user experience (UX) has been a big topic and in demand at SXSW Interactive this year. We've built Interface Guru around user experience design principles over the last 10 years, and frankly it sometimes feels like we're alone in the jungle.

The first session track ever devoted entirely to user experience design at the conference was held on Saturday, and its opening workshop ("The Ten Commandments of User Experience") packed a large ballroom and left a line of people standing outside. It had tough competition, too: the keynote address was going on at the same time.

Judging from the Twitter feed for the session (at #uxsxsw - thank you to presenters Nick Finck and Raina Van Cleave for hacking the 18-character official hashtag and shortening it), many participants were disappointed in the introductory nature of some of the sessions.

Comments:

"(Has) the UX community stopped thinking about new ways of doing things or am I at the wrong conference? Mostly old news so far."

"The last UX session of the day is the first where I've seen people actually walk out to move to another session."

"I agree with your twitter stream. #uxsxsw has been underwhelming - what about what's next?"

I have to admit I shared the sentiment - until I took a closer look at the program. Specifically, the ubiquitous pocket schedule everyone relies on to keep track of what's going on at SXSW.

If you look closely at the events on the schedule, each session has a small circle, square, or diamond next to it - indicating the session is either beginning, intermediate, or advanced. The two sessions people complained the most about had circles next to them, indicating they were basic introductions to the subject matter.



I only discovered this because I happened to open my pocket guide to the front for the first time during the conference, and stumbled across the key to the symbols, which only appears on the first page.

It's a classic fail: Assuming your users are going to look at your information in a linear fashion and understand that icons have meaning, without labels to guide them.

I've conducted an informal survey since, asking my fellow conference attendees (especially those who complain about a lack of relevance or depth in sessions) if they knew that the symbols in the schedule meant something. I've yet to find someone who noticed this helpful bit of information.

Once they realized the importance of the iconography, people I've spoken to have said they would have been able to use this information to narrow their selection of sessions to something more relevant, creating a more positive user experience.

Think about all the thousands and millions of dollars it takes to put the hard stuff together for one of the biggest conferences in the country: assembling panels, printing conference materials, advertising - the list goes on and on. Only to have many of your customers' satisfaction with your product come down to a few inexpensive labels and icons on a piece of paper.

What's YOUR fail?

Error message of the day from Tweaker Speakers Grandmax

I loved my Tweaker Speakers until one inexplicably died. So I go to Grandmax for tech support. After clicking the support link, here's the error message:

"We're sorry, we're temporarily undergoing maintenance!
[Saeven|CRM cannot operate with register_globals set to 'On'. Set this to 'Off' using php.ini or a .htaccess directive, and restart your webserver thereafter.]

If you would like to contact us in the interim, please do so at admin_at_toqen_dot_com"

Grrrrr.

Surviving SXSW Interactive

In four years of attending South by Southwest Interactive, I've learned one thing above all else: If you don't arrive with a plan, you're screwed.

Whether it's how you're going to get from your hotel to the convention center (if you're not already downtown, it's a nightmare), to how you're going to eat (A hotel circle with almost no restaurants. Really?), to which after-session parties to network at, it isn't a conference as much as it is a tactical military operation.

And that's not even factoring in the conference itself.

My long-time friend and Internet colleague Ward Andrews drove this point home Tuesday on the phone, as we were conferring on strategy.

"Do you know what sessions you're attending?"

I've tried to schedule. Really, I have. I can't get past the first session, which starts today at 2 p.m. There are 19 sessions going on concurrently, eight of which I want to attend. These eight aren't sessions I'm kind of interested in - they're all "must-sees."

If I go to any one of these eight, I'll miss easily the most popular session every year: "How to Rawk SXSW." Fittingly enough, it's a session devoted entirely to surviving South by Southwest. In fact, going on at the same time is a session addressing "SXSW SARS" - the name given to exhaustion that brings on sickness from trying to do too much in this pure chaos.

It's a great test bed for using technology to make life easier because it mimics the information overload we experience in our everyday lives ... to an extreme. Kind of like putting cars through the roughest conditions to ensure their safety (maybe this isn't the best example right now).

