lundi 4 février 2013

daily tutorial photoshop for Six Revisions

Be The First To Comment
Six Revisions
Lessons We Learned from Our Biggest UX and Design Mistakes
Feb 4th 2013, 11:20

Advertise here with BSA


Lessons We Learned from Our Biggest UX and Design Mistakes

We’ve finally hit the 500,000-user mark at Buffer, a product that helps you share on your social media networks more efficiently. About two years ago when we started on our path to building Buffer, we knew we’d be meeting obstacles and making mistakes along the way.

One of the main things we’ve kept in mind is that making mistakes is unavoidable and that if we choose to learn from them, they’ll be helpful in giving us good guidance on how to move forward more effectively.

And I believe that it’s partly because of these mistakes that we were able to get to where we are today.

The Experience That Shaped How We Build Our Product

Before I discuss the biggest lessons we learned from some of our UX and design mistakes, I want to talk about one of our primary product development principles:

"Validate first, code later"

Let me tell you how this came about.

When the idea of Buffer for building a smarter way to post to Twitter and other social networks came about, our founder Joel Gascoigne immediately started coding instead of first validating his idea (which is how he used to typically approach things).

A few minutes into his coding session, he realized that that wasn’t the way to go.

So he tried something else.

What he did was to put up a landing page as if his product already existed, even though he hadn’t finished everything yet.

He then went ahead and spread the link of his site across Twitter.

People whose interest got piqued would click on a button on the landing page to sign up for an account. They were then presented with another web page that said Buffer wasn’t finished yet and asked the interested user to leave his/her email address so that he/she can be get an email as soon as Buffer launched.

This strategy worked out quite well and we got our first paying customer within 7 weeks of coming up with the idea.

Three key product development principles were created from this experience:

  1. Keep the first version of a feature or product as minimal as possible.
  2. Be prepared for a long journey with lots of course-redirection.
  3. Turn any idea for a feature into a hypothesis that first needs validation from the user.

Now that you know a little bit about our product development principles, the following lessons that we learned will make a bit more sense.

Lesson 1: User Flows Should Focus on Retention, Not Revenue

A key user experience (UX) lesson that we discovered early on was that we needed to concentrate on keeping our customers rather than generating revenue.

This is how we learned this lesson. Our initial landing page’s user flow was as follows:

  1. When you first see our landing page and click on the sign-up button, we would show you a "subscription plans and pricing" page.
  2. From there, you would be required to choose either the "Free" plan or one of our paid plans.
  3. After you’ve picked the right plan for you, you would be able to sign up by providing your details (e.g., your name, email address, and so forth).

With this user flow, the rate of people choosing one of the paid plans upon signing up is high, thus allowing us to generate revenue early on.

However, we quickly learned that users who picked to pay for the product before getting the chance to use it sent our churn rate through the roof.

Why did this happen?

We found out that people would pay, but then they wouldn’t even start to use Buffer, and eventually they’d cancel their subscription.

So we changed our sign-up user flow and philosophy of acquiring users. We decided to say to ourselves, "Let’s get the person to start using the product first so that they can experience first-hand the value of our product, which will hopefully encourage them to upgrade to one of the paid subscription plans."

That worked out a lot better for us.

As a result, the user flow through our website is incredibly more seamless now:

As a result of this user flow redesign, two important things happened:

  1. More people signed up because we didn’t dilute the funnel with a pricing page as an interstitial.
  2. More people upgraded over time because they started to actually use the product, find value in it, and stick with us.

Since then, we’ve made many more product changes that give out more free features, and our core product features are still free. Only after we’re sure you’ve really seen lots of value from using Buffer that we would encourage you to upgrade to a paid plan.

Making user flows that focus on user-retention was an important discovery for us.

Lesson 2: Social Sign-in is Better Than Email Sign-in

After dozens of failed A/B tests to improve the conversion rates of our landing page, we came up with the idea to enable social sign-in (i.e., signing up for a Buffer account and logging in using your Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn account).

