pjsherman's photostream  

This is an object lesson in how not to lay out a screen.

Background: While configuring a Linux PC I was setting up Ubuntu One, Canonical's cloud sync service. After I entered the confirmation code I received via email, I was taken to this screen.

My first reaction: Blargh! Where do I look first? What do I do?

Let's break it down:
1. None of the calls-to-action appear to be primary. Nothing screams "Start here! Click me first!"
2. The layout is an eye-hurt. No really. I'm not exaggerating, it /actually/ hurts my eyes. I can't recall the last time a screen layout actually made me go cross-eyed. None of the page elements - controls, text, images - seem to have been aligned. It looks like the UI fairy barfed up links and controls onto the page.

3. When I was a wee little UX baby, mama always told me "If you can't choose one font size, might as well use them all." Unfortunately, mama was wrong. On this screen it adds to the difficulty finding the "start here" call-to-action.

4. Screenshots are helpful in theory. But they have to illustrate something helpful to the user. This one falls short. The detail is too small to be of use. It just causes eyestrain. Or maybe I'm just getting old, and you youngsters have no problem with it. Well good for you. And get off my lawn.

I know I've ranked on Linux before, and I readily admit that Canonical has made great strides creating a better user experience for desktop Linux. Ubuntu 11.10 is by far the most usable Ubuntu release ever, and Ubuntu has always stood above other distros in the install, setup, familiarization and adoption user experience. But like any app or OS that comes from a legacy of "built by geeks for geeks", there will always be areas of the user experience that don't get the UX love and attention they deserve.

This is an impromptu video of me interacting with the Google+ "add people to circles" feature.

Like most things we interact with in the world, there's some good and some not-so-good to the experience.

First, the good:
1. The people "cards" are just the right size. The picture is just right also - big enough so I can recognize the person, small enough to fit their name.
2. It was also a smart idea to just show the target's name (or email if the name is unavailable). It makes for easier and quicker scanning and target acquisition.
3. The whole card is a click target.
4. You can select multiple cards with clicks; no CMD+ or shift+click necessary. However, using a key combination (which some people will carry over from the desktop software interaction paradigm) works just fine as well.

The not-so-good:
1. Drag and drop appears to be the only way to get people into circles. Really? Given Google's demonstrated commitment to accessibility, I *can't* believe this is the only way to manage circle assignment. I must be missing something. That just can't be.
2. A few times I highlighted multiple cards and then inadvertently deselected them. I have no idea why or how.
3. Believe it or not, on first view I thought Google+ had only found 28 (7 x 4) people I knew. It took more time than it should've to realize that the card area was scrollable. I might not be able to pin that on Google however. I used Safari on Mac OS X 10.7, which together are a walking advertisement for iOS disappearing scrollbars.

So what does this little veal demonstrate? I guess it shows that even cutting-edge design with massive resources behind it can still occasionally be a struggle for users. Oh, and don't forget the accessibility.