As a practical junction to my website, I also drafted a set of instructions, which in theory, would be used by another WAF member to maintain, update, and add to the site.
I coded in basic HTML and CSS in Microsoft NotePad, but I aimed for the highest standard of professional design, organization and writing that my skills could allow. All questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome!
The Project:
My work as part of the course was, in part, a semester-long preparation for creating the WAF website. I was challenged to learn different skills and perspectives; in a way, then, I was asked to try on several different "hats," the hat of "copy writer," "internet programmer," "cultural analyst," "creative writer," "usability tester" and "usability test administrator." My site, then, should not only be viewed as an informational/corporate website about WAF, but as a first exhibition of all the elements necessary for effective, albeit simplistic, web communication.
The Process:
In making both the WAF website and the maintenance instructions, I discovered that user-testing, student-to-student, and student-to-instructor interaction was essential.
Usability testing was a topic we covered as part of the course; we read about it, discussed its practices and uses, acted as a tester and designed, administered, and reviewed our own usability test. But during the actual design and implication of my project (and my classmate's projects), the benefits of user testing came to fruition. We were required to submit a formal Alpha Release and Beta Release, a respective "early" and "late" rough draft, and the subsequent Alpha testing and Beta Testing were much-needed benchmarks in what developed into a long succession of small steps.
My blogging doesn't cover the entire spectrum of interaction I had, though. In class, I was able to get informal "tests" and reactions from classmates Chelsea, Anne, and Aero. Outside of class I tested two different "cold" users, on both my site and my instructions.
From this process of interaction, both formal and informal, I made some significant changes.
Based on user's responses in Alpha testing, I:
Users also suggested adding more pictures; I considered this, and would have liked to add more pictures of our speakers, but I decided against this given the sensitive nature of their situations. Some are exiled and some are from countries undergoing political persecution.
Based on user's responses in Beta testing, I:
On my own, I also:
In Summation:
Each class period and each hour at home in which I worked on my site was one small step toward the finished product. And I didn't even realize it. Around the point of my Beta Release, I look at my site and realized with surprise that I had nothing left to do (from my point of view, at least; but that's where those all-important testers came in). I was baffled that I had accomplished that much; where, it the middle of checking for closed tags and uploading graphics with the just right color, did I finish my site? Looking back, I see now that it was in these small moves.
And this process is something I can apply to any future project, website or otherwise; s very smooth process of proposal, draft, testing, revision, re-testing, revision. However, as a course project, there was a very clear-cut point of "completion" for creating this site. Outside the academic setting, though, I think there is no real "finished" project. Projects can always be tested, revised, and improved. Even what I've created here could (possibly) change, grow, revise, and "live" on the internet indefinitely. Now how about that for a sense of accomplishment?
Notes:
I would not have been able to complete this project without consulting the work of:
Elizabeth Castro, Creating a Web Page with HTML
Steve Krug, Don't Make me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
Crawford Kilian, Writing for the Web 3.0
Van SEO Design CSS blog, http://www.vanseodesign.com/blog/category/css/
We wrote for the internet. We read about writing for the internet. We practiced writing for the internet. We were tested on writing for the internet. We had others test our work. We talked about our own writing for the internet. We blogged about writing for the internet. Finally, we were able to apply internet writing skills in a project of our choice: we were asked to create either an informative hypertext (website), a creative hypertext project, or an interactive fiction game. I chose to design a website for an on-campus organization at Seton Hill, The JoAnne Boyle World Affairs Forum.
Our projects, however, began an entirely new series of small-step learning and projects. We drafted a project proposal, submitted project progress reports, submitted an Alpha Release of our projects, administered Alpha testing, revised, drafted a Beta Release, administered Beta testing, and revised again...And now viola! We are on the verge of a finished project. Along the way, we offered advice to one another, both in-class and via blog.
If you're interested in seeing this process in action, see the compilation of blog entries below. It's not a traditional blogging portfolio, but I think it chronicles the steps of the project completion process nicely, and particularly highlights the importance of student interaction in problem solving.
Project Progress:
These series of blogs chronicled the progression of my term project.
Progress Report - After submitting my Project Proposal, I blogged about the very early stages of my project. It wasn't about getting anything coded or written at this point, it was more about brainstorming ideas and mentally mapping my project's path.