Ward turned me on to the latest weapon in managing the chaos: It's a mobile site called SitBy.Us (www.sitby.us) created by Weightshift (www.weightshift.com). Not only does it have the complete SXSW schedule and descriptions in an optimized layout for all mobile devices, but it also allows you to create a personalized schedule.

The kicker: Log in with your Twitter account and you can see what sessions your Twitter friends are attending. Once you show up for the session, you can let your friends know where you are sitting by selecting your location on a map of the room. How cool is that? The app also will tweet your session with a link to the description.

Ward, my brother Greg, and I are brewing a plan to use this app and Twitter to mount a guerrilla attack on providing simultaneous coverage of the conference. Stay tuned!

There's no replacement for a good research plan

Yes, you should test your Web properties, especially the transactional ones (e-commerce, subscriptions, digital libraries); we routinely recommend usability testing combined with other techniques such as multivariate testing or A/B testing. Anchor Wave's Anthony Rivera (@ant1832) asked us about The Ultimate Comparison of Multivariate Testing, originally tweeted by always-on-top-of-it Smashing Mag - which solution do we recommend? Good question, since startup costs range from free (Google Website Optimizer) to $33,000+ (Accenture). Where to begin?

Here's the short answer: We recommend selecting the best fit for your company. (You need to decide whether you need both multivariate and A/B testing; check out Avinash Kaushik's simple explanation of the difference. Or check out the handy glossary from Web Analytics Blog.) Essentially, multivariate testing swaps out components of a Web page, while A/B testing swaps out two (or more) versions of a Web page. Both are valuable and merit consideration.

Basic criteria to consider when choosing a solution:
- Scale: How extensive is your digital product?
- Flexibility: Can you modify your test targets?
- Self-service: Do you need or want hand-holding?
- Return on investment: If your digital product is a major source of revenue, shouldn't you invest in testing it with something more than a free solution?

There are two basic fallacies to avoid in considering multivariate testing or A/B testing:

The first fallacy is the idea that testing one page is enough. User experience consists of multiple steps (or screen views) through a Web site, Web application, or kiosk. Whether you select multivariate or A/B testing, the tool you choose must account for task sequences - the steps that users take through your digital product.

This is not to say that one page can't make a huge difference. Our usability testing shows that common, simple missteps - such as an interface change at a critical transaction point - will discourage users from completing a purchase. But the larger point is that measurement must be designed to span the entire process - especially because conventional metrics may fall off the map when the user proceeds to a different URL.

The second fallacy is the idea that ANY product replaces a considered research plan. In our practice, we rarely encounter well-planned research, where the organization routinely measures success against defined goals. (A notable exception: Playboy, where measurement is a regular activity conducted by research professionals.) As with usability testing results, well-planned research is most valuable when shared within the organization. The purpose of conducting research, after all, is to inform your business activities.

If you have not established a research plan - even at a back-of-the-napkin level, with definition of user profiles at a minimum - it's probably too soon to engage in multivariate or A/B testing. Because you really don't know what you need yet.

Are you an enterprise, a medium-sized business, or a small business? Your research initiatives should map to the size of the business. The enterprise MUST invest in professional research (and if it does not, it will eventually fail or under-perform, which amounts to the same thing). The small business can take advantage of free or almost-free tools. The medium-sized business can find solutions somewhere in the middle. Regardless of budget, a basic research plan must be in place before solutions are selected. It's a basic part of your Web strategy.

Social media and culture fit: You can't fake it

While listening to my colleague Mike Schmidt's podcast on "social marketing," (a good primer for newbies, featuring Jerry Harkins of MacTutorTucson.com) I considered my setup experience with Google Buzz this morning, and my Mayorship of the Hotel Congress on Foursquare, and the status updates I posted to Facebook and LinkedIn on the way. Another day in the roiling surf of social media. Which service gets your allegiance and time?

