A Terrible Tale of Tables to Tell
By Eddie Lopez. Friday, 20. July 2007, 01:44:45
Big screenshots ahoy! (hence the preview)
Here's a few screenshots of my experience with the most pointless use of tables that I have ever seen in a website. It's as ifthe web designers AT&T wanted to see how much screen real estate they could take up while providing the least amount of actual information.
Here's a few screenshots of my experience with the most pointless use of tables that I have ever seen in a website. It's as if
I was logged into the AT&T wireless website (...which I'll forever call cingular) to check out the plans for my BlackBerry data, and I get this table of plans*:
(Big version here)
On observation, it seems decent enough until you realize that everything to the right of the plan name and the price is completely the same!
Okay you say... so it's not *that* bad of an idea to show that each plan has the same items (I beg to differ), but how do you then explain the text above the table that says: "Plans options include text, IM, or video messaging, Unlimited M2M messaging and/or tethering options"
...there's a handful of "or" statements nestled in with that jibber-jabber; if only there was a way to tabulate out exactly *which* of the plans had what options! But that's a minor issue overall (since it should say something like "depending on your phone"). Who determines what gets included in that paragraph above and what gets included in the table?
And no offense to the canucks and anyone else non-US, but isn't the average shopper more concerned with their own zip code? Shouldn't that be included in the table? (for what it's worth, if I was in Canada, I would say the same thing if I saw "US Data" -who cares?! what's the cost if I go over my SMS limit?)
At this point I should reiterate that I'm interested in the number of text messages I have per month. The paragraph above the table includes "text" very generically, implying that "plans include text" meaning..... ??? Plans include unlimited text?
So, after all of this... where do we stand? I think it's safe to say that we can rule out just about everything on the page other than the price and the plan name as being useful. I'm trying to decipher what I'm looking for strictly off: "BlackBerry Personal MAX with 1500 Messages w/UNLIMITED M2M Messaging". Fine.. but what's the point of the stupid table then? Is it really best practice to try to convey all the nuances of the plan in the name of the plan? What is defined as a "Message"? Is that just SMS? MMS included? And of course it's unlimited M2M messaging... didn't you tell me that all plans included that in the paragraph above the table? If that doesn't apply to all plans, should you put that in the table?
So finally you all tell me... just click the "View Details" (or the plan name, they both link to the same page) and you will get all your questions answered. It's where the (appropriately enough) "details" you seek are that will answer all your questions...
(Big version here)
...eh, maybe not.
*I didn't include the screenshot of the entire table- but the data was the same for all plans. This is a representative sample.
WIDGETIZE
mank1 # 20. July 2007, 05:50
The gridview/detailview is a common convention for displaying data, but it's really not the designer's fault that this particular example doesn't contain any pertinent information. Typically speaking, the designer's job begins and ends with how the information is presented (layout, color, etc.) not what or how much information is actually contained in the presentation.
I'm not a big phone guy myself (I like the units, but detest the calling plans that come attached to them), but my observations of other people who do use calling plans has pretty much guaranteed that I'll stick with my $50 pay-as-you-go phone. I mention this because you asked the same kinds of questions about the plan details that I would, and I would be equally dissatisfied with the answers that the web application itself provides. And it's my unofficial opinion that the lack of detailed information on the website in question is designed for two things: the inquisitive user/potential buyer will accept the ambiguous 'details' out of frustration and just go with it, and/or use up some more minutes calling customer service to get some real answers (and it's my understanding that this can sometimes take quite a while). Either way, AT&T gets the dough.
But, getting back to the usability, the web application does do its job; in that it physically works the way you would expect it to. However, since it failed to answer pretty much all of your questions, an otherwise usable application is rendered perfectly useless.
Anyway, sorry if I got long-winded on that, but I had to fend for the designer. I am one.
Love the blog, man. Later!
Eddie_Lopez # 20. July 2007, 13:27
I used "information architect" at some point when drafting this- I guess it was edited out before I published. Yeah- shocker, *sometimes* I re-read stuff and change it, although you'd never be able to tell :)
I use the term "designer" rather generically here- not specifically a visual designer, interaction design, nor information design. Just the overall "design" of the user experience. (I've changed it to just say "AT&T")
...and to your larger point- that's the whole point of this blog really- not so much that a gridview/detailview is doing what it's supposed to, or that the layout is really fine (from a visual design standpoint) it's the "user experience." This blog is called "user centered" for a reason. I used to develop as well, I'm well aware of what it's like to "just follow the wireframe" or to have your piece of the web application do what it's supposed to do, or the limitations/defaults of the framework/technology that's used.
You've made all the points I was trying to make at the beginning and end of your post -that it's pretty much useless at telling me what I need/want to know and that's why it's *not* "User Centered."
Thanks for the thoughts! Glad you like the blog- (you can contribute! Join and post!)
But the whole point of this post is that from a user's perspective, this page accomplishes nothing. I'm not faulting the desiger, coders, IA, PM, marketing specifically, I'm faulting them all at the same time (hence the generic 'designer' tag).
Sure there's nothing really wrong with the page, technically speaking- but it does nothing at all for me...the customer. And that's the point of the page isn't it? Truth be told, have to agree with you that it probably is just to confuse customers into buying something.
kmaage # 24. July 2007, 12:20
Department A comes up with plans and prices--they're trying to find new and interesting ways of selling the same stuff.
Department B handles the backend database and website code and might set up how each plan interacts with the billing system.
It's department C, the "user centered design" deparment who should be designing efficient and pleasant ways for customers to choose the plan that works best for them.
So, in your example, with a lack of a department C at AT&T, department A does their job, department B does their job, and we poor users are left out in the cold :-(