Skip to main content

Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998 (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Rank

Bookmark History

Saved by 26 people (-3 private), first by anonymouse user on 2009-02-17


Public Sticky notes

I recently sat through many sessions in which usability test participants attempted to use websites on their mobile phones. What a cringeworthy experience — for both users and researchers. In terms of the user experience quality we observed, it was like stepping into a time machine for a quick trip back to 1998. The similarities were numerous: * Abysmal success rates. I don't want to publish specific numbers until we've completed our next round of testing in London. But in the U.S. sessions, users failed more often than they succeeded when using their mobiles to perform tasks on websites. * Download times dominate the user experience. Most pages take far too long to load, particularly on non-3G phones. But even the highest-end phones deliver much slower browsing than a desktop computer. As a result, users are reluctant to request additional pages and they easily give up. * Scrolling causes major usability problems. In contrast to the 1990s, the problem is not that users don't scroll — it's that they scroll too much. On mobiles, they have to move their minuscule peephole back and forth so often that they lose track of both where they are and what's on the page. Often, they scroll right past something without noticing it. The effect of the reduced viewable area on users is strongly reminiscent of usability issues we found in tests with low-vision users. Using a mobile makes you a disabled user, and we all know that most sites ignore accessibility.

Highlighted by piggex

I recently sat through many sessions in which usability test participants attempted to use websites on their mobile phones. What a cringeworthy experience — for both users and researchers. In terms of the user experience quality we observed, it was like stepping into a time machine for a quick trip back to 1998. The similarities were numerous: * Abysmal success rates. I don't want to publish specific numbers until we've completed our next round of testing in London. But in the U.S. sessions, users failed more often than they succeeded when using their mobiles to perform tasks on websites. * Download times dominate the user experience. Most pages take far too long to load, particularly on non-3G phones. But even the highest-end phones deliver much slower browsing than a desktop computer. As a result, users are reluctant to request additional pages and they easily give up. * Scrolling causes major usability problems. In contrast to the 1990s, the problem is not that users don't scroll — it's that they scroll too much. On mobiles, they have to move their minuscule peephole back and forth so often that they lose track of both where they are and what's on the page. Often, they scroll right past something without noticing it. The effect of the reduced viewable area on users is strongly reminiscent of usability issues we found in tests with low-vision users. Using a mobile makes you a disabled user, and we all know that most sites ignore accessibility.

Highlighted by piggex

Summary:
Mobile phone users struggle mightily to use websites, even on high-end devices. To solve the problems, websites should provide special mobile versions.

Highlighted by drthomasho

In user testing, website use on mobile devices got very low scores, especially when users accessed "full" sites that weren't designed for mobile.

Highlighted by chilee

It's neither easy nor pleasant to use the Web on mobile devices.

Highlighted by chilee

The phrase "mobile usability" is pretty much an oxymoron. It's neither easy nor pleasant to use the Web on mobile devices. Observing user suffering during our sessions reminded us of the very first usability studies we did with traditional websites in 1994. It was that bad.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Mobile users face four main usability hurdles

Highlighted by drthomasho

mobile devices will never offer screens as big or input devices as good as a full-fledged PC.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Moderately rich sites should build two mobile designs: one for low-end cellphones and another for smartphones and big-screen phones. This strategy is especially good if you're targeting a broad consumer audience with many feature-phone users. The small-phone experience is so different that it needs a dedicated and deeply scaled-back design, whereas the bigger phones benefit from a design that's mobile-friendly but not bare-bones. Feature-phone browsing is essentially a linear experience, whereas smartphone and full-screen browsing provide more of a GUI experience — albeit through a limited viewport.

For many sites, however, the only realistic option is to supplement the main site with a single mobile site, recognizing that it will serve plain cellphones poorly. This strategy often makes sense. After all, most low-end mobile users suffer such misery when they attempt to visit websites that they do so only for the most compelling tasks, and thus might not use your site anyway. So, if you have only one mobile site, target the medium-to-higher-end devices, as opposed to making a WAP-like site that everybody will hate.

Highlighted by jlockhorn

Such sites were also more pleasant to use and thus received higher subjective satisfaction ratings. This fact offers an additional rationale: When users are successful and satisfied, they're likely to come back. So, if mobile use is important to your Internet strategy, it's smart to build a dedicated mobile site.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Improving user performance by 1/5 is reason enough to create mobile-optimized sites

Highlighted by drthomasho

The best approach is to auto-sense users' devices and auto-forward mobile users to the mobile site (even if they're using a high-end phone). You should also offer clear links from the desktop site to the mobile site, as well as a link back to the full site. As for link labels, we recommend "Mobile Site" and "Full Site," respectively.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Users repeatedly told us that they don't want to do tasks on their mobiles that involve heavy interaction or in-depth information perusal.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

the bigger the screen, the better the user experience when accessing websites. Average success rates were:

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Most other websites might be better off concentrating their investment on a single mobile site optimized for smartphones and touch phones.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

Although devices will get better, the big advances must come from websites. Sites (including intranets) must develop specialized designs that optimize the mobile user experience. Today, few sites have mobile versions, and those that do are usually very poorly designed, without knowledge of the special guidelines for mobile usability.

Highlighted by breton9

Today, mobile users can do anything. The fact that doing most things takes so long further emphasizes the need for scaled-back mobile site designs.

Highlighted by mehwolfy

It's not enough that your site will display on a phone. Even touch phones that offer "full-featured" browsers don't offer PC-level usability in terms of users' ability to actually get things done on a website.

Highlighted by chilee