4 posts tagged “thoughts”

I must admit, I get choked up over buttons. Good buttons. Nice buttons. Helpful buttons. I'm not talking about the buttons on the shirt I'm wearing, nor the ones on my coat. I'm of course talking about virtual buttons: buttons on websites and in interfaces.

We're in the midst of redesigning our site at work, and the form standards (which are all-new) were gleaned from lots of research already out there. I did want to take a moment to talk about buttons, though, since I love them so.

Dry and Cold

Most buttons on most websites evoke no emotional response. "Submit" and "Submit Query" are the most common in part because they're the defaults for the submit input element. Lots of new folks are quick to leave these and just never come back to change them, and I think this is a grave mistake.

When someone clicks a button, that button should give evidence as to what it's going to do. Like on the page I'm typing this into right now has a big ol' Save button at the bottom, centered, and called out. That's great: it's an easy target, easy to read, and tells me exactly what it's going to do. Compare this with, say, this random form. "Send". True, but blah. And don't get me started on the "Clear" button. (Don't ever use them, ever. Ever. Ever.)

One fine example comes from Google Checkout. When you're at the very end of the checkout process, the final button, the one that does everything, the one that makes you give up money, is labeled: Place Your Order Now $779.99. Very nice: it tells you what it's going to do, and how much it's going to cost - a big relief to see, even though it's on the page multiple times.

We've taken that and adapted it for our e-commerce transactions. For instance when you're signing up for a class or event on our site, we've changed the old "Register Now" button to the dynamic Register Now - Charge My Card $30.00. For donations, Donate Now - Charge My Card $30.00. It tells you exactly what it's going to do and what will happen.

Obvious

One other issue with a lot of buttons is that they aren't called out very well. They tend to be the default Sleepytime Gray color. Color is important to use correctly, and can be used with buttons to make actions more obvious.

Again, using the Vox compose page as an example the giant Save button (as well as the less important "Edit Date" link) are in an area backed by a Web 2.0 gradient. That's good: it draws your eyes' attention there so you can say (interally), "Oh yeah, that's where I need to go."

We've run with that idea too. Our buttons are now our corporate color (purple), and are set against a lighter purple background color. The standards dictate that only one action button appears on each page under most circumstances (there are always exceptions!) This means that any other actionable thing is styled as a plain link - just like Vox's "Edit Date". It's there, it's still got some importance, but not as much as completing your transaction or continuing on in the process.

Default

The surprising thing in all this is that people have grown accustomed to the dry, robotic "Submit Request" and its friend "Submit". Thus, when we see a great example of an emotional button we might feel even more than we ordinarily would. Vox's Save doesn't move me as much as our Register Now - Charge My Card, but I'm jaded. The simple fact that the Save button is larger-than-average makes up for it a bit, and definitely points people in the right direction.

When we work with websites and computers, the dialog should mimic person-to-person interaction as much as possible. That means paying attention to the little details, right down to the cold "Submit Request". I encourage you to give your default buttons a second look, and think about what they really do. Then, restyle them. Pretty them up, make the text work, and give your visitors an experience.

So I'm starting to percolate here, thinking about what my next camera will be. As some of you may know, I currently only have one: a Canon PowerShot A80 that has generally kicked butt for me for the past few years. I actually sold off my two film cameras (one automatic, one manual) in order to get it. I don't regret that decision but, a part of me kind of wishes I'd kept at least the ME Super.

In any case, the next camera is on my mind. I've already put together a list of the pros and cons of the A80 and, surprisingly, the cons list is not long but the cons are kinda big.

The Cons

By far the biggest complaint I have about it is the lack of zoom; it does 3x optical and I won't use digital zoom, which means that it kinda isn't that great at zooming. Bulk is another issue but it's one I'm starting to accept. When I bought it, Jeani was surprised at how big it was. After my ol' Olympus 1.3 megapixel (my first "modern era" digicam - check that big thing out below) she expected me to go with something much smaller. The A80 is still smaller than the olde camera, but not by a lot.

Little cameras are interesting to me, and most digital cameras - point and shoots - are either really damn small or fairly bulky. The A80's successors are a bit smaller than the A80 but not by large amounts. I'm also now fairly comfortable with its size. It's not like toting around a DSLR; I can throw it in my bag but not my pocket and that's mostly okay. So while the A80 is bulky compared to a teeny tiny PowerShot, it's not bad.

The A80's cons continue: it's not great in low light, but I'm finding that a lot of little digicams are this way. I strongly prefer not to use a flash unless absolutely necessary - it's a snobby habit of mine - and sometimes this means I lose a shot because of a lack of light. The image sensor is small like in every other point-and-shoot, which means that in order to get some "classic" depth of field I'd need to edit digitally. Not a fan of that. Finally, 4MP is good but not great. I know that I don't need a 10MP monster unless I'm doing a DSLR, and would be fine with 5-7MP.

