Chart.ly Off Course

Posted on June 1, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

The Credibility of a product is absolutely critical, whether it is coming from a brand-new startup, or an established corporation. There is a great deal that goes into the Credibility of a product, from the people that hype it, to its visual presentation. However, there are a few basic elements that go directly to the foundational aspects of product Credibility upon which the rest of the product’s truthfulness is built.

Quick-UX provides for the rapid, simple and quantifiable assessment of a product’s User Experience (UX). In answering the question of Usefulness, "Should I use it?" the sub-category of Credibility is one in the frequent discussion of cautious engagement, especially in the ever increasing, in both frequency and size, waves of introductions of online products.

Establishing and maintaining Credibility is the removal, or minimization of concerns arising from these types of questions. Many elements (design, accuracy, usability, timeliness, advertising, etc.) contribute to the positive, or negative, perception of overall product Credibility, but for Quick-UX’s evaluation we assess only the most elemental. For a refresher of the Quick-UX Credibility Rubric visit: Quick-UX & Credibility: Do you believe?

Today, we will look at the second of a set of two products that achieved a solidly Low Credibility value of 0.325.

Low Credibility

Each of these 0.325 scored websites leaves an incomplete feeling of Credibility, in-part due to design, marking, color choices, etc. But, overall this set of products with solidly Low Credibility were assessed low values due to a lack of fulfilling some of the most basic, and easiest to achieve, fundamental elements inherent to any quick assessment of a product’s Credibility.

Example 2: Chart.ly

Chart.ly is a "business built on top of a business built on top of Twitter," essentially a "TwitPic for stock market investors."

The benefits of this business model are in the partially inherited Credibility of all the connected businesses. Another positive can be seen in Chart.ly’s design, which is very much inline with the product that this product connects to and works with, Twitter.

Real People

Chart.ly does have a lot going for it, from the thorough support forum to the links to a couple of the founders’ Twitter accounts.

It is a boost to its Credibility to see other seemingly real people working with the product, having issues, discussing them, resolving them, etc. The UserVoice forums go far in showing that there is, at least, a real community of people using this product. It would be even better to see, and have easily conveyed to the potential user, information about the real founders and other people behind this product.

There are some well recognized names within the market space standing behind the product. However, it is unfortunate that the product does not actually explain this, or tell anything about these people/companies, anywhere.

Another mixed positive counting towards the Credibility value of Chart.ly is that on one hand, an email address is provided, but on the other hand it is associated with a completely different domain than that of Chart.ly. This discrepancy will give some users pause before either emailing or making use of the product.

Name and Password, Please

At the top of the Chart.ly’s homepage the user is prompted to login and provide their username and password. For individuals not independently familiar with the listed twitter accounts or Howard Lindzon or Timothy Sykes, providing such sensitive information to a 3rd-party service is a scary prospect to the typical consumer — most especially within a product that has not previously established its Credibility, its trustworthiness.

Should Do

The professional design goes far in bolstering the case for a credible site, but without the other basic components that constitute Quick-UX’s Credibility value, even more critical in a finance oriented product, the foundation upon which the "trusting" relationship exists is a sparse one, but one that with a little bit of focused effort can be easily solidified.

One such prime example of solidifying the foundation of Credibility can be seen in having what would be commonly referred to within other products as an ‘About Us’ page. Users should not have to work to establish a product’s Credibility. The information (about, contact, corporate headquarters, etc.) should always be within easy reach.

The easier it is for the user to establish the Credibility within the product (verses searching via Google), the quicker the user can simply get to the core value being offered. Those individuals behind this product have very strong biographies and can start enhancing the Credibility of this product by making them more evident and accessible to visitors of Chart.ly.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Subscribe now (click here) to make sure you don’t miss any part of this series exploring the Usefulness and Credibility components of Quick-UX, the quick and easy method of generating quantifiable and comparable metrics representing the understanding of the overall User Experience of a product, as well as other insightful posts from The Product Guy.

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

Add to Social Bookmarks:

Puzzling Pogby

Posted on May 25, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

Today, we will look at the first of a set of two products that achieved a solidly Low Credibility value of 0.325.

Low Credibility

Each of these 0.325 scored websites leave a varied resultant feeling of Credibility, in-part due to design, marking, color choices, etc. But, overall this set of products with solidly Low Credibility were assessed low values due to a lack of fulfilling some of the most basic, and easiest to achieve, fundamental elements inherent to any quick assessment of a product’s Credibility.