Alpha Report - The Alpha Release of my website was a half-completed draft; I blogged about user testing of my Alpha Release, the suggestions I got from it, and the revisions I hoped to make.
Beta Report - You get the idea: Much like the Alpha Release, the Beta Release was a draft that was user-tested and then revised based on the test results. However, this draft was at a much more developed stage. I had a completed product that I had worked to fruition, but needed to hand it over to users to see what steps/changes to make next.
Interaction:
Interaction and problem-solving was vital to the term projects. The links show comments I made on class mate's blogs to help in their project.
Chelsea's Blog - I try to offer some ideas for expanding her project, and when all else fails...I volunteer to test.
Maddie's Blog - Offering words of encouragement, and of course, volunteering to test.
Andy's Blog - Acting as a tester, I offer some specific suggestions
Aja's Blog - Helping her slove a blackground problem
Reflection:
Expectations - Based on a class discussion, I decided to blog about my expectations going into this class, Writing for the Internet, and what I actually got out of the experience
]]>
My answer to the question, "Was this course what you expected?" No! Not by a long shot! But it might not be what you think; in this case, a course not living up to my expectations was actually a good thing.
When I approached this course, titled "Writing for the Internet," I assumed that it would be, completely and solely, about writing the content of various websites for various users. I figured we'd incorporate some internet-specific writing styles, organization and tone. I also assumed we'd work on focusing and tailoring our writing to appeal to various target audiences, or in this case, various target users.
The course did indeed cover these points, but it also covered a lot of other topics. We discussed and learned the literal writing of the internet, in HTML and CSS code. My jaw probably dropped in surprise when I first found out we'd be covering this in class; by no stretch of the imagination am I programming savvy (I still don’t think I’d consider myself this). But the lessons on coding, coupled with the writing and organizational tips made in the Krug text, are probably the most worthwhile pieces of knowledge I’ve gained out of everything we covered, and I've improved (I think!) tremendously in these areas. These skills will definitely help me in the long-run.
Writing for the Internet also covered types of writing I never knew existed - like interactive fiction and creative hypertext. We also reviewed the fundamentals of user testing, a little-known but integral part of writing for the internet. I've learned that writing for the internet and user testing are best used as a pair; you can write for the internet without performing any user testing, but you can't produce your best work without leaving it in the hands (or mouse) of a user. We also touched on topics like chat-speak, appropriate e-mail formatting and the effects of internet networking (pictures & postings on Facebook/MySpace, trolling, Wikipedia).
With all this said, I can now see that I approached this course from a very limited perspective - so limited, in fact, that I didn't even realize my own shortcomings! I viewed the internet in a certain way and used it to accomplish certain tasks, so my expectations of this class were limited accordingly. I could only envision myself writing for the internet in a way that I had commonly seen and read. However, I now know that there are many styles and forms of internet writing, some which are far-removed from the corporate writing I was familiar with. But having this basic knowledge of several types of internet writing has helped me develop a wider perspective on and truly deeper understanding of the cultural implications and effects of this crazy, massive thing we call the internet. So the class may not have met my expectations, but I think I am all the better for it.
]]>
The only way to know if I really accomplished this is, of course, is to test my site out on others. So please, take a minute...check out the site and give me some feedback! The site is fairly small; a homepage and three interior pages. All suggestions are welcome.
These are just a couple questions I have, but feel free to comment on anything.
Do you understand WAF?
Are you left with any questions about the organization?
Does anything seem unnecessary or wordy?
Is anything about the design/format distracting or ineffective?
Thanks! If anyone else is looking for a tester, I'd be happy to return the favor.
]]>I had Chelsea Oliver review/test my alpha release. Her suggestions were primarily on the design/lay out of the site, and she gave positive reviews for the actual "web writing." Some of her suggestions included:
· Taking away the menu link for "SHU home" and just linking the SHU logo to the homepage
· Adding more pictures
· Adding graphic elements to the sidebar
· Telling users, under the events page, that all events are usually free and open to anyone
From this alpha testing, I also thought of a few suggestions for my site:
· Adding a "footer" section to every page with contact information
· Telling users how they can find out about specific events ("Look for posters around campus. Watch for a global e-mail." etc...)
Mainly, I had to deal with the imperfection of web design. I have this ongoing problem that everything I design on my home computer, looks completely screwed up on other computers. As a perfectionist, this is a tough pill for me to swallow! I have to remember to focus on the web writing and not completely on the design...ugh.
