After the initial automated response, I received a second email from Kohl’s Technical Help department thanking me for bringing my concerns to their attention and helping them ensure that their customers can “Expect Great Things” from Kohl’s. The email went on to tell me that my comments have been forwarded to the appropriate department. I was pleased with the personalized attention that was given to my concern and making me feel that my opinion was valued. But of course, it is one thing to accept criticism and another to act on it. Today, I was happy to see that Kohls.com has made a few changes.

The changes are minor and mostly limited to a switch in the color of the top navigation bar, movement of the search box to the left and enhancing the shopping bag summary display area.

One thing that is missing is the “high contrast style” feature. I’m not sure if this was sparked by my email or if others contacted Kohl’s with similar complaints. What ever the reason, I feel that removing the feature was probably in order. Some areas of the website however, still lack contrast and there is definite room for improvement. But removing a feature that doesn’t work is a move in the right direction.

]]> http://everythingux.com/?feed=rss2&p=277 0 http://everythingux.com/?p=190 http://everythingux.com/?p=190#comments Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:04:02 +0000 Dilini http://everythingux.com/?p=190 While at Kolh’s website recently, I noticed a feature that I thought was quite interesting, the ability to change the page contrast.

The kohls.com original version

I have see sites that allowed visitors to change the color scheme, but not specifically between high and low contrasts. The intention was probably to help those with visual impairments by allowing them to switch to a version of the website they can read more easily.

When the high contrast option is selected, the site changes it’s background color from it’s usual light tan color to black and the text color from a darker tan to yellow.

The kohls.com high contrast site

However, the well intended feature was not well carried out. The designers seem to have forgotten that the background color in some of the areas of the site are images. The result:

So much for a better experience.

Moof.com log in and registration form

This form reminded me of the old school paper forms. Even though it’s an unusual design for a web form, I think it’s quite an interesting spin on the all too common log in/ registration forms. I also like the use of humanized language.

Recycle Collection Can at PDX

On my way back after attending the UPA 2009 conference in Portland, I saw a similar recycle bin at the Portland PDX airport. I think I might have misunderstood the intended use of the complicated trash can at Starbucks. First of all, the one I saw at Starbucks should not have been used as a trash can because it is supposed to be used as a recycle bin. Second of all, in spite of how it appeared, the different slots on the cover are not to separate the items as they are collected. They are simply supposed to indicate what kinds of material are to be put into these bins for recycling.

My problem is no longer only with Starbucks for using the wrong bin to collect trash, they were clearly improvising for the lack of a regular trash can.

So theoretically, if your newspaper is rolled up, it doesn’t make a difference if you slide it into the round hole that says “cans & plastic bottles”/”no cups” or if you unroll it and slide it into the slot that says “newspaper & magazines”.  But for those that are responsible enough to seek out a recycle bin to dispose of your newspaper, doesn’t it make you feel like you have to slide it into the proper slot? Definitely more work than slipping it into a bin with a single opening. The worst part is, it doesn’t even matter which one you put it into! The bin I saw at Sarbucks is even worse because it has 3 openings, differentiating Glass, Aluminium Cans and Newspapers.

Recycle/Trash Bin at CTL

On the same trip while  in transit at the Charlotte CLT airport, I came across a much better designed recycle/trash can that not only required much less work for the user but also accomplished a further step. This one is easier to use because it is easier to understand and is marked more clearly. While it required less work for the user it also sorted the paper from the plastics.  One improvement I would suggest is to put the recycle symbol on  the ‘Plastic’ compartment as well. Otherwise, better design, better experience and less confusion for the users. All with more functionality.

The question posed to Jared and Robert Hoekman, Jr. in this particular podcast was “Why do so many bad designs exist 20 years after Donald Norman’s legendary book on design – Design of everyday things (DOET). It was a lively discussion that talked about, among others, how many badly designed doors (a main point of discussion in Don Norman’s book used to illustrate the principle of affordance) still exist today.

Even though a newbie to the user experience field, I have certainly become more attuned to design elements in every day life since entering the field. I have also since changed my thinking from blaming myself or feeling stupid for not being able to use an object to critically thinking about the design of that object. Countless times, I too have tried to push open doors that need to be pulled because the design provided no or wrong affordance on how to open it. This problem is of course not limited to the design of doors. Websites, software applications, electronic equipments, other architectural elements, vehicles and many other everyday things follow this trend.

Jared, Robert and the caller Scott Berkun ended with the conclusion that the reason for this long history of repeated bad design practices was the fact that as human beings we put up with a lot of things in life. If we fail at accomplishing something because of a design flaw, we learn a way around it so that we don’t fail at it again instead of fixing the design mistake itself. How many times have we all done this? I think oftentimes we do it without even giving it a second thought because we are always trying to get through, moving along, adapting to things as they are without challenging them to make the experience better.

I’m not the first to log bad design and make people aware of their existence. Mark Hurst’s blog on product design and the FAIL blog (hilarious blog featuring design failures as well as everything else in life) have done it quite well. I am hoping to take this one step forward. Whenever possible I plan to contact the responsible parties with recommendations on how to improve their design with the hope of improving their user’s experiences. This is probably a more realistic goal for websites and web applications than any other design domain.

If you come across such design failures, be it a website, software or any other aspect of life, send them along with your experiences and I would be happy to feature it on my blog. If together you and I can do something to improve it’s user experience, we have done well. The more users demand improved experiences, the more designers are challenged to create better designs that result in better user experiences.

Speaking of doors, enjoy this clip that takes the theory of affordance home.

I saw this trash can at Starbucks. Trying to be a responsible citizen, I spent a few seconds to evaluate where I was supposed to put my stirrer and sugar casing only to find that all the holes led to a single trash bag! Why even bother? Unless this top was supposed to go over a specially designed trash can with built-in compartments, there is no way to keep what goes into it separate.

This was next to the sugar/napkin station at the Starbucks, so where do  you get the glass and aluminum cans anyway? Newspaper- I can understand. This is clearly in the wrong place, confusing customers like me who try to care.

I asked my collegue who had his  iPhone handy to take a picture.

I hope you will bookmark this page so that you can come back and check what I’ve been up to.

Thanks for visiting.