As with all digital media, it depends on your users and your business. Some truisms are helpful; we know that bands prosper on MySpace, and charitable causes flourish on Facebook. But in our view, the key to social media is culture. Are you willing to be what Schmidt calls a "good social media citizen"? Are you willing to help people solve problems even when the dollar is not immediately attached? Or are you only willing to invest time in exchange for dollars?

The greatest challenge for conventionally structured organizations is to become those "good social media citizens" when lack of transparency and buyer-beware have been the standard marching orders - until the emperor-has-no-clothes power of the Web came along.

The selection of social media most valuable to your business is a tactic. The strategy: Support a corporate culture whose values are revealed by social media. Successful strategic values include collaboration, humility, helpfulness, expertise, hard work. Going the extra mile. You can't fake these values in social media. At least, not for long.

You should never ignore a technology because you don't know what it is. In our practice, we frequently encounter Web teams that don't use the very technologies about which they are expected to make decisions. "You have to try it to understand it," says Schmidt, the principal of Anchor Wave, and there we agree wholeheartedly. Kudos to managers who understand they may have to rock the boat by introducing - dare we say it - meritocracy. Who are willing to experiment. Who understand that workers must demonstrate interest AND capability. In some organizations, where seniority and longevity rule, this is a tough battle. But it must be fought, and it must be won.

Those who hold back until someone else figures it out (a philosophy proudly stated to me by the principal of a New York "digital design agency" a couple of years ago) are simply walking into the theatre in the middle of the metaphorical movie. You'll never catch up with the story, much less the subtleties. How can you make good decisions about digital media that way? The answer is, you can't.

But where do we find the time to filter out the valuable social media endeavors from the less productive ones? Find that time - because as co-podcaster Jerry Harkins points out, people filter out conventional marketing messages without even realizing the are doing so. People are likelier to trust peers over authority - a finding Interface Guru first realized during a usability test for Clickability in San Francisco in 2001 - and your conventional marketing message may be pointless in 2010. Harkins directs listeners to The Purple Goldfish Project - a great resource on how businesses (and people) can - literally - blow people away with a gesture of respect and service. When you see the examples, you realize the winning companies' strategies are less about what they spend, and more about the core values they hold dear. What can you learn about your own brand that's worth sharing with the world via social media?

You can't have a robber-baron culture and a collaborative social media strategy. One of the two will lose.

So, how were your e-sales this year? E-com usability

So, how were your e-sales this year? E-com usability may be easier to discuss in recent hindsight, after the dust has settled and the wishful thinking has stopped. How well did you do? What sort of ROI (return on investment) are you seeing?

E-commerce success can be measured in many ways; gross sales numbers are just a start. A more critical number in our view: Abandonment rates. How many people abandoned a shopping cart? Do you know exactly when and where it was abandoned? Most importantly - Do you know why someone abandoned a transaction?

The UK firm userfocus recently discussed "Nine tests for a usable checkout" which certainly merit a look. It's great to see another firm reiterate what we've been observing - and telling our clients - for years. "Ask the minimum number of questions. Use consistent and standard form controls. Place error messages next to the entries that need correcting." Truly commonsensical advice.

While the Nine Tests checklist is a great contribution, we still need to understand our users on a more specific level. The Amazon one-click book shopper is not the Playboy online club member, who is not the engineer joining IEEE online. Mental models, and the reasons for our purchases, play a role. The Amazon book shopper has learned to trust one-click ordering and needs little else. The Playboy user may like the added thrill of the chase that results from "teaser" screens. The engineer at IEEE will grumble if date entry fields don't enforce formats (he's an engineer!).

User experience is about seeing the world through the user's eyes, even if briefly. The personal interaction that comes from user involvement - be it as advisor to the design team, or simply as usability test subject - is irreplaceable. Feel-good aside, sincere understanding of - and concern for - your user is the key to successful business online.

You can and should know how many transactions were abandoned; that's tactical. Understanding that user and designing to his needs is strategic.

Coda: I was about to join an association I really admire last week. They lost me at unenforced date format for my date of birth. Why did they lose me? Because I know they're smarter than that.

Even Twitter's had a long day

Verizon: I love the Droid. I hate the Web site. How do I register for My Verizon?

