3 ms·
Did you read it? This isn't a "your site isn't usable to the 1% of users with motor disabilities" Nielsen article. WSJ spent money to create an app that, becau
by asolove 15y ago
Did you read it? This isn't a "your site isn't usable to the 1% of users with motor disabilities" Nielsen article.
WSJ spent money to create an app that, because of one poor piece of text, made existing, paying customers dislike them.
And not for a real reason, like charging them twice, but a misunderstanding caused by bad copy and never testing the app with real subscribers.
- dimmuborgir 15y agoFirst, how Nielsen came to conclusion that the reason for the app's bad rating is its startup screen design is beyond me. Read the comment of cageyjames. That could be the reason. Second, usability isn't a science. So it's vulnerable to criticisms.
- Silhouette 15y ago> Second, usability isn't a science. You seem to be using a different definition of "usability" to most of us throughout this discussion. To people like Nielsen (who certainly popularised and arguably originated the term) usability is like a science: it is about measuring how people behave in practice and improving your product in light of that hard data. Once may draw inferences from that data, if patterns start to emerge where some practices are on balance superior to others, but just as in science, such inferences are falsifiable and only as good as the latest data set. It is more than a little ironic that useit.com itself has become less usable over time, according to many of the very factors that Nielsen himself has commented on in the past...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cageyjames 15y agoThere is no confusion in the policy that the WSJ charges twice for access. We all know this and that is why we download it for free and then give it a one star rating. Compare the iPad WSJ reviews with the iPhone one. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-wall-street-journal/id364387007?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-wall-street-journal/id364...