"El Indio Más rápido Del Mundo"

I recently plugged The World's Fastest Indian into the DVD player, intending to watch it during a treadmill workout. I was shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- when I attempted to activate the subtitles and found that they were available only en Español. That's right; no closed-captioning for the English-reading hearing impaired, no English language subtitles. And with the combination of Anthony Hopkins's accent* -- he's supposed to be a New Zealander -- and his soft voice, I couldn't make out any of the dialog over the noise of the treadmill and the fan.

The movie got good reviews on IMDB.com, so I guess I'll have to watch it the old fashioned way, sans multi-tasking. Still, it chaps me that the makers of a major motion picture would do such a shoddy job with the DVD.

*There's an interesting thread over at the IMDB Message Board discussing the accuracy of Hopkins's accent in the role, and some folks asked for clarification of some phrases that they couldn't quite catch. Gee, wouldn't English subtitles have been helpful?

Mixed Signals

Time for another exciting induction into the Gazette's "Usability Hall of Shame," where we deride, sneer at and cast scathing glances in the general direction of companies that do things to make their customers' lives more difficult.

Today's "honoree" is none other than that ineffable electricity entrepreneur, TXU Energy. TXU's online bill payment process is, overall, pretty good. But one's first encounter is not encouraging, as this is one of the messages you see on the login page:

Well, TXU, which is it? Do you want us to use a secure browser, or Internet Explorer? You can't have it both ways.*

*This is, of course, a highly sought after two-fer: a new UHoS inductee plus a slam on IE.

Usability Hall of Shame #2: SBC (Again!)

What is it about the world of telecommunications that seems to attract corporations who are, frankly, lousy at communicating? When last we visited the Gazette's Usability Hall of Shame, the initial inductees were CellularOne and SBC Communications, the former gaining recognition for its website blunders and the latter for obfuscatory achievement in allowing people to opt out of its policy of sharing its customers' account information.

In this latest round, we find that we're irresistably drawn to SBC, this time for the way its online account management website seems to be at war with itself.

I've tried several times to use SBC's website to add caller ID to my second phone line, a line that shows up every month on our bill. However, I keep running into a couple of barriers to success.

First is the annoying-but-tolerable situation that occurs when, after logging into my account, I click on the link that reads "Shop for Services." Right off the bat, even though I'm already logged in, the website asks for my area code. Well, that seems unnecessary, since I'm already logged in...but, what the heck? I enter my area code (432) and click the go button. And here's the response:

Never mind that the 432 area code is even part of my account number (the account to which I'm currently logged on). Never mind that 432 has been the area code for this part of the country for more than a year. SBC's database refuses to recognize it. I finally have to resort to using the old area code (915) in order to access options for my account (which, again, begins with 432).

This is where things get really interesting. Now I'm in the shopping section, and it helpfully tells me that I'm shopping for my primary number, which we'll call 432-699-aaaa. There's a link that reads "Shop for another number" so I click it, in order to shop for new services for our second line, which we'll call 432-699-bbbb. Here's the message the SBC website provides:

Oh-kaaay...I wonder why I'm billed each month for that number if it's not associated with my account?

The end result is that I cannot find a way, via the website, to order the additional service for the second number.

Eventually, I'll guess I'll have to resort to speaking with an actual person to get this transaction completed. I doubt that I'll ever get an answer to why the website works (or doesn't work) the way it does. So, for now, I'll have to be content with knowing that SBC Communications is the first multiple inductee into the Usability Hall of Shame.

Technorati tags: Website Usability | Website Design

Usability Hall of Shame

One of the effects of my foray into website design is that I've gained a heightened sensitivity to design elements in all areas, from the perspectives of both aesthetics and usability. And what I've realized is that we encounter a lot of bad designs in our daily lives. These designs are often perceived only peripherally, impinging on our senses like a dull headache that's been around for so long that we no longer notice it directly.

Well, I'm tired of suffering silently as a result of dumb decisions on the part of people who should know better. Henceforth, I plan to document the offending products, processes or even people (in a generic way, of course) which add to the collective angst and stress of living in a modern world. Do I expect anything will change as a result of these mini-rants? No...but I'll feel better, in some small but important way. So, I present to you the Gazette's Usability Hall of Shame.

The initial inductees both come to us from the wacky world of telecommunications, from SBC and CellularOne, to be exact.

CellularOne is a multi-billion dollar corporation, and yet it has managed to create and maintain an online account management system that would be cutting edge if we were still living in, say, 1998. The website won't let you save your login information and you can pay bills online only via credit or debit card (as long as you have a Mastercard, Visa or Amex; no Discover, please. When it comes time to enter your payment information, the input field for the credit/debit card number has been designated as a password field, meaning that instead of being able to see the 16 numbers you're typing, you see a string of black dots. If you make a typo, you won't know it until the transaction is rejected. Note to CellularOne web designers: password fields are for passwords.

Let's move on to SBC, another multi-billion dollar corporation who cares about protecting customer privacy so much that they just sent out a letter letting us know that they really, really care. However, they're still going to share our "customer proprietary network information" with related companies unless we call a certain phone number by a certain date and follow the instructions given to us by the computerized voice on the other end of the line.

I decided to opt out of SBC's "policy of caring" and so I called the number, where I was instructed to enter my phone number, area code first, followed by the seven digit number...followed by the three numbers that follow my phone number as it appears on my bill. What?! Why did they think it was unimportant to mention that in the letter? Of course, I had to hang up and go find a bill, and start the process over (which, by the way, involved redialing six times because the tollfree number was now busy). Note to SBC letter writers: When sending instructions to customers, why not consider the revolutionary idea of sending complete instructions? Unless, of course, you really don't want people to use that nasty opt-out option.

Here's another note to all companies who deal with private citizens as customers: we don't like having to opt-out of something in order to protect our personal and private data. So don't do anything extra with that data unless we explicitly agree to opt in to whatever you have in mind.

OK...I feel better. Any other nominations for the Usability Hall of Shame? It's a pretty big edifice, although I suspect we could still fill it in a hurry if we concentrate.

Apple fumbles user interface

I bought MLB an iPod shuffle, making us a four 'pod family. She doesn't need a shuffle, but then, who does? That's not even a relevant issue.

She thinks it's just the cutest thing...as do we all...but right out of the box she made an observation that confirms what I've been thinking for a couple of months, since I got my shuffle: Apple fouled up the power switch. Unless you are equipped with gecko-like fingers or perpetually sweaty hands, it's dang near impossible to slide the switch on or off. Kudos to Apple for achieving such close manufacturing tolerances, but the flush-mounted switch provides no traction to operate it.

I suggest that the next generation of the shuffle come with tiny serrations on the surface of the switch, providing the user's finger with some purchase that's sorely lacking on the current smooth and seamless mechanism. Because, frankly, it's a little uncool to have to lick your finger before you can groove to your shuffling tunes, if you know what I mean.

And the shuffle is all about cool.

Technorati tags: Apple | iPod | User Interface