]]>
I've determined my target audience: SHU freshman and sophomore students who have yet to get involved with any extra-curricular activities. However, the site will be designed and written in a tone appropriate for SHU faculty as well.
Thus far in my planning I've sketched out a basic layout for my site. I want to have a homepage, obviously, with clear organization and navigation. On the home page, I want to include the WAF logo (probably in the upper left-hand corner of the page) with a clear tag line that will describe the group and the purpose of the site. I also want to include elements of design associated with SHU, like the SHU logo (see below). Because WAF is so new and not very well-known, the homepage will probably be greatly dedicated to conveying the main point of the WAF (think Krug). As part of this, I will incorporate the WAF mission and motto...but in a creative way, since mission statements are usually something web users skip over.
As for internal pages, I want to have a page for: fall 2008 events, spring 2009 events, WAF members, and sister organizations. The "events" pages will list and describe all of our previous and future events, the "members" page will provide brief bios of the student and faculty members in WAF, possibly with pictures, and their contact information. The "sister organizations" page will link to groups outside of WAF that have helped us develop events or have co-sponsored events. This includes, but is not limited to, City Asylum Pittsburgh and the SHU Alumni Relations.
As part of my design, I've e-mailed Phil Komarny to see if I can use the SHU website style sheet in my design. Practically, if this site were ever uploaded for public use, it would be linked from somewhere within the SHU homepage. I also e-mailed around to see what it would take to get the page uploaded as an actual part of the SHU page, and I discovered that I'll have to submit it to the SHU web committee for approval.
If anyone has any comments or suggests for my site, please let me know! I also have some specific questions about my project so far:
1. How can I keep the proportions of my site the same, so it appears the same on every monitor? In other words, I don't want my "margins" or "padding" dimensions to be based on each individual monitor. Is it possible to keep them the same?
2. In my navigation bar, I want to list "Events" and then have "fall 2008 events" and "Spring 2009 events" appear as subheadings after the user has clicked "events." How can I do this?
If anyone has the answers to these questions...or can show me someplace where I can find the answers...it'd be greatly appreciated!
]]>
Don't Make Me Think was like a breath of fresh air in the world of internet texts. Although I was more or less forced to read the book, (as part of my EL236: Writing for the Internet) the book didn't feel forced at all. It was a quick and easy read. Moreover, it was succinct and clear while also being incredibly informative. Web usability and usability testing were not subjects I had every really been introduced to; after reading this little book, however, I feel not only acquainted with the subjects, I feel as if I know them well enough to use the principles they express. Ultimately this is the goal of any how-to book or college text, but many fall short of the standard.
Besides packing a lot of power in a few pages, Don’t Make Me Think is a web book that actually practices what it preaches. The book is catchy in design, layout and text. Headings, phrasing, comparisons and examples all pull you into the book, rather than lull you to sleep. And these elements may only seem "skin deep", but they really equated to a higher interest in and higher understanding of the text. The design of Krug's own book was the best example of the benefits of usability he could have ever offered his readers. I can probably say I learned more from this text than the others read in this class; not that the others weren't valuable, they were, Krug just bested them in the presentation of his information. His presentation upped my retention.
My classmates Megan, Anne, and Jed - among others - all had very positive reviews about the book too, which again speaks volumes about its effective, easy style and refreshing simplicity. This was the third in line for web texts in this class, which presented it with the very formidable task of being interesting and useful to students who were probably feeling, at best, tired, and at worst, exasperated and frustrated! But Krug delivered.
In addition to Krug's catchy presentation of ideas, his ideas in themselves were well-rounded and useful. The book logically progressed from principles of web use, to principles of web design, to usability testing and associability. He even found room to discuss professional conflicts. And although the book was written in 2000 and some of its examples are obscure and even admittedly outdated, they still resonate with the audience. Conventions are conventions. What was "good design" in 2000, I think, is basically still "good design" in 2008.
The only suggestion I'd give to Krug for a future edition would be to cut down a few of the lengthy chapters (chapter 6 and 7). These two chapters seemed to break the short and snappy pace of the book. I'd keep all the ideas, most definitely, but I'd categorize them into separate, shorter chapters so readers wouldn't feel so overwhelmed by a long stream of endless content. It was a lot to take in at once.
