Bad UX and the BBC

In fairness to the BBC my biggest gripe isn't against them but with the information architects, UXs, designers, developers and more (I include myself in this) who think that just because brand X does something it must inherently be good UX. Yes, it might be great for brand X but that doesn't make it automatically right for the brand Y project you're working on. Even worse is when the brand X UX isn't even right for brand X in the first place. And that brings me back to the BBC.

Now, don't get me wrong, lots of the BBC's many, many digital projects are fantastic. But other times they've made a colossal camel. ("A camel is a horse designed by committee" is one of my go-to phrases. Also see David Mitchell's excellent soapbox on false collective agreement).

The latest example of this is the new BBC homepage, currently in beta. It's certainly a radical departure from the current site. But that doesn't make it right.





Designed for tablets

The BBC have stated that the site was design for tablets first, and this would be their ongoing approach with other sites. Now, let me ask you, which of these three devices do you think most people use to visit the BBC: computer, phone or tablet? I'll hold my hand up and admit I've not seen any hard numbers, but I'm going to take an educated guess and says it's not the tablet. "But wait!" I hear you cry (Facebook "listen" button again) "they're planning for the future when more people are on tablets". Fair point, but they've not actually designed for tablets. They designed for the iPad.

Don't believe me? Check the fold (the furthest down the page you can see on your browser without scrolling). On the iPad it works great, but on widescreen tablets (as most other tablets are to help distinguish them from the iPad) the fold hides the middle strip of navigation below the screen. To make it worse, the BBC have deliberately made the page 2 screens high. 2 iPad screens. So when you flick to scroll, unless you use the gentlest of taps, the page jumps up to the second screen of content. Which now hides the middle nav above the viewing area.

"Yes" you reply "but most people who have a tablet have an iPad". True. At the moment. But look at the growth of Android. iPhone used to rule the roost. Not any more. Do you really think the iPad will stay in the lead long term? Over the next couple of years we're going to see more and more devices that take bigger and bigger chunks out of the market.

Where does this leave the BBC? Well, we've got a site designed for a type of device that isn't yet that widely used, but specifically designed for the most common version of the device right now and not what could be (Amazon Fire anyone?). A solution that suits few people now and few people later.


Controls

Ah, now here's where things get even more confusing. People swipe when using tablets. They like swiping. It makes them think they're performing a spell on a magical book in front of them, conjuring up wonderful and amazing content. And the Rebecca Black Friday video.

So, how does the big carousel on the new BBC homepage work? You have to click the arrows at the side to scroll. And on an iPad you have to click twice. Yes, that's right, twice. The arrow has a rollover state that tells you you're on page 1 of 3, and changes it to a nice blue colour. Guess what touchscreen devices can't handle. If you said "Rollover states" you win a prize! (If you said "juggling flamingos" you're also right, but I don't think you're helping much with this conversation). Somehow, the BBC have managed to bring it over to the iPad by forcing you to press the arrow once to see this visual delight (HTML5 really needs a sarcasm tag), and then press again to actually scroll. Great, I can't use the technique I'm used to on my tablet, and it takes me twice the effort to get to your content. Thanks BBC!

Now, there is a way around this. A nice way. Make your homepage exactly 1 screen high and have horizontal scrolling. Then use media queries to re-layout your page for computers, sticking blocks of content in a carousel and grouping feeds below it.

Only wait, before we do that, we need to take a look at what that content actually is.


Content

The heart of your site. What you want your users to be able to access, enjoy and share. So why dear BBC, do you feature iPlayer content in your tablet designed homepage that won't play on an iPad? Yes, you can use iPlayer on a iPad, but only if you download the specific app. Click on one of the iPlayer links in the new content carousel and you're take to a single page telling you to get the app. Now, this isn't entirely the BBC's fault. The standard iPlayer needs flash, which iPads don't run (nice one Steve). But the BBC shouldn't be mixing together content that simply won't work on different devices, especially on the device they say they're focusing on.

The rest of the content in the carousel is almost as confusing an experience. There is a hierarchy there, but you have to look hard to see it. A first glance it looks like a mish mash of news, sport, iplayer and more. There is a little more logic to it than that, but having two blocks of content labelled "Headlines" and hoping someone works out that red=general news and yellow=sport isn't making things easy for your users. Go to slides 2 and 3 of the carousel and there's even less structure, with content on vastly different topics sitting alongside each other. Not only does this make it hard to find what you're looking for, it hides entertainment, nature, food and other content.

There's a lot to be said for serendipity, but (and for once an honest, non-sarcastic question) do people go to the BBC site with no idea at all about what they're looking for or their interests? With something like the TED talks this approach works as all the units of contents are 10 minute videos and they're all linked by the theme of telling you something interesting about a field you may previously have known nothing about. I don't buy that users see the BBC in the same way. And I'm not convinced the BBC do either...