Example 1: Pogby

Pogby is an event planning and venue booking product that presents a welcoming experience.

But, while there are clearly…

No obvious typos and
Contact methods are provided,

…many other elements are absent, most importantly those …

Showing the real people behind this organization, and
Establishing other characteristics that cement the "realness" of the organization (e.g. physical address).

The content and function of the site is presented fairly well.

But, when it comes to the content of ‘About Us,’ there is a clear disconnect in expectation.

The ‘About Us’ page goes far in describing the intricacies of the product, but misses on the ‘us.’ They leave one central question unanswered..

Who is/are us?

Awk Ad

Pogby has a nice color scheme. This color scheme is strangely very well coordinated with the single advertisement of the product.

The position of the ad, coupled with its color scheme, brings up questions of ulterior motives and inherent biases. While not having a direct impact on the Quick-UX Credibility value, this does hurt the product’s Credibility.

Is this website run by American Express?

Is there a bias towards venues that work exclusively with American Express?

These questions may be "nonsense" to the individuals behind the product, but the are nonetheless fueled by these poor decisions of matching color schemes coupled with the advertisement’s placement and persistence.

Furthermore, just by placing the ad within the page header, on a level of importance to the product’s name and logo, is much too forward an advertising strategy for the average user. When websites are too aggressive with their presentation of ads, they wear away at their own Credibility.

Should Do

Pogby presents a user experience with a very solidly Low Credibility. In the near term, to improve their Credibility, they should focus…

Show the living, breathing people behind the product. Talk about them and bring some authenticity to the product.
Provide a broader array of contact methods. (for example: direct to team members, telephone, address, etc.)

… and very importantly…

Move the ad. Label the ad as an ad. Or if it is not an ad, and this site is more tightly tied to American Express, don’t obfuscate, provide greater transparency into this relationship and how it impacts the overall user experience.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

UPDATE: Resulting from an analysis that took minutes, Pogby was able to take focused action, over 1 night, and implement changes with a significant impact on this product and its Credibility. (Read more)

Add to Social Bookmarks:

IndyBudget’s Deficit

Posted on May 18, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

The Credibility of a product is absolutely critical, whether it is coming from a brand-new startup, or an established corporation. There is a great deal that goes into the Credibility of a product, from the people that hype it, to its visual presentation. However, there are a few basic elements that go directly to the foundational aspects of product Credibility upon which the rest of the product’s truthfulness is built.

Quick-UX provides for the rapid, simple and quantifiable assessment of a product’s User Experience (UX). In answering the question of Usefulness, "Should I use it?" the sub-category of Credibility is one in the frequent discussion of cautious engagement, especially in the ever increasing, in both frequency and size, waves of introductions of online products.

Establishing and maintaining Credibility is the removal, or minimization of concerns arising from these types of questions. Many elements (design, accuracy, usability, timeliness, advertising, etc.) contribute to the positive, or negative, perception of overall product Credibility, but for Quick-UX’s evaluation we assess only the most elemental. For a refresher of the Quick-UX Credibility Rubric visit: Quick-UX & Credibility: Do you believe?

Today, we will look at the third of a set of three products that just barely (and almost) achieved a Low Credibility value of 0.325.

Low Credibility

In the set of examples of Low Credibility, that we are exploring, each demonstrates a severe lack in fundamentals. Interesting to this group is the fact each just barely (or almost) achieved the Quick-UX Credibility value of 0.325, resulting from…

No obvious typos, and

Some form (some very minimal) method of contact provided.

Example 3: IndyBudget

IndyBudget looks like it may be a really handy online financial product.

But, it is a financial product in need of a stimulus, an injection of Credibility. All products need to have a level of Credibility, and within a financial product this is even more true.

On the plus side, there are screenshots of the product and a prominently placed contact tab on the homepage that brings the user to the contact form.

However, while this contact form is already more robust than Convert Files, its dearth of information too barely counts as an instantly trustworthy method of contact.

It Takes Money

Unique to IndyBudget, amongst its peers within this set of borderline 0.325 Low Credibility products, is that it has a paid subscription component.

IndyBudget is a web product, with weak fundamentals of Credibility, that wants your money. At the current level of Credibility establishment, this is a good deal to be asking of any user.