]]>
Don't Make Me Think was like a breath of fresh air in the world of internet texts. Although I was more or less forced to read the book, (as part of my EL236: Writing for the Internet) the book didn't feel forced at all. It was a quick and easy read. Moreover, it was succinct and clear while also being incredibly informative. Web usability and usability testing were not subjects I had every really been introduced to; after reading this little book, however, I feel not only acquainted with the subjects, I feel as if I know them well enough to use the principles they express. Ultimately this is the goal of any how-to book or college text, but many fall short of the standard.
Besides packing a lot of power in a few pages, Don’t Make Me Think is a web book that actually practices what it preaches. The book is catchy in design, layout and text. Headings, phrasing, comparisons and examples all pull you into the book, rather than lull you to sleep. And these elements may only seem "skin deep", but they really equated to a higher interest in and higher understanding of the text. The design of Krug's own book was the best example of the benefits of usability he could have ever offered his readers. I can probably say I learned more from this text than the others read in this class; not that the others weren't valuable, they were, Krug just bested them in the presentation of his information. His presentation upped my retention.
My classmates Megan, Anne, and Jed - among others - all had very positive reviews about the book too, which again speaks volumes about its effective, easy style and refreshing simplicity. This was the third in line for web texts in this class, which presented it with the very formidable task of being interesting and useful to students who were probably feeling, at best, tired, and at worst, exasperated and frustrated! But Krug delivered.
In addition to Krug's catchy presentation of ideas, his ideas in themselves were well-rounded and useful. The book logically progressed from principles of web use, to principles of web design, to usability testing and associability. He even found room to discuss professional conflicts. And although the book was written in 2000 and some of its examples are obscure and even admittedly outdated, they still resonate with the audience. Conventions are conventions. What was "good design" in 2000, I think, is basically still "good design" in 2008.
The only suggestion I'd give to Krug for a future edition would be to cut down a few of the lengthy chapters (chapter 6 and 7). These two chapters seemed to break the short and snappy pace of the book. I'd keep all the ideas, most definitely, but I'd categorize them into separate, shorter chapters so readers wouldn't feel so overwhelmed by a long stream of endless content. It was a lot to take in at once.
]]>
Below, take a look at my blog entries (categorized by different class requirements) to see the details of what and how I learned.
Coverage - blogs with quoting, sources, and trackbacks
IF kicked my butt - Learning - the hard way - that interactive fiction isn't as simple as it seems.
Common Sense - The first in a line of entries on Steve Krug's book
Kill the Happy - My commentary to Krug's principles of web user psychology and web design basics
Joe the Web User - Another Krug. Here we question, Is there a web user? If so, what does he or she look like?
The Boss - Krug & I tackle the authority-figure issues of web design
Usability, Likability, Accessibility - A Krug blog that discusses usability testing and some fringe-subjects of usability.
Wikipedia 2 - The second installment in a line of blogs about a Wikipedia Workshop. This one details my encounter with Wikipedia administration.
Wikipedia 3 - An examination of Wiki editing policies in practice, using the Steelers wiki page as an example.
Wikipedia 4 - A comparison between the wiki entries for Seton Hill University and St. Vincent College
Timeliness - blogs submitted on time; that is, 24 hours before the next class meeting
Interaction -
Referencing others
Wikipedia 1 - The first Wikipedia blog. Here, I weigh the pros-and-cons of the free, online encyclopedia.
Krug's Review - My personal review of Krug's book
Comment generating
Usability, Likability, Accessibility
Good and Bad - My reactions to playing the IF game Slouching Towards Bedlam
Depth - Lengthier and more complex blogs
Wikipedia 5 - My experiences in editing some Wikipedia articles
Usability, Likability, Accessibility
Discussion - comments I made to others
Chelsea's Blog - Finding an example in GriffinGate
another Chelsea - I elaborate and offer some ideas
Anne's Blog - Reaffirming ideas
another Anne - She points out some revelations in her Wikipedia experiences I never noticed
Maddie's Blog - Summarizing big ideas
Danni's Blog - I try to help her fight through some IF fiction
Christina's Blog - Expanding on thoughts
My changes have yet to generate any reaction from the Wikipedia community, but I'm not too surprised because I didn't add anything all that earth-shattering to either page. But still, I was a little intimidated by this process. I had a difficult time finding a subject that I "knew enough" to contribute to Wikipedia. And I was always second guessing myself if I was undermining any of the Wikipedia policies on credible information and unbiased perspective. But, I suppose that's why sections like "history" and "discussion" are there, so those contributors who are trying to genuinely contribute to Wikipedia can learn and grow. I don't think I could have ever gone in 100% confident in my writing for Wikipedia by only reading their policies and guidelines; I think it is something you have to try for yourself.