Layout

...because if it was pure serendipity, why is there a very clear and useful "Explore" sub nav, and "What's on" TV and Radio ticket on the page. Only they're in the bottom half. Below the fold. To the point where you don't even know there's something below the carousel until after you start scroll. When you think BBC, what first comes to mind? TV? Radio? News? Guides to interesting and, critically, broad topics? My guess is you'll think of all 4, and probably in that order. So why are 3 of these topics buried so low in the page?

I'd love to meet the UX designer who said, "Ah, I see all our site content can be grouped into just over a dozen categories, perfect for sub navigation and guiding a user through the wealth of articles, tips, tools and more. Now, let's stick it in the bottom right corner of the page." It's probably the same one that said, "Millions of people watch and love the BBC. We should tell them what they can watch right now. Let's hide it below the height of most people's screens and give then no indication at the top that there's more information below." Feel free to picturing me slamming my head into my desk at this point.


As you can probably tell, I'm not impressed. But, after all that, it does look pretty. And that's all that really matters, isn't it....

You-oo-oo, Your Kindle's on Fire

Yesterday in New York Amazon unveiled its new Kindle line up. An updated basic Kindle ($79, e-ink), Kindle touch ($99, e-ink, touchscreen), Kindle touch 3G ($149, e-ink, touchscreen, 3G) and, what we've all been waiting for, the Kindle Fire ($199, full colour touchscreen and running on Android).

So, will the Fire will kill the iPad? Of course not. The iPad install base is massive and will dominate the tablet market for the next 2-3 years in the same way the iPhone rules over the smartphone market, but, crucially, iOS no longer does (iOS is the operating system iPhones and iPads run on. Google's Android is the major rival operating system that runs on many, many phones and tablets. It's why you should compare os with os, not model with model). Just like iOS was overtaken by Android on smartphones, Android tablets (in total) will overtake the iPad, and the Fire is quite definitely leading the charge.

What's the Fire got that other Android tablets were lacking I hear you ask? (I installed the new Facebook "listen" button on this blog which automatically turns your computer/tablet/phone microphone on. Okay, I'm lying, but do you really believe it's not coming?) Simple:

• Cost
• Ecosystem
• Familiarity
• Confidence
• Positioning

The cost is going to be the main focus for the next few days and later when the Fire officially goes on sale in November. At $199 it's less than half the price of an iPad and far far cheaper than all other Android tablets out there. Amazon are going to be happy to sell the device itself at a loss (just like the old Kindle) because they'll make all their money on selling you the media to consume on it.

That leads us nicely to the ecosystem. Sure, other tablets have the Android marketplace, but what Amazon can offer is an experience to rival the iTunes store: a single destination with a single log in that lets you download TV shows, movies, music, apps and books with a single click. If you want to know what it's going to be like, download the Amazon mp3 app onto your Android device and buy an album. Seriously, I'll wait. (You can get Pulp: Hits for £3 on there. Yes, I know you've already got Different Class and there's a good chance you've got His n Hers as well, but I bet you don't have This is Hardcore. Got you there, eh.) Right, see how simple that was? And it's even easier the second time when you don't need to set anything up. It's the same for buying an ebook on the current Kindle (like A Game of Throne. Yes, I am going to crowbar in a reference to that in every post. Why? Because it's brilliant) That's what buying all media on your Fire is going to be like.

The other massive advantage Amazon has with its ecosystem is familiarity. Millions already know how to use the Amazon store because they've already been using it on the web for years. And have already set up an account. With their credit card. See where this is going? First time you by an iPad or iPhone you have to set up your Apple ID and provide a credit card. With the Fire you've already done this, and you know exactly how it's going to work.

What about customer confidence? Buying any new device is always a risk. How long will it be supported? What if it breaks? Will anyone else buy one? That's where the Fire once again comes up trumps. The Kindle has a huge install base. By calling their tablet the Kindle Fire Amazon are telling us "it's just like the device you know and love, only even better". No one is going to be worried about buying a Fire.

That leaves us with positioning, and a very smart move by Amazon. They didn't just unveil the Fire yesterday, they sat it alongside 3 new models of e-ink Kindle. This isn't the new iPad, it's an ultra supped up Kindle. Amazon apparently have a 10" model in the works which at a purely visual level would look like an iPad rival, but they deliberately didn't wait for this to be ready. They launched with the 7" version that looked like a Kindle. It's a portable device for consuming media, and for many people that's all they'll want their table for.

As an addendum, I should mention the Fire has a new web browser built in (front end developers are quietly weeping as I write). I'm not technically proficient enough to go into the pros and cons of this, but several commentators are getting very excited about it.

The other question is, where does this leave e-ink? Amazon certainly took a bold step towards answering that with unveiling not 1 but 3 new e-ink devices. If you're a voracious reader, you're going to want an e-ink Kindle over the Fire. But at these prices, you can afford to buy both.