On hold with Verizon for the second time after a dropped call... the problem is not my new phone or your great employees. It's - guess what - the My Verizon Web site! This is a great example of how brand experience must remain consistent from the Web (great promo site), to the physical store (great customer service), to the product (the rockin' Droid), and then back to the Web (broken Web site for account self-service). After much research on the Android phones, I finally settled on the Droid. I've had it for 24 hours and I love it. I got great service from Steve Liermann at Verizon's Park Place Tucson store (where I set a record for number of contacts transferred). And then... I tried to register for My Verizon Business version. Big mistake.

I've completed the registration form six times (twice in Safari, four times in Firefox). The Verizon rep is experiencing the same errors. Either the form asks me to input the business contact number (already there) or the wireless number (already there). There is clearly a bug in the form since the error toggles. Plus common interface problems (fields for phone number entry) that sure do look like sheer laziness.

After an override by the rep we finally got the My Verizon account set up. Time lost: Nearly one hour.

Verizon: Your network rocks. The Droid rocks. Your employees rock. Your My Verizon registration experience does NOT rock. The little laminated card you gave me with registration instructions says, "we've got your back." Not so much! It says all I need is my phone number. Not true.

This problem could easily be solved. We at Interface Guru would be happy to help.

If this is what buying the Droid via ecommerce would have looked like, I probably would have given up. Verizon! Wake up! Love ya mean it but fix this Web site!

Do you play the game or does the game play you?

Over the past weekend, I had the opportunity to use my Nintendo Wii and explore a game called Silent Hill: Shattered memories. I found the game's use of the the interaction capabilities of the console noteworthy. I won't give a review of this game here; however there are many user experience and interaction concepts that are set forth in this game.

WARNING - major spoilers ahead for anyone looking to play the game.

1.) Adaptive psychological personalization. Before you get to the main menu, the game will give you the following warning:
The game tracks how you respond to certain criteria (as well as the in-game psychology tests) and alters major elements based on that data. The game’s monsters, major locations, even how secondary characters look and act will vary for each person that plays it.

2.) Wii Remote interaction. The biggest problem I have had with the majority of Wii games is that few titles fully integrate the Wii Remote capabilities into gameplay. This is not so in SH:SM. The main use for the Wii Remote is as the game’s flashlight (if the player waves the Wii Remote around, the main character will mimic the action in the game)…but that is not all. The Wii Remote also functions as a cell phone (the player will have to hold the speaker in the Wii Remote to their ear in real life to hear phone calls in the game – just like they would a real cell phone).

3.) Attention to realistic detail. You can also place calls in the game – if you see a phone number anywhere in the game the character can dial out to it. Very few of these phone numbers are directly related to the game’s main plot. They are simply there to increase the realism of the game environment. BELOW: The player can call something as unnecessary as a toy recall hot line.


4.) Natural actions. In SH:SM, a majority of the Wii Remote actions are natural actions. If a monster latches on to you from the side, you will have to make a sideways push motion with the Wii Remote to get it off of you.

5.) Cueing user interactions. The player is given control cues at the appropriate time in which they are relevant. The player is not overburdened with memorizing all possible Wii Remote uses at once. BELOW: The player is cued how to answer a call only when the phone rings.


6.) Real-world benefit. At the game’s end, the game’s psychologist will transcribe a detailed profile of the player’s personality. If you play through the game honestly, it is a fairly accurate representation of your psychological profile. BELOW: The start of a multi-page analysis of the player that runs over the game’s credits.

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories was released on December 8th, 2009 and bears a Mature ERSB rating (with good reason).

View a full walk-through of the game at this user's YouTube account.

- by Kyle Kulakowski

Coda: When should you worry about your reputation?

I was expecting blowback from yesterday's post on younger tech workers and ethical behavior.

It came.

When should you be concerned about your reputation and professionalism in a close-knit community?

BEFORE you take a action that will - rightly - make you look bad later.

My advice stands. Apologize.

As I stated in an earlier post: there can be no daylight between your policy (the way you act) and your PR (the way you want others to see you.)

