Why do people type the URL in google and not in the browser's address bar?

- A question often asked (incredulously) by web teams looking at their data logs!

The answer is simple: it's usually quicker, requires less mental effort and is generally more fruitful to find the correct website address in a search engine than attempt to do so in the brower's address bar.

Let's see why that is:

1. Web addresses are difficult to type given the non-semantic elements and punctuation: http://www. my-site ...hyphen or underscore .com, .org or co.uk...?).
2. Web addresses can be hard to remember (was it british-airlines, ba, british_airlines, britishairlines...?).
3. They normally have to be 100% correct if you type them directly into the browser - although things are improving in this regard.
4. When you get the URL wrong, with a browser you get a dead end error page, though this is not the case with the search engines! Compare:
   

Search engines on the other hand forgive your spelling mistakes, make helpful suggestions and aren't picky about punctuation!

It comes down to basic usability principles - or common sense! In plain English, these are:

• Don't make me think
• Don't expect me to remember
• Forgive my mistakes, to err is human (and so am I)
  
• Be flexible with alternatives
• Give me an escape route

In conclusion, search engines are more generous than browers in all of these aspects, cause less frustration and make life easier. Just what good design is all about!
Perhaps the solution is to permanently replace the address bar with a search box...?

The Mobile Web and URLs

One of the issues floating around my head while I enjoy a quiet Sunday afternoon is what to do about a site's url when its mobile baby brother comes along?

Website addresses already cause a lot of confusion (Was it .co.uk; .com or .org...?), but typing on a keyboard means it is fairly quick to try different options, and google usually lends a helping hand if we get it wrong.

What's more, having to type "http://" thankfully died long ago and a lot of sites forgive you for not typing "www.".
So, basically URLs have got quicker and shorter and so much the better.

Not so it seems with the mobile web: a few I've accessed require the http://www. and produce an error without it! Not great when typing on a mobile. Furthermore, if you type the usual url you may have to endure error messages, over-sized text and images and extreme levels of scrolling unless the site has been adapted for mobile access.
If there is a mobile web version, you may not get redirected automatically or even offered that alternative as you enter the site.

Furthermore, it seems there are already a number of variations at large in regard to the url for mobile versions: some web addresses end in .mobi, others in .mobile, some begin with an m. and some stay the same. Terrific.

So, imagine you've just been given a new mobile, internet enabled and subscription included, and you want to start surfing. You want to check your email and the news and maybe the odd music video.
What would you type?!

Let's look at the pros and cons of each one from the perspective of a mobile user.

.mobi
Pros:

• It's short and sweet and dodges the whole .com, .es, .org confusion.
• It's pronounceable

Cons:

• It's not a proper word, and what's to stop people trying .mob, or .mobile?

.mobile
Pros:

• It's a proper word so easy to spell AND pronounceable

Cons:

• It's longer than average (com, net etc) so takes longer to type, -but at least predictive text could guess it.
• Maybe Americans would want to type .cell and native speakers of every other language their own cultural or linguistic equivalent.

www.m.
Pros:

• It's slick and sexy, very web 2.0.
• It's short
  

Cons:

• It adds another full stop to the url, which can be a pain to type (did I type a full stop or a comma? where was the punctuation button again?)
• It can also increase cognitive load and confusion: Do I need to type the www. like in the old days? Did the "m" go before or after the "www."?
  

Same url for desktop and mobile sites
Pros:

• The computer does the hard work. You connect from a mobile device, the page adapts accordingly.
• No extra memorising required on the part of the user.
• Greater confidence and security that the site really is the site in question, reduced concerns about phishing.

Cons:

• Doubts about whether the page you're viewing has been adapted for mobile device. Is all the content here?
• There may be a delay in detecting the correct version (language, device etc)
• Takes away choice from the user; it's likely that the user will sometimes want to read something they saw earlier that day at work for example.
  

.com/mobile
Pros:

• Intuitive, matches the model of pretty urls considered best practice, although it's not strictly the same (it's more of a microsite than a page)
  

Cons:

• The length
• Still have to remember the site's domain
• Another forward slash
  

I would personally vote for being offered the option of going to the mobile version when I try to access a site from a mobile (I might not know it exists), and for .mobi or /mobile for being the clearest domains.
That along with punctuating being made easier on mobile devices, and of course for not having to type http://www!

Time will tell which one(s) take!

W3C's Mobile Web Best Practices Course

Having finished the W3C's online course: An Introduction to Mobile Web Best Practices, I have been reflecting a little over the things I have learnt about the mobile (and not so mobile) web.

One of the tasks was to try out 3 of the sites we often use from a desktop computer using either a mobile phone or an emulator. The aim was to discover what works well and what doesn't. Many major sites have serious issues and many cannot even be accessed or viewed properly.

For the experiment I was using mobile emulators rather than real a mobile, which may have effected the conclusions to some degree. Anyway, below I attach the screenshots with comments.

The sites analyzed were: amazon.co.uk, yahoo.com, guardian.co.uk and tumblr.com. Yahoo.com was the clear winner in terms of usability whereas tumblr.com came last!

Amazon.co.uk
Using the dotMobi Emulator

1. Pages were kept short to avoid endless scrolling, but...

2. there is no visual grouping of the different fields; the question "Do you have an Amazon.co.uk..." looks like it has nothing to do with the email address.

3. What does the bright blue text field mean? Is it disabled or highlighted?

4. The soft key option "More" has nothing to do with what is on screen.


5. It's impossible to know what functionalities and content of the PC version you are going to be able to access until you try.
Although it makes sense to prioritize tasks that can be done on a mobile, it's a little disappointing as a user to not be able to do all the things you would like and are used to doing.









Yahoo.com
I couldn't log in using the dotMobi Emulator, so I switched to the Opera Mini one.

1. The blue highlighting makes it easier to see where the cursor
is.

2. The slightly larger screen and/or smaller text makes it possible to see the whole login form at once.











3. The content was relevant and nicely thought-out.

4. Horizontal scrolling was avoided.

5. In general the yahoo site seemed well-adapted to mobile use.










The Guardian.co.uk
1. Some familiarity with the PC site is useful to get your bearings. If you're looking for something specific, it may be hard to find it from the home page.

2. A lot of content requires you to sign up, though the advantages of doing so are not made clear.

3. The main menu is quite useful to find a section of interest and then browse within that category.

4. Navigating from one column to the next is not the most natural or the easiest way to move around a page.



5. Once zoomed in, the article summaries and headlines are quite easy to read and do not require horizontal scrolling.
















Tumblr.com
The page did not resize to fit the window, making the website extremely difficult if not impossible to use. I had to abandon.















Conclusions:

• Websites designed for desktop computers do not automatically render and function correctly on mobile devices. In many cases it will be necessary to have 2 separate sites or redesign the traditional site for use on mobile devices.
• Excessive vertical scrolling and any horizontal scrolling should be avoided as both are hard work on a mobile.
• Typing should be kept to a minimum as it is also a laborious activity.
  
• Related content should be grouped visually as it would be on a desktop site.
  
• Images should be reduced to a minimum in size and number and more care than ever should be taken to ensure section titles are easy to understand and links are not broken.
• Forward and back navigation make correcting mistakes a lot easier.
• Extensive testing with different mobile devices is needed to make sure content is accessible and the experience satisfying.
• A website optimized for mobile use is likely to be more accessible to users of assistive devices.

It will be quite interesting to see over the next year or so in what ways usability best practices will differ for the mobile web as opposed to the "non-mobile" or PC-based web. I also suspect - or at least hope - that the demand for the mobile web will improve the accessibility of sites in general.