Facebook changes and the impact on brands

Facebook recently announced a raft of major changes to the platform at F8:

• Forget "liking", you can now [verb] a [noun]
• Unimportant updates now go into a new ticker
• Apps only need to ask sharing permission once
• Profiles are becoming Timelines
• You can listen to music and watch TV/Movies within Facebook

So, what does that lot all mean, and how's it going to affect marketers promoting brands on and off Facebook?

[As an aside, I'm going to be referring to "users" a lot below. I know it's an ugly term, but "fans" and "customers" have very specific meanings]


Verbing a noun

For a start, brands are going to have to reevaluate all their metrics and KPIs. The fan count "likes" are still there (for now, more on that later) but if you're used to aggregating your like count across websites and apps you now need to separate it all out again and decide how you're going to weight each component. Is a user "watching a video" as important to you as them "reading an article"? Twice as important? Three times?

The more ways for a user to express the ways they interact with your brand the better (how much attention do you really pay to a string of the same "your friend likes X" posts), but let's face facts, brands don't want powerpoints crammed with lots and lots of data. They want a single number. Preferably large. Ideally gargantuan.

So, before you start work on any project, you need to know all the different ways your users are going to be able to interact with it and how you're going to collate that information into a single, easy to understand score.


The ticker

Ah, the new ticker. You may have seen this already. It takes all those unimportant updates, such as "likes" and "listening to" (you know, the ones we were just talking about) and crams them into a tiny space in the corner of your browser. Leaving aside the fact this practically brings back the dreaded concept of frames to Facebook (seriously, try using your scroll wheel on the different areas of the screen), it also means the majority of those great new interactions users can carry out are tucked away.

It's no good thinking "great, with the new verb a noun I can create a string of apps to push all sorts of interesting and varied messages out to the news feed to draw in a new audience" (I don't actually think like this, but you get the point), as most of that great new content isn't getting within a mile of the main feed. It's early days, but what does look like it'll stay in the news feed is posts from a fan page. This is where you need to focus. Keep putting out interesting and engaging posts. Sure, the fact your fans like and comment on it might get lost to the ticker, but at least the post itself will be seen by your fans.

I suspect Facebook are going to be making some changes to the current ticker as at the moment mine's getting spammed with a string of Spotify posts because everytime my friends listen to something it gets pulled into Facebook. My guess is that they'll ultimately have to change this to show only the latest update from your friend, but keep the posts in chronological order. Either way, you'll need projects/apps/sites that pump regular content out to FB if you want to even get a look in, and ideally you'll want ways users can interact with the post in the ticker (see music and TV later)


Sharing permission

Interesting one this, as at a purely technical level it's always been the case that an app only needs to ask you once for sharing permission when installing the app for it to push umpteen posts out to your wall. The Terms and Conditions insists you ask users each time you post, but there's nothing functionally forcing you to. The announced change really amounts to a simply tweak to the T&Cs.

The bigger, and as marketer more interesting change (and more terrifying as a user) is the way this can apply to Facebook buttons on a website. Click a new "read" button once, and every time you view an article on the site it'll automatically get posted to Facebook. If you've got a "read" button on a great content site, your users will be automatically (and in most cases probably unknowingly) be regularly advertising your brand to their Facebook friends.


Timelines

The one everyone's excited about, but it really boils down to 2 main changes: a massive visual overhaul, which undisputedly looks great, and a minor (but interesting) functional change whereby you can insert posts at an earlier date.

Is that really all they've done? Well, take a look at the current newsfeed, strip out all the visual elements and focus on the content:

• Wall posts
• Photos
• Videos
• Posts to your wall by apps
• Chronological order

What does timeline offer?

• Wall posts
• Photos
• Videos
• Posts to your wall by apps
• Chronological order
• Ability to add post at an earlier date

Yup, the only new addition is that last one.

The important thing here is that Facebook have realised nobody visits your profile page. They only interact on the news feed and on apps. Timeline is an attempt to change all that. Where does that leave brands? Well, this is where pumping lots of great brand related content to users comes into play. It might get lost in the ticker, but it should stand out a lot more on the timeline, particularly if you're including pictures or video.


Music, TV and more

a.k.a. Facebook embrace the walled garden. Now you can listen to music (via spotify) and watch TV (via Hulu in the US) from inside Facebook. Great for users, not so great if you're trying to get brand messages out to people watching the new series of Game of Thrones (now there's a great show). What you can do is look for ways to make your app/project/site interact with the ticker in the same way. If you've got the rights to some music, stick it in the post for others on Facebook to listen to.


Fan pages

Finally, and critically for marketers and brands, what's going to happen to fan pages? Will they be moving to Timeline, stay as they are, or some kind of hybrid? How do you balance a chronological list of what a brand has done with the ability for fans to post to the page? Will fans still "like" your page? There's some theoretical mock ups out there, but none (so far) address the inclusion of fans into the timeline. One thing's for sure: Facebook has a plan and they're not going to tell us until they're ready.