The Pros

There are a lot of things I still like about the A80. It pretty much does what I want it to do, and that's great. When I shared my published photos with my boss, he said "So you've got a high-end setup to take those, right?" and I don't. I've received comments that my flickr photos are above and beyond what people expect out of an A80, and that's something I'm really pleased to hear. The camera also runs on AA batteries which is really nice, as I'd rather not have to get a proprietary battery. (This pretty much knocks tiny digicams out of the running.)

The swivel LCD is pretty much a "can't live without it" feature. It's killer. I always use it, love it, and would hope that my next camera would have it as well. The ability to add 52mm lenses/filters is great as well and was one of the selling points for me. I use the macro lenses EJ gave me to get awesome results. The built-in macro mode is acceptable but I'm a big macro geek and love this stuff. Note that I could purchase a 2x teleconverter lens, and effectively get 6x optical zoom with my current setup. I'm just not sure if that'd be enough for what I want to do.

So, The Contenders

I've been locked into "MUST GET DSLR" mode since a year or so ago and, as a result, I'll have fits and spurts where I end up taking no photographs because I feel so internally torn over using my current kit. (This is a flaw of mine, and I'm currently in a dry spell with photographs but I can pin that on moving instead.) DSLRs are really nice, of course, and you already know why.

If I go the DSLR route the choices are numerous. The Digital Rebel XT is the pseudo-default choice but, really, I'd be considering the Pentax *ist line as well. My dad had a Pentax film camera, I had two Pentax cameras, and I generally like them. And I can't rule out a look at the Nikon D50, since I'm not truly bonded to one brand - although I certainly like Canon.

The interesting twist is that I'm seriously considering a non DSLR - in particular, the Canon PowerShot S2 IS. Yes, it's actually bigger than the A80 - that isn't lost on me. But it's got a 12x zoom, a great movie mode (something I have used about thrice on the A80 but enjoyed), and the swivel LCD I enjoy. The S3 IS is something under consideration too but, the new features aren't worth the extra money to me. If they were priced exactly the same, I'd go for the S3 of course.

The S2 isn't great in low light, though - perhaps better than the A80 and probably not as good as a DSLR. The big advantage that the S2 has over a DSLR kit is, naturally, price. I'm still very much mulling over how "worth it" all of this is to me.

In other words, do I want to wait longer and plunk down $600+ on a starter DSLR kit, wait just a matter of weeks and get an S2 IS, or say "screw it all!" and get a film SLR?

This is where I'm at now. I'm leaning strongest towards the S2 IS at this moment, but a nice *ist isn't lost on me - and the cost difference isn't that great.

Tomorrow, Can I Still Read a JPEG?

I'm a little concerned about the future though; film still has more permanence than digital. All 12000+ photos I've shot with my last two cameras have the potential to be junk if the JPEG format is rendered obsolete in 25, 50, 75 years. That is a big tradeoff! I mean, if we have kids someday, I'd like them to be able to see what I've done.

With film, getting in to a body and lens is a lot cheaper particularly if I go for used - which I would. I can pick up an ME Super again or even a K1000 (my first real camera, passed down from my dad) for less than an S2 IS. The downsides with film are, of course, that I'd have to pay for each roll, and then get the results on the computer via a scanner (probably). So with digital, I essentially pay a "one-time" fee for the camera, memory card and battery; with film, I pay per use.

The thoughts of Ken Rockwell aren't lost on me; digital and film do have different applications. And a lot of his arguments will fall by the wayside (aside from the semi-permanence angle) in a few years when point and shoots will have 15-20MP and DSLRs will be above 30MP. Which is better for me, then? A mild digital upgrade, a big digital upgrade, or changing over to film? I'd keep the A80 in probably any case and just let it be my little beater camera.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, particularly if you struggled with the same dilemmas. Film, "prosumer" digital, DSLR... fun stuff, this.

Amazon launched its video download service, Unbox, today in advance of Apple's expected entry into the fray next week. Here are my initial thoughts given I can't use the thing because I'm on a Mac.

• The pricing is not horrible. $1.99 for a TV show is typical. $3.99 for a rental undercuts my local Blockbuster by 30 cents. Purchase prices aren't too bad - many are $9.99 or thereabouts but I did see some for $20, which isn't an advantage over buying a DVD.
• You can burn to DVD, but it doesn't work in any DVD player so this is just for backup. Lame.
• They offer Trek, which means Paramount hates iTunes for some reason.
  
• Doesn't work on iPod or with iTunes natively; wonder if there's a way to strip the DRM.
• Must use Amazon's player (gee, more programs, thanks.)
• The quality is DVD quality and, if you want it, a smaller, worse quality version for your portable video thingie. That's nice. However...
• Download times suuuuck. Per Amazon's own chart, a two-hour movie takes almost two hours to download on a 3.0mbps connection. On my so-so 1.5mbps at home, it takes almost four hours. That's unacceptable to me. I know that's not Amazon's fault.