Ethics and knowledgework: Do younger staff need a lesson on the Golden Rule?

This fall, I gave a talk at Tucson Startup Drinks on the need for legal formalities in small businesses. Those who own a business (i.e., incorporated, with employees and real obligations) knew exactly where I was coming from. Those who are currently employees had a different take - in my view, because they have never faced the painful and costly experience of having an employee or contractual agreement go bad, with all the attendant drama and chaos.

Recently, our good friends at Company A were compelled to terminate four employees who were conspiring - on company time and equipment - to start a competing firm.

Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 are talented people. I liked them. They're also very young, and arguably got their start at Company A.

That start - and the visibility they began to acquire in a professional realm - was provided by Company A, whose president and owner has invested years of the sort of hard work that only other business owners understand. Taking risks, paying taxes, footing legal services, rent, insurance, and all the myriad not-fun chores that go into running a business.

The necessary termination of Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 left Company A in the lurch during production of a very large project. (To its credit, Company A's remaining loyal staffers pitched in and made sure the project delivered successfully.)

Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 immediately started Company B. As a parting shot, one of them posted a tweet slamming his ex-employer's blog with a link to a porn site.

Company B is now gleefully pursuing business, making nice to those who don't know the sordid details.

Interface Guru will never recommend Company B, no matter how good its future work may be, because they broke rule one: Do no harm.

Legal contracts and agreements - such as noncompetes and non-disclosure agreements - must be executed and enforced. But they are only as good as the ethics of those who sign them.

More seasoned employees are less likely to engage in this sort of nonsense because they know better. Enlightened self-interest, at a minimum, keeps more mature workers from burning bridges. Younger staff may feel immune. In time they will learn that, as that great philosopher Justin Timberlake would say, "what goes around comes back around."

This story could have had a happy ending. The future employees of Company B could have respected their employer - and themselves - enough to depart on good terms. They could have built on that relationship into the future.

Instead, they have insulted and damaged the company that gave them their start. And they've proen that they don't understand the sort of relationships that are the heart of sustainable, long-term businesses.

If Employees 1, 2, 3, and 4 were willing to deceive their employer, then start a competing business, how will they treat their clients? We're not about to let any of our clients, who we value for more than just the value of a contract, find out.

My advice to Company B: Apologize. And resolve to act ethically from now on. Else, one day you may well find the shoe on the other foot.

Life is full of hit-and-run types who seem successful. They may make money, but their consciences - if they have them - will never be clear. And at some point, everyone will know about the bodies they buried.

Ethics may not mean anything to some people, but they means the world to me, and to the good people that work for and with me.

Tony Silber on corporate culture: What most of US business needs to hear

I was blown away by Tony Silber's blog post, "When Corporate Cultures Break, They Can’t Be Easily Fixed" (12/02/09). Using publishing company fiascos to illustrate his points, Tony outlines the wrongheadedness that is destroying businesses across America. Sound too strong? I personally see this far too often. Decisionmakers are laying the groundwork for failure by refusing to adapt to post-Web transparency while retaining the worst practices of the brick-and-mortar days.

The Web has removed the emperor's clothes entirely. Poor business practices that hid behind PR companies are now exposed. Your policy IS your PR.

Notable quotes:

"These companies have been through too many cycles of change in ownership, changes in management, downsizings, layoffs, salary cuts, loss of talent, loss of spirit, loss of camaraderie."

"Job one should be fixing the culture."

"He fell into the idea of protecting his turf rather than working for everyone else."

"...firing a lot of experienced, talented, knowledgeable people..."

And the saddest part, from our perspective: These problems manifest themselves in the Web presence.

Truly, collaborate or die.

How rules of engagement protect your brand online

The common definition of "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) is a military one. From wikipedia: "Actions a military commander may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command')."

What the heck does that have to do with your Web presence? Everything.

Note the definition: Actions that may be taken without consulting a higher authority, and actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered. Given the freewheeling nature of the Web, companies and organizations must create some sense of order so that - as my colleague Sean Fitzpatrick is bound to say - there is "freedom within structure."

