Of Pain and Gain

“Don't make me think”, beside being the name of Steves Krug’s wonderful book about web usability, is an often misunderstood and overused phrase by people who credit their users with lower intelligence than their own.

It is the ‘how’ and not the ‘what’ that Steve Krug is referring to – make things as simple as they can be, but don't over simplify – the action should be as complex and demanding as it needs to be, the tools of execution should be as simple as the action would allow.

One great example of a site that does a excellent job of handling elaborate tasks in a graceful manner is istockphoto, the member-generated stock photography site. To become an istockphoto submitter one must read, understand and undergo an online test regarding image quality and copyright guidelines. The user is lead through the process step-by-step with expectations well managed and the need and value of the requirement well communicated. When submitting each image, the user must undergo a relatively complex process of describing and tagging it. While the system is built in a way that requires the user to go through that process, what needs to be done is well communicated at every step of the way. Low quality or term violating images are rejected, with the reason of rejection well communicated to the submitter. I believe this conduct is what made istockphoto the leading online stock photography site with traffic that is the envy of some not-so-niche sites and over 55,000 contributing members.

An opposite example, although heavily trafficked as well is WikipediA. Becoming an editor on WikipediA requires more than just being an expert on the subject matter at hand – it requires understanding the mediawiki interface, understanding policies and being an expert of its quirky and complex editing syntax. since most users enter WikipediA via the landing page and search or through search engines directly to an entry, many of them miss the fact that they can actually contribute to it. Some think it is a free encyclopedia and nothing more (as the tagline suggests), others understand that it is edited by a community, but do not understand they already a part of it (I personally encountered these cases, some when doing user-testing for a wiki based feature). The ones that do understand the concept and can contribute their expertise, already a small group, are further sieved by the interface. I believe this leads to the small reader to contributor ratio WikipediA suffers from – and it is suffering, as understanding the interface does not guarantee being the top expert in a field and vice versa. This may also explain why there’s a significant skew towards popular culture on WikipediA.

To be fair – istockphoto contributors have a cash incentive – if their images are sold, they make money. However, consumption is not free as it is in WikipediA either.

Demanding certain standards and even a level expertise from the audience is understood and even welcome – as people understand the value it produces and it actually helps create credibility and even supports contributors in achieving a sense of accomplishment. While cracking and mastering a complex interface may be a welcome challenge to some – it is an obstacle to most, regardless of the value they can bring to or derive from a site.

The challenge, when developing a site that targets both contributors and consumers, is to present the contribution tools when and where needed, without interfering with the consumption. Communication of the fact that contributions are made by users are important to everybody, be it a potential contributor or even a consumers that will never contribute but assign some value to the fact that the contributions are made by their fellow community members. Making it too simple, with the hope that it will cause consumers to become contributors, will relinquish the sense of achievement and perception of quality the contributors have and will eventually compromise the experience for everybody, as the overall quality will suffer. Free meals are never that great.

For other examples sites that do a great job of balancing contributors and consumers:
Etsy
Ponoko