Comments on: Bass Ackwards http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/ The usability blog of John S. Rhodes Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:59:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: mortgage rates http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-11167 Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:50:33 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-11167 a a

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10682 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10682 I had a client insist on this once. We had built and hosted a site for one client, who later sold it to another organization. The new owners wanted to make some change to reflect slightly different needs, and in the process they insisted on reversing the required/optional labels on the sign-up form. I had a client insist on this once. We had built and hosted a site for one client, who later sold it to another organization. The new owners wanted to make some change to reflect slightly different needs, and in the process they insisted on reversing the required/optional labels on the sign-up form.

]]> by: John http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10683 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10683 Change for the sake of change. Insanity. Change for the sake of change. Insanity.

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10684 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10684 No, for some reason they seemed to think it made more sense. They even claimed that people were getting confused because they expected asterisks to mark optional fields. (The users were mainly high school students; I'm not sure that that says about their UI expectations.) No, for some reason they seemed to think it made more sense. They even claimed that people were getting confused because they expected asterisks to mark optional fields. (The users were mainly high school students; I’m not sure that that says about their UI expectations.)

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10685 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10685 It's an easy reaction to see something nonstandard and pan it as bad usability. Standards didn't all evolve out of the very best practices for users. Sometimes it feels like usability is about habit and the past more thant anything. A good, safe bet, but not exactly the same as design.<br /> <br /> It wouldn't hurt to step back and think about the reasoning which *might* have been behind a particular decision. In this way, usability can push design forward -- rather and being seen as reactionary. (an occasional criticism). It’s an easy reaction to see something nonstandard and pan it as bad usability. Standards didn’t all evolve out of the very best practices for users. Sometimes it feels like usability is about habit and the past more thant anything. A good, safe bet, but not exactly the same as design.

It wouldn’t hurt to step back and think about the reasoning which *might* have been behind a particular decision. In this way, usability can push design forward — rather and being seen as reactionary. (an occasional criticism).

]]> by: John http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10686 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10686 Excellent point. Standards and usability often go hand in hand, but not always. The same thing probably applies to <a href="http://webword.com/moving/fourhorsemen.html">popularity and usability</a>. Excellent point. Standards and usability often go hand in hand, but not always. The same thing probably applies to popularity and usability.

]]> by: Anonymous http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10687 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2005/04/22/bass-ackwards/#comment-10687 I spent the better quite some time reviewing all kinds of offline forms. It has become some sort of de-facto Web standard to mark required fields with an asterisk (*). Yet offline forms generally only use asterisks when there's some kind of note or exception to the field in question. It's assumed if a question's there, you'll answer it unless it's marked optional. I spent the better quite some time reviewing all kinds of offline forms. It has become some sort of de-facto Web standard to mark required fields with an asterisk (*). Yet offline forms generally only use asterisks when there’s some kind of note or exception to the field in question. It’s assumed if a question’s there, you’ll answer it unless it’s marked optional.

]]>