After all, Buffer is for posting on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn so it only seemed logical that our potential users would be able to quickly and conveniently sign up using one of their existing accounts.

For comparative purposes, below is our initial landing page that would let you sign up with your email and a password:

Our change from the email sign-in to social sign-in is one of our biggest growth hacks, allowing us to eventually increase sign-ups by 50%. And around the time of this sign-in switch, we went from 500 daily sign-ups to 800 daily sign-ups practically overnight.

Lesson 3: Test All of Your Assumptions Early

Let me tell you a story about how we failed miserably with a new browser extension redesign idea.

One of the essential parts to Buffer is our browser extension for Chrome, Firefox and all other major browsers. We know that if you’re a user and use the extension, you’ll have the best experience with the product. Sharing from any web page and easily adding everything to your "buffer" to share on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn emerged as the most powerful use-case.

So it was only natural for us to focus on this element of the product and try our very best to improve it, as we clearly had some ideas on how we could make it better.

But when we got going with the production of a better browser extension, it seemed like we fell back into our old habits and made the same mistakes we knew we should be avoiding.

Here’s the sequence of how we (incorrectly) approached building our new extension:

  1. We identified some issues with our existing browser extension and then we brainstormed on what we wanted to change.
  2. We spent a lot of time and resources to design and develop a fully-functional first version.
  3. We tested the first version late in the process and realized people were getting extremely confused when using it.
  4. We canned the new idea and never launched it.

This was the new layout of the browser extension that we never pushed to production:

Getting into the habit of testing every single assumption you have as early as possible is something we now have seared deeply into our brains since that failure.

To make things right, this is now how we approach building new products and features:

  1. Identify issues with the existing product and brainstorm what you might want to change.
  2. Talk to users about whether they actually have the same issues.
  3. After validating it in a discussion with our users, quickly build wireframes or a simple prototype that doesn’t take longer than 1-2 days to produce.
  4. Talk to users again and see how they interact with your prototype.
  5. Iterate further to a somewhat usable feature/product that you can show to more users.
  6. Track engagement/growth/revenue metrics and talk to users again about their experience.

Lesson 4: Be Clear with User Interface Labels

The last lesson that I want to share with you is something that I’ve been thinking about for quite a while: It’s the issue of being clear with your labels, buttons, help text, etc. versus being clever with them.

Des Traynor from Intercom defined this problem incredibly well in an article:

Situation: You’ve built a great feature that solves a real problem that you know your users have. They’re not using it though. Usually, it’s because they haven’t seen it, or they saw it and didn’t know what it did.

That situation is something we continue to face.

The key example I wanted to describe here is the following: Inside Buffer, you can connect multiple social accounts together so you can post to them all from one location, e.g., you sign up or login with your Twitter account but you also want to connect your Facebook and LinkedIn account to Buffer to make posting from one place easier.

What it used to look like was this:

We thought to ourselves that having a clever "plus" (+) sign icon will indicate to people that that’s the way to add your other social network accounts.

And yet, we repeatedly received emails from our users asking us if there was a way to connect their Facebook or LinkedIn account in Buffer.

So what we did was to change various aspects of the "connect" button by making it a placeholder icon, using a bigger plus sign, and many other design tweaks.

What was the eventual design solution?

The solution was simple: Using the text "connect more accounts" in plain, written words, which is a lot clearer and more effective than having (what we thought was) a cleverly devised icon to represent this UI task.

We learned that picking the clear solution over the clever solution — even though the former might not be as pretty or as unique or as cool — is always what’s better for the user.

Conclusion: Everything Is a Hypothesis That Needs to be Validated

We believe that our company and our app is still in its early stages, so a lot of the design processes and methods we have are still very experimental.

The concept of not being attached to a single idea and treating every design or feature iteration as a hypothesis that needs validation is the overall biggest thing we’ve learned.

We plan to build many more features that people will hopefully love. And we also expect to build many more that we’ll have to throw away.

