Good enough never is

Don't be lazy when making your web site user friendly

Web Applications Alert By Mark Gibbs, Network World
March 09, 2010 12:07 AM ET

Mark Gibbs' Web site tips, plus network applications news headlines

There are some aspects of how companies implement Web applications that I just don't get.

For example, when you are trying to log in to a Web site using your e-mail address and realize you've forgotten your password there's always a link nearby labeled something like "Forgot your password?". Click on this link and you're taken to a page where you can enter your e-mail address and have a password reset or reclaim sent to.

That's great, but why do we have to enter our e-mail address again? We entered that on the log in page! Why not just copy it to the password recovery page?

The only reason I can figure out is simple laziness. How hard can it be to copy the address from one page to another? I suppose if you're fighting with a really clunky Web application architecture then it could be tricky but then you'll have a whole heap of other problems to keep you busy.

Related Content

Another problem that seems to be the product of laziness are Web application "roadbumps". I've seen this with large companies such as AT&T and T-Mobile which drive Web applications with multiple backend systems, usually the result of trying to integrate the assets of acquired companies.

The result of these roadbumps are that when users go from one part of the Web application to another and the two parts are driven by different systems the users are required to log in every time they make the transition.

Now I know that dealing with multiple backends is a challenge and often takes some serious engineering to make it work but when you don't put in that effort what you are essentially saying to the customer is "we don't care if our service is hard to use and clunky, it's just not worth the effort to make your experience better."

And that's really what it's all about: User experience. If you are trying to streamline your customer facing services to save your company money and you just build something that's good enough, you are making a huge mistake.

Now, I will allow for the situation where you need to get a service implemented as soon as possible. In that case I'd say it's fine to roll out whatever works but if you do that, tell your users that they are using a first pass at the solution, a beta version if you will. And tell them when you expect to finish the job and give them a clue about why you're using an interim solution, what the final version will look like, and when they'll get access to it.

I think the problem is that Web applications are so new, relatively speaking, that corporate sales and marketing don't have a "big picture" view of how they fit into business architectures so they don't fight for a superlative user experience. These groups currently either see the Web application as good enough because they don't know the difference and consequences or they see it as being like magic, absolutely not understanding the ramifications and impact of design and implementation choices.

What Web application designers have to keep in mind, whether it's about password resets or roadbumps or any of the other unwanted attributes that make Web applications unsatisfactory, is that you have to "sell" users on what they use; they have to experience minimal "drag" and maximum value for their effort in interacting with a Web application.

Mark Gibbs is a consultant, author, journalist, columnist and blogger.