We commonly find that companies that are otherwise well-run have never created Rules of Engagement for their digital media teams. The result: Dilution of brand values, and a lack of consistency that is obvious to the user. In other words, lack of ROE leads directly to poor user experience - or worse.

Companies that allowed the Web to grow "organically" - which is to say, with no rhyme or reason - struggle the most with ROE. Managers are loath to approach staff who have become accustomed to doing whatever pleases them on the company Web site. This is a serious mistake.

The ROE conversation (here are the rules we all need to abide by, in terms of workflow, approval, tone) is not an easy one, but it is crucial. Avoiding the conversation, and the subsequent rules, will inevitably damage your brand.

The Web is rife with embarrassing missteps that companies would never have allowed to see the light of day in print or broadcast. Protect your brand by creating ROE, and enforce those rules. The issue is serious enough to merit a signed agreement, with termination as a consequence if staff deliberately ignore the rules.

ROE are a natural byproduct of Web strategy. Let us know if you need help establishing them.

Shiny New Toy Syndrome: Crippling your Web presence?

Is your Web presence hobbled by Shiny New Toy Syndrome?

Used to be that the CEO was most prone to Shiny New Toy Syndrome. (Actual quote from a major media boardroom: "ESPN's doing it... it must be working for them... why can't do that too?"). We tech types breathed a sigh of relief when Chief Technology Officers became commonplace, since the CTO is supposed to disabuse the CEO of the dancing sugarplums that usually surround Shiny New Toy.

Turns out CTOs are just as - if not more - susceptible to Shiny New Toy Syndrome (SNTS). Especially when pushed in a flashy new demo from an 800-pound-gorilla vendor. Why does this happen?

Vendor schmoozing aside, this happens because the company has not established requirements. Sure, the toy is shiny, but: Does it meet your requirements? Does it duplicate the functionality of an existing, better-developed tool? Will it create ROI, or will it add a maintenance burden that you didn't plan to meet? Or is this yet another instance of the technologist's worst nightmare: Wishful thinking?

Major American businesses, associations, and scientific projects are losing time, money, and opportunity to SNTS. We see it on far too many projects. The cure: The creation of objective requirements - based on a coherent Web strategy - that set a standard for selection and implementation of technologies.

Play is clearly more fun than work. But CTOs are paid big salaries to make responsible decisions that affect the livelihoods of hundreds of people - not to mention the company's brand.

Toys are for kids.

Who exactly is taking my money? Poor usability = reduced online sales

It's ironic that online check-out - the point in ecommerce at which users are most sensitive - is the point where many Web sites fail to provide the brand consistency that users need to feel confident about entering personal information and credit card numbers.

Abrupt interface changes (from the main Web site to the ecommerce application) are the most common - and most destructive - usability problems on ecommerce sites. A startling new interface with different branding, combined with a new URL, will give pause to any user, regardless of technical literacy. They wonder: Am I on a different site? Is the privacy policy different? Who exactly is taking my money?

When someone decides to purchase from your Web site it's because they trust you and your brand. Our own research and usability testing has shown scores of users halting and not completing transactions when they encounter an unfamiliar screen at the point of interaction.

What caused this problem? Initially, many Web sites did not have ecommerce functionality, so it was bolted on as an afterthought. Third-party applications were used as the ecom stopgap. Brands were not allowed to customize these interfaces. The result: A bumpy ride for the user, reduced sales for the company. See examples below of the inconsis

The solution: Bring ecom under your primary Web property so users trust you - leading to increased online sales. Plan for ecommerce within your information architecture.

Example of a third-party payment system

Clicking on conEdison's "Pay by credit card" option takes you to a third-party company that handles the payment. The transition is jarring for several reasons:

• New URL doesn't mention conEdison
• NCO logo replaces conEdison's in the upper left
• New color scheme
  
• New privacy statement.
  

The payment agency does responsibly provide a link to their own privacy policy and disclaimer that they are a third party that handles payments. Yet, other than the inserted conEdison logo, it's difficult to tell that this page relates at all to conEd's parent site.