We think this way of thinking will give us the biggest potential for building something our users truly want.

Related Content

About the Authors

Leo Widrich is co-founder of Buffer, a better way to post to Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. He also blogs about insights on lifehacks, business and productivity on the Buffer blog. You can say "hello" to him on Twitter @leowid (he is a super nice guy).

Tom Moor is co-founder at Buffer, a smarter way to share on Social Media. At Buffer Tom leads design and UX, constantly trying to make the interface easier to use, whilst focusing on the little details. Follow him @tommoor on Twitter for more great chats on startups and design.

Delicious Digg Evernote Facebook Google Bookmarks LinkedIn StumbleUpon Tumblr Twitter
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

mardi 29 janvier 2013

Photoshop Essentials.com Latest Tutorials

Be The First To Comment

Photoshop Essentials.com Latest Tutorials


Water Reflection Effect In Photoshop CS6

Posted: 28 Jan 2013 09:00 PM PST

Re-written and fully updated for Photoshop CS6 users! In this Photo Effects tutorial, learn how to easily add a realistic water reflection to any photo!

Make Photoshop Your Default Image Editor In Windows

Posted: 28 Jan 2013 09:00 PM PST

Tired of your photos always opening in Windows Photo Viewer when you want to edit them? In this tutorial, learn how to easily set Photoshop as your default image editor on a Windows PC.

Make Photoshop Your Default Image Editor In Mac OS X

Posted: 28 Jan 2013 09:00 PM PST

In this tutorial for Mac users, learn how to easily replace Apple's Preview app with Photoshop as your default photo viewer and image editor in Mac OS X!

Add A Transparent Text Area To An Image With Photoshop

Posted: 28 Jan 2013 09:00 PM PST

In this tutorial, learn how to add transparent type surrounded by a semi-transparent background to an image, a handy design technique for images that are too busy for normal text to be readable!

mardi 8 janvier 2013

daily tutorial photoshop for Six Revisions

Be The First To Comment
Six Revisions
A Comparison of Methods for Building Mobile-Optimized Websites
Jan 7th 2013, 10:00

Advertise here with BSA


A Comparison of Methods for Building Mobile-Optimized Websites

There’s a debate over which technique of creating mobile-ready websites is the best.

Google advocates creating responsive web designs, while Jakob Nielsen, a renowned usability consultant, endorses the creation of dedicated mobile sites (but he was subsequently slammed by some web designers).

A third option is also gaining in popularity, where the web server renders the appropriate HTML and CSS from the same URL depending on the device a web page on the site is being requested from (which has been referred to as responsive design + server side components).

This article will discuss each of these methods.

Real-world examples of websites using a particular method are provided under each section.

The mobile device used to test and gather data for all examples is an iPhone 4 using iOS 5.0.

Responsive Web Design (RWD)

Responsive web design (RWD) typically uses CSS3 media queries to adjust the layout of a web page based on the size of the user’s viewing area. You use the same HTML to display a different web page layout for desktops, tablets, mobile devices, TVs, etc.

Advantages of Responsive Web Design

  • Content parity: Your site contains the same content and HTML markup regardless of the device being used, providing your users with a similar experience. This will grow in importance as more people rely on their smartphone as their primary means of accessing the Web.
  • A single URL for web pages: This makes it easier to share and link to your content. No redirection is needed to get devices to their optimized view (compared to a dedicated mobile site).

Disadvantages of Responsive Web Design

  • Content won’t be fully optimized for mobile devices: Unless you use a mobile-first approach, your web pages will contain the same information as its desktop counterpart. Compare this to a separate mobile site where you could potentially tailor the content of a web page just for mobile users.
  • Slower performance: The average web page today is about 1.3 MB, according to January 2013 data from HTTP Archive. It’s possible to prevent unnecessary downloads when using RWD, but in practice, most responsive web design sites are the same or bigger in size. 86% of the sites tested by mobile performance researcher Guy Podjarny were the same or greater in size, as reported in a presentation about mobile site performance.
  • It can be more difficult to navigate the site: Mobile users generally want to perform different tasks than desktop users. They may also be more accustomed to mobile-specific UI design patterns. Unless you customize the navigation structure for each device, there could be usability problems.