The basis of IndyBudget’s Credibility resides in a lack of typos and having a contact form. With Low Credibility, asking for any amount of money, asking for any credit card information, is a tremendous hurdle over which to coax your consumers.

Should Do

This is a product with exciting upside potential. But, it must firmly establish its Credibility within the competitive market of online financial products. A financial product must aim higher when establishing and growing its Credibility; even more critical for a product that wants your money.

To create the needed Credibility, IndyBudget needs to lay crucial cornerstones. Such as…

Provide both email and telephone contact information,
Display your physical address, and
Show the people that stand behind this product (and how to speak with them).

IndyBudget should definitely go beyond these basics in building up its Credibility; as should any product hoping to be a repository for such critically sensitive information as an individual’s finances or requesting any credit card payments. Additional constructive steps IndyBudget should consider are…

Provide details about the security of the environment within which this data is stored
Present a simplified explanation of the treatment of financial, as well as credit card, data
Better convey why IndyBudget exists, its long- and short-term goals for the company and for the consumer
Launch a blog that keeps users up-to-date on relevant events and goals
- Note: This blog should not sound nor feel like a robot writing. Make it real; enable your consumers to connect and feel connected to the real individuals behind IndyBudget.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Subscribe now (click here) to make sure you don’t miss any part of this series exploring the Usefulness and Credibility components of Quick-UX, the quick and easy method of generating quantifiable and comparable metrics representing the understanding of the overall User Experience of a product, as well as other insightful posts from The Product Guy.

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

Add to Social Bookmarks:

Unforward ToRSS

Posted on May 11, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

The Credibility of a product is absolutely critical, whether it is coming from a brand-new startup, or an established corporation. There is a great deal that goes into the Credibility of a product, from the people that hype it, to its visual presentation. However, there are a few basic elements that go directly to the foundational aspects of product Credibility upon which the rest of the product’s truthfulness is built.

Quick-UX provides for the rapid, simple and quantifiable assessment of a product’s User Experience (UX). In answering the question of Usefulness, "Should I use it?" the sub-category of Credibility is one in the frequent discussion of cautious engagement, especially in the ever increasing, in both frequency and size, waves of introductions of online products.

Today, we will look at the second of a set of three products that just barely (and almost) achieved a Low Credibility value of 0.325.

Low Credibility

No obvious typos, and
Some form (some very minimal) method of contact provided.

Example 2: ToRSS

ToRSS is a product that enables users to receive their email via RSS.

This is a nifty product for those with non-personal email within non-personal email accounts.

What? You say you don’t get much non-personal email.

Another likely reaction of any user to this product is…

What?! You want me to enter my email address and password? And, who are you? LOL

Credibility is always important. And, in this case, Credibility is critical. ToRSS is requiring their users trust them enough to provide an email address, an email password and full access to all the user’s email.

The good news is that there is an email address provided to contact the product’s creators.

However, this very non-descript means of contact is surrounded by no context clues as to who or what is being emailed.

The only other link that may provide some basic information is the link…

"Thanks for desing"

Possibly mistaken as thanking the individual(s) who created this page, it merely links to another template website. And, upon a bit of word un-jumbling, one is likely to realize that ‘desing’ is not the name of the individual, nor the group, responsible for the creation or look-and-feel, but rather a typo for the word ‘design.’ Until this realization, this was a product with a Low Credibility value of 0.325, but when a product, that already has very few ties to anything from without, goes about trying to thank another organization, and fumbles the attempt with a typo, any meager credit held along that element of Credibility vanishes, resulting in an adjusted Credibility value of 0.175. It’s too bad that even in ToRSS’s attempt to connect to something potentially more real than themselves, achieving some Credibility by association, falls flat since they misspelled the link.

Should Do

Prior to the typo adjustment, the Credibility value was already very low. The elements that contributed to the Credibility value were already a very weak foundation, especially when taken together with the necessity of High Credibility associated with sharing an email account and its password.

ToRSS has a high requirement for Credibility and, therefore, has a good deal more to do to build it up and maintain it. After fixing the silly, careless typo, the product needs to go about establishing the facts that not only are there real people behind this real organization, and they are reachable, but that all this confidentially sensitive email information is treated with the utmost of care within a secured environment.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

Add to Social Bookmarks:

Skeptical Convert

Posted on May 4, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

The Credibility of a product is absolutely critical, whether it is coming from a brand-new startup, or an established corporation. There is a great deal that goes into the Credibility of a product, from the people that hype it, to its visual presentation. However, there are a few basic elements that go directly to the foundational aspects of product Credibility upon which the rest of the product’s truthfulness is built.

