Interview with Scott Lewis

Interviewed by Matthew Hinch.

Could you please introduce yourself?

Certainly, my name is Scott Lewis. I am a web developer and the creator of the SkyBlueCanvas Lightweight CMS. I live in Richmond, Virginia in the USA.

Please tell us a little about SkyBlueCanvas.

I originally built SkyBlueCanvas for a web site for a friend. At that time I was using Mambo on a lot of projects but my friend’s web site was so small that I knew I would spend more time supporting my friend’s site through teaching her how to use Mambo, what features she didn’t need to worry about and that sort of thing. I decided it would just be easier to write a very simple tool for her to update the pictures, links and text on her site.

That was about 4 years ago and I have since re-written SkyBlueCanvas about 5-6 times and used it on about twenty or so sites. It really matured and become a very useful little program.

Do you feel that the common use of Javascript effects in interfaces serve only to enhance the experience or can they make it easier? What are the advantages or drawbacks?

I think there are both advantages and drawbacks. In my opinion JavaScript effects are like any other tool. When they are used wisely they can greatly enhance the experience and improve usability. Used incorrectly, JavaScript effects can hinder usability. The onus is really on the designer/developer to make good decisions based either on research and usability testing or on the wealth of available knowledge regarding computer human interaction and usability.

The advantages are a much more rich user experience including features like look-ahead typing in text/search boxes, customizable personal home pages like the one Google offers in which users can re-position blocks on the page, photo slideshow viewers, and probably the most useful – page redraw without having to re-load the entire page.

In the drawbacks column, I would say the biggest offender has nothing to do with the technology but with designers. As designers and developers we get to have a lot of fun with these cool effects, but it is very easy to forget that the web site is ultimately not about us but about the site visitor or user.

Security and memory usage are also concerns that I have. I think the ease with which a lot of these effects can be implemented less knowledge about what the computer and browser are actually doing is required. This increases the need for developers to be mindful of the security issues.

Memory usage is not as much of an issue given the faster internet connection speeds and processor speeds in computers today. However, studies show that you have – if you are lucky – about 3 seconds to capture a site visitor’s attention. If they have to spend those 3 seconds waiting for their browser to download, parse and compile a lot of JavaScript you will probably lose them.

There has been a strong emergence of web based applications under the ‘Web 2.0′ umbrella. Do you think these can discriminate against the less web-savvy and can accessibility be lost?

Absolutely. First, I really cringe every time I hear the phrase ‘Web 2.0′. It seems to imply that we have invented something new under the sun – which we haven’t. That being said, I think the “Rich user experience” is very much biased towards a younger, more computer savvy audience. I am still fairly young at 38 and I did not use my first computer until I was in university at about age 22. Admittedly I got a late start but there is now an entire generation of computer and web users who do not remember when the cassette tape was bleeding edge technology, 4MB was a massive amount of storage space and the Commodore 64 had the most advanced computer graphics available.

Many web interfaces are designed around common principles. Do you think cloning popular desktop application interfaces speeds up user familiarization and ease of use?

I think the answer to this question depends on what aspects of desktop applications are being cloned. The desktop software industry has a few decades of research on computer human interaction under its belt and I don’t see a good reason to try to re-train users. I think a related issue is the confusion that can be caused when the web experience is too unrelated to the desktop experience. There should be some continuity between the two experiences but continuity does not necessarily mean they need to be identical experiences.

Do you think this hinders new good design and creates the wrong impression of the internet?

I don’t think so. Fortunately I think the wide acceptance of web standards has gone a long way toward encouraging continuity in the web experience. I think the situation is actually pretty positive in that most web designers and developers that I know willingly embrace accessibility and usability principles. I think a balance will naturally emerge in which the web evolves its own metaphors. This is, in my opinion, already happening.

Do you think there could be a distinct web interface, unrelated to old desktop software or print that we’re all so used to?

Well, predictions are almost always wrong but I’ll have a go at this one. I have my doubts that it is even possible. I will give you a great example to explain why. David Carson, an American Graphic Designer, published a book several years ago titled “The End of Print”. In the book Carson predicted the end of print as we know it as a result of the web. I recall one page that was printed with the text beginning at the bottom of the page and going towards the top. It was completely unreadable.

Rather than demonstrate the eminent collapse of print, Carson’s book did a much better job of demonstrating why the metaphor of print and the established conventions work. They have become ingrained in the human psyche over roughly 6,000 years of exposure. I don’t think a few or even several generations of web technology is likely to replace the existing conventions. I also suspect that the established conventions are strongly related to the human consciousness and our sense of sight. The form of the human body is primarily vertical. Our fairly wide field of vision gives us a primarily horizontal perception of the word. I think there is probably a correlation between these two facts and the way print and computer interfaces have evolved.

SkyBlueCanvas is extremely easy to use. What ideas are effective at creating a highly usable environment?

I think the single most important consideration in designing for usability is to try to understand what the intent of the user is. I try very hard to see the interface and organization of information, groupings and tasks from the perspective of the end user. I start by asking myself “What end result is the user trying to achieve?”.

Second, I try to distill every feature or concept down to its simplest form. If you can whittle something down to only its most essential components you will get very close to a usable feature.

One really good rule of thumb is what I call the “Big Red Button”* approach to design. The most important controls should be the largest and appear in the most prominent position. For readers of western languages the most valuable real estate on the page is the upper left-hand region of the page because we read left-to-right, top-to-bottom.

Finally, and I cannot stress this point strongly enough – always test your assumptions scientifically. With enough experience, a designer can learn what works and what doesn’t but in the end, the users decide whether or not you have created something useful.

There are sites out there committed to embarrassing poor web design. Is there one trend or technique you’d love to never ever see again and what websites would you like to shame?

I think the majority of sites on the web are pretty hideous … but, I’m going to decline to answer this one. I have made some really bad design decisions over the years and I still have a lot to learn. I wouldn’t want to be judged by a single snapshot of a lifelong learning process.

* I have to confess that I did not coin the phrase “Big Red Button”. I borrowed it from my mentor, George Flanagin, who I believe sure learned it from someone else.