Skip to content


That’s not trust

The 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer was released recently with a headline that begins, “Trust in Business Rises Globally.” In the United States, trust in business grew from 18% to 54%. That looks like a great improvement. But when you read further, 59% of informed publics ages 25-64 expect businesses and financial companies to return to “business as usual” after the recession is over.

What’s business as usual? If you remember last year’s Siegel+Gale study, “63% percent of believe banks, mortgage lenders and Wall Street intentionally make things complicated to hide risks or to keep people in the dark.”*

That’s not trust. That’s fatalism.

Notes:
  1. * Trust in banks is down 39% since 2007; trust in technology companies is up 2%. []

Posted in reputation.

Tagged with , , , .


User interface friction

Let’s face it: Business systems suck.

I used to wonder why so many business systems are poorly designed. Then I realized that the people who buy business systems based on demos and sales meetings* are never the people who use the systems. They don’t give a damn if the interface makes you want to stab your eye out with a Sharpie.

But they should. As analyst Andreas Pfeifer wrote a few years ago in his User Interface Friction Research, “User interface friction can result in significant productivity loss when it occurs on frequently repeated operations.” Business systems are all about repeated operations, but friction results from amateurish screen design, interface ambiguity, option overload, byzantine or inflexible workflow as well as a lot of other crap that gets in the way of getting the job done.

Andreas’s research compared Mac OS X and Windows XP, but user interface friction isn’t limited to platform issues. Any interface creates friction when it makes it hard to use the tool, which is why many business systems puzzle me. How can they improve productivity when they’re so hard to use? They do, compared to the processes they supplanted, but the question that remains is why they haven’t progressed. My hunch is that expectations are low and few decision-makers see the correlation between usability and productivity.

“Ease of use and elegant, intuitive user interfaces have become as essential as good manufacturing to make a product a success,” Andreas writes. The iPhone raised the bar for cell phone interfaces. It remains to be seen how things are going to play out for the iPad, and I’m curious to see if advances in consumer technology will change expectations for business systems. I hope they do.

Meanwhile, I’m going to be swearing at SharePoint.

Notes:
  1. * Or, stereotypically, hookers and steak dinners, but I think holiday cookie baskets are more common. []

Posted in experience.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .


How will you manage?

Another excellent infographic video from XPLANE. Also, read the brief case study.

Posted in miscellaneous.

Tagged with , , .


Stormy start to the year

Orange Storm

I’m overdue for a Facebook rant, but the new year is off to a stormy start. My computer died and I’ve been busy with a few other things:

Photo credit: Árticotropical / CC BY 2.0

Notes:
  1. * Note to self: Get working on that name. []

Posted in meta.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .


Visual bizspeak

XPLANE-BizCliches_Holidays_2009

Information design consultancy XPLANE has released a visual bizspeak poster for the holidays. Download it. Print it. Find it. Enjoy.

Posted in miscellaneous.

Tagged with , , .


Painfully annoying business jargon

Today on Forbes.com, Christopher Steiner writes about meaningless words and expressions in everyday business jargon, including one of my peeves: solution.

This word has come to mean everything from the traditional way to solve a mathematical proof to a suite of efficiency-enhancing software–and it is perhaps the epitome of lingual laziness. Says Glen Turpin, a communications consultant: “It usually refers to a collection of technologies too abstract or complex to describe in a way that anyone would care about if they were explained in plain English.”

I like the convoluted graphic they chose for the slide show.

Posted in meta.

Tagged with , , .


Worst pie chart ever

Information designers really really really really really don’t like pie charts.

I tend to agree, though I think there’s a limited set of circumstances in which a well-designed pie chart call tell the right story. But I agree that 3D pie charts are universally bad, and I have found a stunning example of a worthless pie chart. In fact, I think I’ve found the worst pie chart ever.*

This information design atrocity was committed by a high profile New York interactive agency that shall remain nameless.**

WorstPieChartEver

Pie charts are used to show the approximate proportional relationship of one slice to the whole pie. Critics of pie charts argue that pie charts are not well suited for exact comparisons of slices because it’s difficult to accurately estimate the relative area of each slice. Rotating a pie chart to add 3D effects compounds the problem.***

In this case, the angle of rotation severely skews the chart, making it impossible to distinguish the relative sizes of the slices without the data labels. The 2% and 8% slices look about the same size, as do the 29% and 42% slices.

The problem is compounded by the bands of color that fill the pie. Unlike most pie charts — the ones you can actually read — the fill on this chart is unrelated to the slices. The slices, which represent the data, are rendered as a white overlay with varying degrees of transparency on each slice.

What were they thinking?

Notes:
  1. * This pie chart from Fox is making the rounds. It’s stupid but not a visual train wreck. []
  2. ** It rhymes with LaserDish. []
  3. *** Jon Peltier illustrates the case against 3D pie charts using a less extreme example. []

Posted in miscellaneous.

Tagged with , .


Where I’ve been

I recently wrote about the Google Chart API, and I’ve been fiddling with it ever since. I’m still puzzling over the data encoding formats, but I’ve managed to create some cool maps with it, starting with this one of the US states I have visited.

There are background color controls for the water, but in the case of the US map, it makes it look like Canada is flooded, so I kept it white. Using Color Scheme Designer, I created an accented analogic color scheme based on the orange I use here and used its deeply saturated blue for the water in a few other maps.

World

It looks like I’ve been more places than I really have. City markers would have been more accurate.

Europe

The API supports gradients, so I might try to count how many times I’ve been to each European country and add another layer of meaning to the data. But not today.