So, if a movie takes four hours to download I could in theory set it to download in the morning and have it on my computer at night. But I can just stop at Blockbuster on the way home (or use Netflix, dur) and for that extra 30 cents on the rental I can actually play it in my DVD player, which has much more comfortable seating nearby.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again but, anything that doesn't support the iPod does face an uphill battle. It's funny how Amazon addresses this in the FAQ:

Can I use Amazon Unbox on my Macintosh or iPod?

No. Apple Computer Inc. has exclusive rights to the hardware and software that would make this possible. Because of these restrictions, we are unable to make Amazon Unbox compatible with these products. While it is possible to run one of the approved operating systems on computers made by Apple, we cannot guarantee the performace [sic] of Amazon Unbox on these systems.

The thing is, that's not entirely true. Amazon could sell non-DRMed videos which would work splendidly on an iPod - they just choose not to (either by force from the MPAA or not - but probably so.) This kind of oh-so-slight misinformation bugs me a lot; the truth is that both sides are using DRM, one shittier than the other (arguably), and they don't work together. The correct answer would be:

Can I use Amazon Unbox on my Macintosh or iPod?
No, because the copy protection Amazon Unbox's downloads uses is designed only for the Windows platform and Windows-compatible devices.

That's the real truth. Why doesn't Amazon just say that?

One last thing that is actually great is that this does provide competition for iTunes in the pricing department. The first season of Firefly is on sale at Unbox right now, and it undercuts Apple's price by a few bucks. That's good! I hope Apple considers responding in kind. (They might even consider doing a "series run" sale - buy all x seasons and save money.)

And About Apple

The rumors on the internets say that Apple'll open up a movie store next week, selling movies and not doing rentals. $10 for old movies, $15 for new. No word on quality or selection. The rumors also state that if Apple does start out it'll be only with Disney (surprise).

It's my opinion that the pieces are indeed coming together for some awesome convergence, but we're not quite there yet. If Apple offers high quality downloads like Unbox, it'll take a fortnight to download the things. That's a bad experience. If they offer middling quality, people will bitch about it (and rightfully so at $10 - $5, maybe not.)

Apple isn't big on bad experiences, so I'm hoping these rumors turn out to be false. I find it a bit hard to believe that Apple would settle for a mediocre experience to appease the movie studios... but time will tell.

Rebox

So, in summary, Unbox will serve as an interesting experiment - perhaps, nothing more.

Addendum: About Rentals

I learned today that the Unbox rental model is this: you can watch it one time within a 30-day period. That plainly sucks, and I'll definitely pay the extra money to get it from Blockbuster because I can watch a film 18 times within a week. That's much more valuable to me. Can't imagine many people enjoying that restriction.

Apple's gotta pull a rabbit out of its hat if they're going to compete with Unbox, but the MPAA's restrictions are horrible.

Time Machine looks nice but the Star Trek background is just crazy geeky. I was wondering what UI conventions were in place when this was designed - I mean, it entirely throws the UI out the window. That's fubar. ("Press the Cancel button and launch yourself into... hyperspaaaaaace!") C'mon, where's the "Pro" mode once I start getting tired of those animations? And thanks for getting rid of the dock and menu bar. Sheesh. WTF.

To-do lists in Mail are killer. I already mail myself to-dos at home and at work (usually from one to the other), so a smart client would be nice. (Although, I do have a rule set up in lowly Outlook for them, and it works fine.) It's only a matter of time before there's a bridge between Apple's to-do, Apple iCal, and Basecamp/Backpack. I was annoyed, however, that Mail's lame-ass toolbar icons weren't changed. They're an anamoly. Get rid of them, please.

Finally, I think the iChat upgrade is a very, very wise - but quiet - play for businesses. Yes, you can do video backgrounds and photo backgrounds. (I IMmed Dave that it would be smart to record footage of one's office, and then give everyone the impression that one was always working.) The iPhoto slideshows with video are very slick, great for family, but the Keynote presentations and even the iPhoto shows are awesome for business. If I work remotely and need to show a bunch of slides, for instance, I don't have to do a WebEx or LiveMeeting or any crap like that. That is nice. That's very nice!

And being able to share desktops over iChat is a total play for business. I can't tell you how many times I've done that with Windows, and I can't tell you how many times it's pissed me off. If it's pulled off elegantly - now only a 50/50 shot with Apple given Time Machine - it's going to be a godsend. I mean, if my mother-in-law is having problems with her Mac mini, I can just ask her to let me see the desktop. That's how it should be on any operating system.

All in all, the announcements yesterday were solid but not out-of-the-park, and that's okay. The Mac Pro looks great of course, and the base configuration finally has an acceptable amount of memory (1GB!)... but I'm still hoping for an updated Finder. Aren't we all?