So after testing things out for myself, I think others in academia could have something to take away from the process. I think professors and high school teachers especially should do an activity like this with their students. There is no sense in avoiding Wikipedia like the plague and telling others to do so; regardless of your opinions on its credibility, I don't think Wikipedia is going anywhere anytime soon. As long as it’s out there students are going to use it in some manner or another. So I think teachers should encourage their students to interact with Wikipedia by testing it and adding to it themselves; that way, they can learn what effort goes into viable information and what the difference between reliable and unreliable information looks like, both on Wikipedia and any internet source. And as the internet continues to grow and become an almost indistinguishable part of our culture and society, it's important to do this at as young an age as possible; I think I could have gotten more out of this activity if I did it in high school, rather than having my teachers tell me to never, ever use Wikipedia. Ever.
In any case, I was still able to take some important ideas away from my interaction with Wikipedia. I was able to see the inside infrastructure of Wikipedia, and like I said above, it's clear that it is a source with staying power, not an internet fad that will fade with time. It should be used, but used wisely. And from my experiences editing a page, I realized that maybe every mistake out there isn't malicious (although a lot are, I'm sure). Wikipedia should be embraced, albeit cautiously, and perhaps with a focus on its interactivity, not its role as a one-way, cut-copy-paste information source.
]]>
After examining and comparing the Saint Vincent College and Seton Hill University Wikipedia articles, I tried to place myself in the shoes of a high school junior or senior who was investigating potential colleges. And I have to admit, based on these pages I'd be more likely to attend Saint Vincent than Seton Hill. Although both pages were relatively brief, all the information on the Seton Hill page was grouped into one section, and half of it was dedicated to the tension surrounding the start of the football team. Now this is a viable point in the school's history, but the football section seemed prominently placed above a few sparse sentences about the clubs and groups at SHU. In short, I think the page leaves a lot of room for additions, like more detail about SHU’s academic programs, its growth after becoming a university and some of its traditions (Christmas on the Hill, Night on Haunted Hill, etc.)
Granted, Saint Vincent's page didn't have a whole lot of content either, but it did at least have enough to break down into sections like "history," "traditions," and "notable alumni." It also added a little about the traditions at the school, which I think is something that prospective students (seemingly the most popular audience for these sites) would be interested in reading about. This may not seem like a big deal, but as far as first impressions go it makes Saint Vincent seem like they have more to offer students, and that the people associated with Saint Vincent care just a little more than those at Seton Hill about making the school look good (I don't really think this is true, both schools have positive and negative aspects. I think this is what some people could assume if they knew nothing else about the two schools.) However, when I first searched for the site I typed in "St Vincent College," which directed me to a page about a college in England; this, of course, could be problematic to the Saint Vincent College because it offered no way for visitors to be redirected. On the whole, then, Saint Vincent's page leaves almost as much to be desired as Seton Hill's page; I don't think either of them does the two great schools justice.
Then I checked out the "edit this page" link, something I've never done on a Wikipedia page before. I was surprised by what I found! The text box reminded me of HTML coding and I had expected to see just all plain English text, just like what appeared on the page. I think links like "editing help" will be used quite often when I actually attempt to edit a Wikipedia page, because the content of the edit page didn't seem very self-explanatory. And I especially took this note to heart: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I was kind of intimidated by this statement, but I suppose it is a way for the Wiki masters to discourage the dissemination of pure speculation.
But from what I can tell, there are many people who don't mind being subjected to merciless editing or mass redistribution in the name of the Pittsburgh Steelers, because the page history showed that the page gets edited every could of days, several times a day.
Overall, this activity showed me the real scope and power that Wikipedia brings to its everyday-web-user editors; there is a flurry of activity almost constantly. The shape and form of information has the potential to be changed on a daily basis. I'm sure this isn't true for every page, but the Steelers page shows that it does indeed exist for some.