Asia

I also learned that Douwe Osinga built a web application to make this kind of map without messing around with arcane URLs. He doesn’t have pages for Europe or Asia, but he does have one for India, which isn’t supported in the Google Chart API. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to change colors.


Create your own map of India at DouweOsinga.com.

Conclusion

I have wasted could spend a lot of time experimenting with this.

Posted in meta.

Tagged with , .


You keep using that word

Inigo MontoyaI am perplexed whenever I receive a message that is as astonishingly poorly written as the one below. This brief gem came with two embedded graphics and eight fonts in six colors. Most of that adornment was in the 18-line signature, which I will not share out of respect for the sender’s privacy.

Who should I contact about how to work with [your company] on this solution within the [product] team on how the attached soultion (sic) could be apart (sic) of the solution as we offer an OEM Soution (sic) for part of the integration requirements.

The problem

I’ll start with the obvious: spell check. It’s not that hard. In Outlook 2007, select Tools > Options > Spelling > Always check spelling before sending. It won’t catch usage issues like “apart” and “a part,” so you still have to proof-read before sending. Also, a question should end with a question mark.

The fact that this message — seen here in its entirety — was intended as an introductory letter is also astonishing. It makes a horrible first impression. But that’s not the worst part.*

The solution

The part of this message that makes me sick (and sic) is the gross overuse of the word “solution.” Solution is an empty word, generally used to refer to an agglomeration of technologies too abstract or complex to describe in concrete terms. While it might once have had a place in technology business writing, it has been overused** by lazy writers (and business people) and rendered meaningless. Perhaps coincidentally, many technology solutions are also synonymous with vaporware.

Solution is a problem. Avoid it.

P.S.

Dan Santow writes about the equally useless “strategy” on Word Wise. Avoid it too.

Image source: Rakka / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Notes:
  1. * Well, you could make a compelling case that the end of the sentence makes no sense at all, but there’s I’m due on the soapbox in the next section. []
  2. ** Google finds 111,000,000 results for “technology solutions.” []

Posted in reputation.

Tagged with , .


Google charts: Good, bad and ugly

In my previous post, I wanted to quickly chart some simple data for display in the post. I don’t use Excel at home, so my choices were limited to what’s available in Google Docs. I’d used the chart features in Google Docs many times, but only for my own reference, so I’d never really cared what they look like before. When looks matter, Google Docs charts can be frustrating.

Google Docs Chart

I started with the default Google Docs pie chart. (In a Google Docs spreadsheet, Insert > Chart.) It has relatively few options and no control over the colors, font or type size. In a spreadsheet, the chart is adequate, but the text is rendered with a different font that I don’t like. Conclusion: Passable but not desirable.

Google Docs Gadgets

Next, I looked at the three Google Docs pie chart gadgets (In a Google Docs spreadsheet, Insert > Gadget.) which were initially promising. One of the pie chart gadgets looks functionally identical to the previous one, but when it’s rendered as an image it has a frame and a Google Docs logo. It renders with the correct font, which is good, but I didn’t want the frame. Conclusion: Keep trying.

There’s a second pie chart gadget by Google that has similar controls but renders with different colors and in a different type size, along with a border like the previous one. To my eye, the colors don’t go well together and the border feels too tight — so tight that there’s no white space between the legend and the border. Finally, the title doesn’t render as part of the image. Conclusion: Hell, no.

Finally, there’s the FusionCharts Pie & Donut Widget by InfoSoft Global Ltd., which has many more controls than the other two, including font and type size, but it is perhaps the ugliest of the three, with a beveled circumference of the pie and a shaded background, poorly centered in a frame. There is a palette control, but that appears to affect the background and text color only, which is disappointing. Most annoyingly, displaying the editing panel for this gadget expands the rendering area, potentially resulting in an ultra-tall frame if you’re not careful. Conclusion: This is the ugliest yet.

Google Chart API

Finally, I decided to give the Google Chart API a shot. Unlike the Google Docs charts and gadgets, the API has no user interface, so you have to learn the syntax in order to use it, but I thought it was worth the effort to create something that was exactly what I wanted. Well, close enough to what I wanted. I’m still not thrilled with the results, but it was good enough to suit my purposes.

It’s not for the faint of heart, though, since you have to learn the syntax to pass the right parameters to the server in the URL, so this:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p&chs=500×240&chtt=Posts+by+Category+-+Chart+API&chd=t:30,23,22,14,12,5&chl=Reputation|Identity|Influence|Meta|Tips|Miscellaneous

Becomes:
Posts by Category - Chart API

I was generally pleased with the results, though the type is a little small for my taste. The colors match the look here, but that’s purely coincidental.

The syntax is well documented, but I don’t understand why there are different delimiters for each parameter. Otherwise, it’s easy enough to figure out, if you’re patient and don’t mind reading documentation. Here’s how a simple chart URL breaks down.

Server   http://chart.apis.google.com/chart
Type   ?cht=p
Size   &chs=500×240
Title Text   &chtt=Posts+by+Category+-+Chart+API
Data   &chd=t:30,23,22,14,12,5
Labels   &chl=Reputation|Identity|Influence|Meta|Tips|Miscellaneous

 

Conclusion

In the end, I was disappointed with all of the choices. I liked the flexibility of the Google Chart API, but it takes a lot of effort to get the results you want. I was underwhelmed with all of the easier chart options built into Google Docs, and I was even more disappointed when I learned that you can’t embed a chart from a spreadsheet into a word processing document. I appreciate the simplicity of Google Docs, but the chart tools have a long way to go.

Posted in tips.

Tagged with , , .