Examples of Responsive Web Design

Starbucks

The Starbucks website is an excellent example that shows the pros and cons of responsive web design. All of their content is accessible on mobile devices, each page uses the same URL, and there’s no redirection.

Unfortunately, their site is a heavy download (about 15 seconds on a 3G smartphone) and there’s a lot of scrolling needed in order to read an entire web page.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 14.99 seconds
  • Average page size: 1,193.88 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 142

World Wildlife Fund

World Wildlife Fund

The World Wildlife Fund website is a good implementation of responsive web design. Navigation is optimized for mobile tasks.

However, load time is a bit slow on a 3G smartphone (it took about 7 seconds). Also, some inner pages (e.g., their Adoption form) haven’t been optimized for mobile devices and are painful to use on my mobile device.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 6.91 seconds
  • Average page size: 885.97 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 72

The Boston Globe

The Boston Globe

The Boston Globe website is arguably one of the best RWD implementations for a large-scale website. The site uses responsive images and optimizes JavaScript so it doesn’t kill performance on mobile devices.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 5.55 seconds
  • Average page size: 605.27 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 87

Resources on Responsive Web Design

Dedicated Mobile Site

Some websites optimize the experience of mobile device users by creating a separate mobile site.

The most common implementation is for the desktop website to redirect to a subdomain (e.g., mobile.examplesite.com for examplesite.com.)

Advantages of a Dedicated Mobile Site

  • Easier to make separate changes to the mobile and desktop sites: Changes can be limited to the mobile version only or desktop version only.
  • Faster load time: Since you’re developing only for mobile sites, you can streamline and optimize your mobile site specifically for the mobile user experience.
  • Easier to navigate: The navigation structure and content is customized for the tasks performed by mobile users.

Disadvantages of a Dedicated Mobile Site

  • Multiple URLs for each page: Sharing a web page on social media becomes an issue, because mobile users will share the mobile URL, but desktop users may click the link and get the mobile version. To prevent duplicate content SEO issues, you’ll need to use the rel="alternative" and rel="canonical" meta tags. Also, when a mobile user searches on Google and clicks a desktop URL in the search engine’s results, they’ll either see the desktop version or be redirected to the mobile version of the page. If the mobile version of this page doesn’t exist, they’ll get an error.
  • Different content and functionality: The purpose of creating a dedicated mobile website is to tailor the site specifically for mobile users. This can mean cutting out content and functionality, resulting in a different experience.
  • Content forking: You have two different sets of content, which could create a content strategy nightmare.
  • Requires redirection: Mobile users will need to be redirected to the optimized view, and vice versa. Redirection adds to a page’s load time. It can also have implications on your site’s SEO.

Examples of Dedicated Mobile Websites

Walmart (mobile.walmart.com)

Walmart

Walmart’s dedicated mobile site clocks in at a blazingly fast 1.35-second load time.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 1.35 seconds
  • Average page size: 272.29 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 45

Amazon (www.amazon.com/gp/aw/h.html)

Amazon

Much like Walmart, Amazon’s separate mobile pages are faster than the responsive web designs I tested, (it clocked in at 2.25 seconds load time).

What’s strange, however, is that not all pages in their website have mobile-optimized versions. For example, if you do a Google search from your smartphone, many of Google’s results point to desktop pages that don’t redirect to a mobile-optimized version. Additionally, if you access the mobile page directly from your desktop, you aren’t redirected to the desktop version.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 2.25 seconds
  • Average page size: 103.66 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 16

BBC (www.bbc.co.uk/mobile)

BBC

BBC’s separate mobile pages are fast compared to the responsive web pages I tested (3.40 seconds), but nearly half of that time is spent redirecting mobile users to the mobile page (1.65 seconds).