]]>
Unknown to me, however, Wikipedia has been thriving even though I haven't been a part of it. And believe it or not, there's a heart to Wiki mission; I thought it was simply ad hoc, come-and-go, do what you please, add, subtract, bash, lie, fix...anything goes! Naive, yes. However, there is a clearly stated ethical base to the Wikipedia approach.
This base is quite extensive, actually. Not only are there the Key Policies and Guidelines and Five Pillars, there is a Simplified Rule Set and a List of Policies. Wikipedia has established an entire organizational culture.
This greatly improves my assumptions about Wikipedia. I assumed they would ignore the inherent problems of their system; brush them under the rug and try to pass themselves off not only as something legitimate, but as a source with no problems. These documents, however, prove that Wiki knows exactly who and what they are; they are pronouncing to the world their mission, problems and all. Wiki announces under the heading, "Using Wikipedia as a Research Source": "Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start, and may contain false or debatable information."
Good for you, Wikipedia. Your mission is a valiant one. This doesn't mean I'll start citing you as a legitimate source in my term papers, but it does open my eyes to the grander scope of Wikipedia. The source never wanted to masquerade as a traditional encyclopedia for strictly research purposes, even though this is the box many students, like myself, wanted it to fit into. So if you expand the purpose of Wikipedia, its problems seem manageable. Wikipedia is more of a process, than content. The content is there, of course, and should be held to the highest standards possible. But don't lose the Wikipedia forest amidst all those Wikipedia trees.
]]>
But the greatness of Wikipedia seemed doomed to the fate of a led zeppelin. As quickly as it had been revered, however, it was dismissed for being inaccurate and untrustworthy.
Today, three years after I graduated high school, Wikipedia is still swimming in the minds of many, especially academics who are often on the research hunt. And many still dismiss Wikipedia to its very core; not only does it fail to uphold the standards of encyclopedias everywhere by providing accurate information, it bucks the responsibility for its failures as well, citing the collective inaccuracy of all things web and its open, anonymous nature, which would make it almost impossible to track down negligent users, but also leaves the door open for those do-gooders who would (and, they say, will) come along and fix all the problems.
Although many dismiss Wikipedia for this reason, there is a rising sentiment that is turning back in favor of Wikipedia. Scholars, even, are finding value in Wikipedia. But is it for the facts alone that they find value? Well, more often than not it’s the social commentary that Wikipedia represents that is uniquely drawn from it as a research source. Wikipedia illustrates a process of information dissemination and dialogue, often on contemporary issues that aren't included in traditional encyclopedias.
This is how many today use Wikipedia, and this is how I use it as well. Sorry, Wiki, I don't think you'll ever be a definitive factual source in my research. But you offer an interesting window into the minds and applications of people in the information age.
]]>
So you finally get this web usability thing down, and then an evil boss pops out from around your cubicle corner and ruins everything! Just kidding. But according to Krug, there are two major issues that can sometimes arise from an authority figure, even if they have the best of intentions. Bosses usually suggest: 1) requesting too much personal information from users or 2) ineffective pizazz design elements.
Both of these issues remind me of a recent visit to one of my favorite sites, foodnetwork.com (the website for the food channel.) Just a few days ago I signed up for an online newsletter that sends Christmas cookie recipes to your e-mail (I know, I'm a 70 year old woman living in a 20 year old body....) and I was impressed that the registration was quick and painless. All I had to do was enter my name and verify my e-mail address. The simplicity of the process definitely helped me think better of the site.
Unfortunately, however, the site has also recently undergone a total design make-over...for the worse. The design is notably fancier and conveys a more stream-lined image, but the site just isn't as user-friendly. I miss the old one! This site loads slower (a big disadvantage when my main action is using a search engine to look up recipes) and is almost too streamlined; there doesn't seem to be any visual hierarchy at all! Everything is on the same level and nothing draws my attention first. Plus, they seem to have re-organized some information and I can no longer find information that used to be easily accessible. For example, full cook times for recipes are now hidden in a drop-down menu and a section titled "recipes from the same episode" is now hidden in a tabbed sub-section.
So my feelings are pretty close to what Krug describes in one of his mock e-mails: "Most of the time on the Web, people don't want to be engaged; they just want to get something done, and attempts to engage them that interfere with their current mission are perceived as annoying, clueless, and the worst kind of hucksterism." (184)
I don't know if this redesign came from the request of a CEO or a designer, but I can't help but wonder if they did any usability testing for their new site.
]]>