Quick-UX provides for the rapid, simple and quantifiable assessment of a product’s User Experience (UX). In answering the question of Usefulness, "Should I use it?" the sub-category of Credibility is one in the frequent discussion of cautious engagement, especially in the ever increasing, in both frequency and size, waves of introductions of online products.

Today, we will look at the first of a set of three products that just barely (and almost) achieved a Low Credibility value of 0.325.

Low Credibility

No obvious typos, and
Some form (some very minimal) method of contact provided.

Example 1: Convert Files

This professional looking product appears to have it all, from features to simplicity. But, the most important thing Convert Files lacks is Credibility.

There is little information of any sort that would allow an individual to trust this product with anything personal or sensitive. Most everything that the site has to say is said on the homepage. There is nothing personal, or otherwise, that exists to convince people that there may not be some ulterior motive.

Form of Contact

Convert Files does get positive credit for having a contact form. Barely.

This means of contacting the product’s owner(s) is the most generic, barest minimum of contact forms. I was initially inclined to not count the contact form due to the lack of overall Credibility and utter lack of language used in describing it. This form is so under represented it is a wonder that anyone would even dare enter the minimal information (name, email address, message) required to try to establish a credible conversation.

Slightly Ad-ed

Ads don’t help the Credibility issues here. But, for this product, with this function and layout, the advertisements do not nearly have as damaging an impact on the site’s Credibility as those ads found at Likexo.

Tricky "Tabs"

The page layout, too, is very deceptive. Many of the tabs on the top of the page merely link to sections within the page body.

The top navigation of the page follows a very standard user experience design pattern of tabbed page navigation. However, the behavior exhibited is not the expected behavior of tabs. This implementation creates an experience that just doesn’t feel right. And if there were ever a contest for the best example of dishonest design and user interaction, this product’s navigation would be in the running.

This sort of interaction damages a product’s Credibility, if not overtly, then often on a more subconscious level. Those behind this product would benefit from choosing to either present all of the information indicated by the ‘tabs’ on separate pages, or change the interactive design for intra-page navigation.

Should Do

After establishing a (much) more credible experience, Convert Files could make great strides in consumer value by building upon the trust and making individuals comfortable with using this service for ANY file. But, before that value can be found, let’s start with some bios and a more robust means by which to contact this organization.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

Add to Social Bookmarks:

Unbelievable Likexo

Posted on April 28, 2009 by Jeremy Horn

The Credibility of a product is absolutely critical, whether it is coming from a brand-new startup, or an established corporation. There is a great deal that goes into the Credibility of a product, from the people that hype it, to its visual presentation. However, there are a few basic elements that go directly to the foundational aspects of product Credibility upon which the rest of the product’s truthfulness is built.

Quick-UX provides for the rapid, simple and quantifiable assessment of a product’s User Experience (UX). In answering the question of Usefulness, "Should I use it?" the sub-category of Credibility is one in the frequent discussion of cautious engagement, especially in the ever increasing, in both frequency and size, waves of introductions of online products.

Today, we will look at an example of a product with No Credibility, with a value of 0.0.

No Credibility

On many fronts, from concept to style, Likexo has many things going for it. But, in the area of Credibility, it falls very flat.

On first blush, the site starts out OK. The design is fairly clean, not overly complex. As with any website, the new user approaches with skepticism and some very basic questions,

Who is behind it?
What is their motive?
Where are they located?
Is this for real?
etc.

The most common place to start is by taking a quick peek at the ‘About Us’ page.

Once arriving, it can be quickly concluded there may be something to learn about the product, but very little to learn ‘about us,’ the team that stands behind this product. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to learn about the individuals…

who they are,
where they are, or
how to contact them (by email and/or by phone).

This is a great way to sow the seeds of distrust — creating more disconcerting questions.

Is the team embarrassed by the product?
Are they unwilling to stand behind their product? Why?
Is their an ulterior motive? a nefarious relationship?

Obvious Typos

As with all products, the consumers of these products want to see that you take the time and care in both the creation and presentation of your own product. As the creator of a product, you can only hope that your users care about your product as much as you do.