Unlike Amazon’s separate mobile pages, if you access a mobile page from a desktop you will are automatically redirected back to the desktop version.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 3.40 seconds
  • Average page size: 56.04 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 22

Resources on Dedicated Mobile Sites

RESS: Different HTML and CSS from the Same URL

This method of creating a mobile-ready website uses server-side programming to render custom CSS and HTML for different devices. Mobile users would get one set of code, while desktop users would get a different set of code.

The primary purpose of this implementation is to improve website performance.

This method works best when combined with a responsive web design.

This implementation has been referred to as responsive web design + server side components (RESS).

When using this method, it’s important to include the Vary HTTP header (read about this on Google’s guide to building smartphone-optimized websites) so that robots will crawl both the desktop and mobile versions.

Advantages of RESS

  • Easier to navigate: The navigation structure can be customized for the different tasks performed by mobile and desktop users.
  • Less page bloat: Instead of relying on display: none; or visibility: hidden; to hide page elements for mobile devices, they can instead be removed from the HTML or CSS. This will reduce the amount of data downloaded and speed up load time.
  • Faster load time: Unnecessary JavaScript can be removed from the HTML, which frees up CPU, memory and cache on the mobile device.

Disadvantages of RESS

  • More server resources: Dynamically building the HTML will increase the load on the server.
  • Requires device detection: Mobile users will need to be detected. Device detection is unreliable.

Examples of RESS

CNN

CNN

The mobile version uses HTML and CSS that’s optimized for mobile performance, while the desktop version uses significantly more HTTP requests and JavaScript.

The navigation has also been tailored for mobile-specific tasks.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 3.46 seconds
  • Average page size: 163.12 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 28

eHow

eHow

Like CNN, the HTML and CSS for eHow’s mobile version is tuned for performance. The top-level navigation is the same for both sites, with an emphasis on search and their seven content channels.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 6.15 seconds
  • Average page size: 188.95 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 31

SlideShare

SlideShare

SlideShare’s mobile and desktop versions are completely different. The mobile version uses a responsive web design, while the desktop version doesn’t. Each site uses completely different HTML and CSS. There’s significantly less JavaScript in the mobile version. Each site also uses a different navigation structure.

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 6.15 seconds
  • Average page size: 188.95 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 31

WordPress.com

WordPress.com

WordPress.com’s mobile and desktop versions are nearly identical, with a few differences:

  • The mobile version has an http-equiv attribute, while the desktop version doesn’t (<meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="IE=10">)
  • They each use a different stylesheet
  • The mobile version places the novalidate attribute within the <form> tag, while the desktop version places it within a form <input>
  • The mobile version has a News link in the footer, while the desktop version doesn’t have a News link anywhere in the page
  • Some JavaScript was removed from the mobile version

Performance results:

  • Average load time: 2.77 seconds
  • Average page size: 118.40 KB
  • Number of HTTP requests: 19

Resources on RESS

Summary

In theory, responsive web design is the best solution. But in practice, most RWD sites aren’t implemented optimally and result in slower load times.

According to my tests, having a dedicated mobile site results in the fastest load times, but there’s significant downsides with this implementation. I’d only go with this if performance was top priority.

My personal preference is to go with a combination of a Responsive web design and different HTML from the same URL (RESS). This provides all the benefits of RWD while overcoming its two biggest downsides (more files to download and slower load time).

What method are you using for building mobile-optimized sites? Please share your thoughts on this subject in the comments.

Related Content

About the Author

Johan Johansson is a Senior Web Developer at Pixelmade in Vancouver, Canada. He has developed over 350 websites during his 17-year career. His free time is consumed by his 2-year-old son who won’t take "no" for an answer. You can follow Johan on Twitter @johansson_johan.

Delicious Digg Evernote Facebook Google Bookmarks LinkedIn StumbleUpon Tumblr Twitter
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
 

© 2011 Photoshop TUTO - Designed by Mukund | ToS | Privacy Policy | Sitemap

About Us | Contact Us | Write For Us