Summary from SXSW 09
Saturday, March 21st, 2009OK, so SXSW is great for meeting people, parties, twittering, eating out etc. But there were also some fine talks from excellent speakers and panels. Here is a summary of what I took away from this years southby.
Websites are so much more than print
Most websites are built like people design magazines, posters and books. Websites are built as pages and adorned with pictures and video. This is akin to early filmmakers drawing inspiration from the theatre. It was only when filmmakers got creative and allowed the camera to be part of the action instead of an audience member that the industry came into its own. Good example: skittles.com – Their site is a mashup of a twitter search, youtube channel, flickr search etc. This is brave, but cool.
Sitemaps and navigation. Traditionally they have always been deemed necessary, and from an information architecture point of view, they are very handy. Clients like them so they can organise their pages into a natural hierarchy. This is wonderful, except as a site grows, it breaks. Eventually there comes the realisation that content could be categorised in different sections. An event may appear on multiple listing pages. A photo may be part of several galleries. This fine when navigating a site from top to bottom, but who really visits a site and thoroughly works their way through the sitemap?
Most people arrive at a site from a search engine or link, jumping right in on a page in the middle of a sitemap. So where do they go from here? There can be multiple routes back up the navigation tree. What we have here people is many-to-many relationships. This is a tricky thing to consider when building a sitemap. So don’t. Think about content, think about tagging, think about related content. If you get the little pictures right, the big picture will take care of itself.
Inspired by Dan Willis‘ SXSWi talk.
Unnatural experiments in Web Design
Paul Annett’s talk on using clever design tricks to entertain, amuse and inspire visitors was in itself inspiring. Often we go to great lengths to ensure our sites are usable, friendly and don’t break. We rarely go the extra mile to add the “Ooh, that’s clever!” factor to a site. The value of this is also underestimated, and can transform a site that makes a client happy, to one they rave about. The flip side is that if a nicety interferes with the functionality of a site, the opposite effect can occur. Classic examples are Silverback, with it’s parallax vines, webleeddesign, with the scolling paint and kyanmedia (click the worm in the footer). The justification for the added flare can be found in the Kano Model of customer satisfaction.
Creating a great API
Thanks to Greg Pollack for the down-to-earth How not to Fail at Web Services. There are some really simple rules to creating a great API that many have failed to follow.
- The URL is for nouns
- HTTP method is for action (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)
- pronouns (or ids) should follow regular nouns (or types)
Bad example: /get/users?id=1
Good example: /users/1
Due to browsers only supporting GET and POST, it’s fine to compromise by using POST and pass in the method as a value. This keeps the url clean, readable and semantic.
The Future
Naturally, there was plenty of people looking for someone to tell them they can stop “supporting” older browsers. The best practice is not to ignore older browsers, but if the client is happy, just give them a simpler layout / style. New browsers can then receive a progressively enhanced interface. No browser should be left unusable or inaccessible. Naturally, it is up to the client to decide how much time is spent developing for older browsers.
Accessible Rich Internet Applications. It is becoming increasingly popular to use AJAXian methods of document manipulation, and this can be confusing for both screen readers and screen reader listeners. Work is being done to improve the control developers have over marking content and content areas as dynamic or prioritise announcements.
CSS3 always makes for an impressive demo. I particularly enjoyed Opera’s demo of rotating and shearing iFrames, even though I doubt it has a real world use. The principle of having that level of control of elements is exciting. Microsoft’s approach to compatibility and standards with IE8 is kinda convoluted, but clever and probably ultimately the safest approach. We’re still in a transition period, remember.