However, when you demonstrate a lake of attention to detail, through typos, poor grammar, bad formatting, etc., the visitors to this product can only ask…

If the people behind this product don’t care about it, WHY SHOULD I?

Indeed, this very appropriate question raises some very large concerns on the product’s Credibility (even larger when taken into account with all the other foundational Credibility misses already discussed).

On the lesser of the typographical issues, a visitor can observe poor paragraph formatting and missing periods littered throughout the FAQ page.

Perhaps the most egregious of the form of typo that can occur within any product that will always have a detrimental impact on Credibility are those that have to do with the company’s name. The company name is inconsistently formatted on the About Us page. In one instance, within adjacent sentences, the duality of capitalization can be seen as…

"Likexo is a social network oriented to the likes of the people. Therefore, the profile of a person for likexo is not his/her career, the school attended or if he/she has a girlfriend/boyfriend: your profile is your likes."

On the About Us page, the formatting of ‘likexo’ is used heavily, while back on the FAQ page, ‘Likexo’ is the predominant spelling, with the occasional ‘likexo’. If you want people to believe in you, demonstrate that you have taken the care to know who you are, and that you know how to format your own product’s name.

Other Hand

On the positive side, it is great that they have blog and twitter accounts.

These represent a slight bend in the right direction. However, even on these fronts there are no obvious ways to reach out with any sense of connecting with a real person. There are no names of real people, nor any sense of personalized discussion — just very corporate, non-informal speak.

Should Do

As the Likexo/likexo user starts to investigate, and check on the trustworthiness of the organization, attempting to understand who or what is behind it, they are left with every single question that existed at the beginning of their search for Credibility.

Some very basic steps can be taken in laying the foundation for this product’s Credibility. They are:

Clean up the typos and formatting. Be consistent in the usage of language and grammar.
Provide methods to be contacted, by email, by phone.
Provide the company’s physical address. Prove that this is a real company.
Show that there are real people behind this product, that care about this product, that are working on this product. Display bio’s and pictures of these real people. Provide ways for users to reach out to these real people.

Altogether, these simple tips can move this product from a Credibility value of 0 (No Credibility) to a 1 (High Credibility).

Another bit of advice, regarding the product’s ever present advertising. While advertising does not impact the Quick-UX Credibility value, its use throughout Likexo is excessive and poorly integrated in the design and flow of the site, negatively impacting the overall User Experience, and, in-turn, the overall Credibility of a serious website.

This implementation of advertising begs the question, are they trying to provide a value-added service, or simply exist as yet another vehicle whose primary purpose is to cram down as much advertising as possible in this new format. — Not a question a new product, seeking to credibly establish itself within the hyper-competitive online world wants on the table, but one which can also be rapidly addressed.

Quick & Useful

Over the next few weeks I will be exploring and ins-and-outs of Credibility, walking through real-world examples of the Quick-UX evaluation of Credibility …

No Credibility
Barely Low Credibility (part 1, 2, 3)
Solidly Low Credibility (part 1, 2)
Average Credibility & Tech News (part 1, 2, 3)
More Average Credibility (part 1, 2)
High Credibility

Update: Renewed Pogby
Update: Likexo

Quick-UX Credibility, In Conclusion

Enjoy!

Jeremy Horn
The Product Guy

UPDATE: Likexo recently contacted me to let me know that this article lead to very meaningful improvements in their product. And they are right. (Read more)

Add to Social Bookmarks:

The Product Guy

Everything product management.

Tag Archives: low

Chart.ly Off Course

Low Credibility

Example 2: Chart.ly

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Puzzling Pogby

Low Credibility

Example 1: Pogby

Should Do

Quick & Useful

IndyBudget’s Deficit

Low Credibility

Example 3: IndyBudget

It Takes Money

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Unforward ToRSS

Low Credibility

Example 2: ToRSS

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Skeptical Convert

Low Credibility

Example 1: Convert Files

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Unbelievable Likexo

No Credibility

Obvious Typos

Other Hand

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Low Credibility

Example 2: Chart.ly

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this:

Low Credibility

Example 1: Pogby

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this:

Low Credibility

Example 3: IndyBudget

It Takes Money

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this:

Low Credibility

Example 2: ToRSS

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this:

Low Credibility

Example 1: Convert Files

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this:

No Credibility

Obvious Typos

Other Hand

Should Do

Quick & Useful

Share this:

Like this: