A SHAKER APPROACH TO WEB SITE DESIGN

Michael D. Levi, Bureau of Labor Statistics

2 Massachusetts Ave., NE; Washington, DC 20212 (levi_m@bls.gov)

"That is best which works best"

“Beauty rests on utility”

“Simplicity is the embodiment of purity and unity”

— Shaker Maxims

KEY WORDS: World Wide Web, Information

Design, Human-Computer Interaction, Usability

THE SHAKERS

Who are the Shakers, and what do they have to

do with the World Wide Web?

In brief, the Shakers were a religious

denomination who split off from the English Quakers

and immigrated to the New World shortly before the

American revolution. The Shakers, or United

Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing,

reached a peak of approximately 6000 members in 18

communities by the mid-nineteenth century, and

began to decline after the Civil War. Today only a

few remain.

The Shakers believed in communal property,

pacifism, equality of the sexes, celibacy, open

confession of sins, and consecrated labor. They lived

in largely self-sufficient communities separate from

the "world's people." Unlike some other religious

denominations, Shakers were not averse to

technology. On the contrary, Shaker communities

were early adopters of machinery and techniques that

would facilitate their work.

The Shakers are probably best remembered for

their furniture, their architecture, and other crafts.

All are characterized by an extraordinary level of

skill and beauty.

It is the contention of this paper that the three

key attributes of Shaker artifacts:

• Simplicity

• Elegance

• Quality

along with the overriding Shaker emphasis on utility,

can serve as the guiding principles for designing and

developing World Wide Web sites.

A Shaker chair is useful. It is well suited for

sitting. Its clean, smooth lines have no excess

adornment; the beauty of the wood is adornment

enough. So should Web sites be structured for

maximum utility, allowing the value of their content

to attract and hold user interest.

MEASURING WEB SUCCESS

It is fairly easy to determine whether a chair is

‘successful’ or not. From a vendor’s point of view, if

the chair is purchased and not returned it is a

success. If the sale of a chair leads to repeat

business, it is even more successful.

From a purchaser’s point of view a chair is

successful if it is comfortable, does not break when

sat upon, has the desired physical dimensions, and

fits the aesthetics of the room in which it is located.

Depending on the circumstances, other criteria may

also be important. Lawn chairs must withstand

precipitation and temperature change. Nursery

furniture should not poison infants.

Shaker chairs were (and continue to be)

successful primarily because they meet the above

criteria. Above all else, Shaker chairs are useful.

They are designed to seat humans; all other

functionality is of secondary consideration.

Determining whether a Web site is successful is

less straightforward. The most common metric used

is synonymous with popularity: a successful site has a

lot of "hits".

This is insufficient. To start with, "hit" is a very

poorly defined term. Depending on the site and the

tool set used, a reported hit count may or may not

include graphic elements such as pictures, icons, and

buttons, as well as internal technical details of the

Web software such as ‘image maps.’ So at the very

best a hit count can only legitimately be used to

measure changes in popularity over time, but not as a

comparative cross-site measure.

Another flaw in using hit counts as a basic

metric is its leveling effect. A hit count does not

distinguish between a content-rich page, a list of

internal or external links, or an ‘under construction’

page. A hit is a hit, regardless of substance.

Worst of all, a hit count often rewards exactly

the wrong thing. A site that has been redesigned to

streamline user access to the most frequently

retrieved material may well show a reduction in hits

precisely because its utility has been enhanced.
There are certainly quantitative metrics that can

be used: number of sessions, number of users, and

number of repeat users are all valuable statistics to

gather and analyze. But qualitative measures are

equally important. The best measure of success is

how well a site facilitates users and sponsors in

accomplishing their goals. In short, the value of a

site can be assessed by measuring its utility and

quality.

In order to determine whether a site’s goals have

been met, it is useful to begin by introducing a rough

taxonomy of site types and Web users.

SITE TYPES

With the explosion of the Web over the past

three years, Web sites have sprung up for almost

every imaginable purpose. Despite this diversity,

when analyzed from the standpoint of interactivity

there are only three basic types of Web site:

• Ego, or Vanity sites;

• Resource, or Information sites;

• Transaction or Two-way sites.

A personal home page is the embodiment of an

ego site. Its purpose is to say "I'm here. I'm cool.

Look at me!" Ego sites may serve as a

communications channel for a very small audience

(directions to a wedding, for example), or as an

advertisement (putting one's resume online) but their

primary reason for being is personal gratification for

the creator. For an ego site, ongoing interactivity is

secondary to the original act of creation.

The success of an ego site can be assessed quite

simply: is the creator satisfied or not? No further

evaluation is required.

Resource sites attempt to provide information or

some other data resource to their readers. This is

primarily one-way communication, with the site

developer providing information he/she wants to

share in some way and site visitors consuming this

resource. Most government sites, and most statistical

sites, follow this model. Many corporate sites are

primarily resource oriented, providing company

profiles, product descriptions, and other marketing

documents. The resources need not be serious,

however. Most entertainment-oriented sites, such as

online magazines, lists of jokes, concert schedules,

etc. can be categorized as resource sites.

The success of a resource site should be assessed

by asking whether most users found the information

they were looking for (or discovered that the desired

information was – legitimately — not present on the

site), how quickly they found it, how many wrong

turns they made along the way, and how satisfied

they were with the quality of the interaction.

Transaction sites, by contrast, involve two-way

communication. Both the site owner and the user

have something to contribute to the interaction.

Commercial sites, such as online bookstores or stock

brokerages, are typically transactional in nature (the

site owner provides a list of products; the user

assembles a list of desired goods, then adds a

shipping address and a credit card number; finally

the site owner physically sends a product). Noncommercial transaction sites would include online

surveys.

The success of a transaction site can be measured

with the same tools as a resource site, adding a

measure of how many successful transactions were

completed.

The remainder of this paper will focus primarily

on resource sites. All site types, however, can benefit

by emulating Shaker craftsmen and women and

concentrating on the essentials of the task at hand.

WEB USERS

Like site types, users of the Web can be broken

into three categories:

• Non-discretionary;

• Discretionary, directed;

• Discretionary, casual.

Non-discretionary users include those who, for

whatever reason, are required to access a particular

Web site. This might be an organizational intranet

which holds the only copy of a current telephone

directory. Non-discretionary users do not have the

freedom not to use a particular Web site.

Discretionary, directed users are those who are

not required to use a particular Web site, but who are

strongly motivated to do so. This may be because

they believe other channels for obtaining the

necessary information are too cumbersome,

expensive, or slow. A discretionary, directed user

will try very hard to make sense out of a Web site,

and to obtain what he/she is looking for, but will

leave if the experience proves too frustrating or the

desired information does not appear to be present.

Discretionary, casual users are the stereotype

"surfers". Such users may stumble upon a given site,

and may be willing to spend a little time

investigating, but are not particularly motivated to

stay and are likely to leave as soon as they get

frustrated or bored.

Different audiences require different approaches

to design and implementation. In general, non-
discretionary and discretionary, directed users are

likely to focus immediately on how well a site

supports their particular task, while casual users may

be more ‘seducible’ by superficial attractions.

Ultimately, however, even a surfer requires

meaningful and well-organized content to remain at

a site or return to it.

Naturally there are many other user and usage

characteristics that are relevant to the Web site

designer: familiarity with the topic, familiarity with

the technology, frequency and duration of sessions,

etc.

SITE PERSPECTIVES

The single most important predictor of site

utility is the perspective from which the site has been

designed. Just as there are two participants in any

interaction between a user and a Web site (the user

and the site designer), so there are two perspectives

around which the site can be designed.

The first is provider-centered. This is a site

where the designer cataloged everything his/her

organization had to offer, then built a site around the

material thus assembled. Provider centered sites

often are structured to follow a corporate

organization chart. Provider-centered home pages

frequently feature a list of links that begins with

“Welcome to Our Site”, perhaps a picture of the

company president or agency head, “About the

Organization”, perhaps an organization chart, annual

report, etc. Most of this information may seem

extremely important to employees of the

organization, but is seldom of interest to outsiders

who are looking for concrete information.

A site that organizes information about product

recalls by the date of the press release in which the

recall was announced is provider-centered. It is easy

to imagine that internal to the company such

documents are stored and referenced chronologically.

A user of the site, however, is likely to be looking for

a particular product, and will probably not know

when the recall was announced.

By the same token, any site that has an ‘under

construction’ page is showing signs of provider

centricity. The real meaning of ‘under construction’

is the site developer saying to the user “I know there

is something missing here. Its just not ready yet.

Don’t bug me about it.” Meanwhile the user’s

expectations have been raised, he/she has been

tricked into an extra click, and has paid a penalty in

unnecessary wait time and possible confusion.

‘Under construction’ pages are invariably frustrating

for the user; they serve only to bolster the self-esteem

of the developer.

Provider-centered sites, regardless of the intent

of the creator, end up being ego sites more often than

not.

User-centered sites, by contrast, are usually

structured to follow specific tasks. Here the designer

has attempted to determine what users are likely to

wish to accomplish when visiting the site, and has

structured the site around those anticipated demands.

Whereas corporate information like organization

charts, mission statements, or annual reports may

still be present on the site – after all, some users are

likely to be interested – it will be low on the list, not

the first thing a user will see. Instead, items of

interest to the user will be displayed most

prominently. The site as a whole will be structured

so that information of interest to the largest number

of users is the easiest to reach, while less popular

pages might take a few more clicks.

Building a user-centered site requires a very

good understanding of the user population. This

understanding can come from past interactions with a

customer base, from studies of projected user

behavior and demands, or from analysis of what

users are actually doing on an existing Web site.

Developer intuition concerning user needs and

desires is typically not very good. People steeped in

either a technology or an organizational culture are

frequently not able to leave their knowledge behind

and project the experience of either a less

knowledgeable individual or an individual with a

markedly different perspective. Some sort of

objective user study is usually required.

Shakers were both farmers and designers of

barns; they understood the task and the technologies

very well. Since Web developers can not always be

experts in everything required to design appropriate

sites (the task domain, the technology, and the

techniques of user-centered design) they can draw on

outside resources such as guidelines documents and

work with usability professionals.

Many designers are thrown by the potential

diversity of users. “How can I possibly design a site

for a particular user population when literally anyone

in the world could stumble across my site?” It is

certainly true that the Web user population is huge.

But some initial development decisions must be

made, without which no trade-offs can ever be

approached systematically. This can be as simple as

assuming understanding of the English language, or

as demanding as requiring facility with college level
statistics and a sophisticated understanding of survey

methodology. Different portions of a site can be

optimized for distinct user populations (several sites

currently suggest different paths depending on

whether the user is a high school student, a teacher, a

researcher, or a legislative aide), but no site can be

built for “everyone.”

A user-centered site will usually require several

iterations to get right, and can be expected to evolve

along with the user population.

COMPONENTS OF WEB SITE DESIGN

There are two main components of Web site

design: page design and dialog design.

Page design comprises all the elements that can

been seen in one piece through a browser: text and

pictures along with headers, footers, icons, banners,

buttons, and links arranged in different typefaces and

fonts, columns, tables, etc. The objective of good

page design is to position elements in such a way that

important information is easily recognized, less

important information can be located with only a

little effort, and unimportant information has been

eliminated. Information, in this context, may include

text, graphics, menu items and navigation buttons, or

site identifiers.

Web page design corresponds to screen or

window design in traditional interactive systems, or

page layout in paper-based graphic design. A great

deal of research has been done in this area, much of

which can be transferred to the Web with only slight

modification.

Dialog design has to do with the back-and-forth

between a user and a Web site. Typically the user

enters a site (through a link, a bookmark, or by

typing a URL) and is presented with a page. The

user spends some time looking at the page, then

clicks on a link or a browser button. The system

responds by presenting a new page. The user looks

at that, then clicks somewhere, and so forth. There is

an interaction between the user and the Web site.

With any luck, the Web site is responding to the

user's actions in a meaningful and predictable way,

and the user, in turn, is reacting to the Web site.

This can be seen as a conversation between user and

Web site, or between user and site designer.

The objective of good dialog design is to

facilitate the user finding the page he/she is looking

for (i.e. the page or pages on which the desired

information resides) in the most effective way

possible. The quality and efficacy of a particular

dialog design can only be assessed in the context of

its use: specific users performing specific tasks.

Nobody's job description reads "use the

computer". Instead, workers are made responsible

for specific tasks, and (one hopes) given the

necessary tools to accomplish those tasks. The

computer is such a tool; the Web site becomes such a

tool. Thus effective dialog design is directed towards

facilitating task completion in an accurate,

comprehensive, and rapid manner.

THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LIFE

CYCLE

Successful Web sites rarely happen by accident.

A careful development process will increase the

chances of a useful site.

In the past an illusion of ease ("just HTML'ize

these documents and put them up on the server")

coupled with unrealistic deadlines resulted in a

plethora of chaotic sites, sites with little or no

advance planning, little or no stylistic coordination,

and no process in place for controlled updates,

corrections, or expansions to the site once it had been

released.

The traditional software development life cycle

(SDLC) can serve as a model for a proper

development process:

1. Analysis

2. Testing

3. Design

4. Testing

5. Implementation

6. Testing

7. Iterate until correct

Analysis is the phase during which the analyst

determines what needs to be accomplished. In a Web

context this means identifying the target user

population(s); determining what these users want or

need from the proposed Web site; and determining

what organizational goals are to be met through the

Web site. The functionality of a system is specified

during analysis.

Design is the life cycle phase during which the

designer determines how the required functionality

will be provided. In a Web context this includes

identifying the content to be placed online,

determining the site structure, and developing a

uniform style guide.

Implementation is where the site is actually built.

Existing documents are converted to HTML. New

documents and graphics are created, as are forms,

CGI scripts, and applets. Links are inserted. The
Web server is brought up and pointed to a home

page.

Testing is an ongoing activity, particularly

important towards the end of each life cycle phase.

The earlier an error or misunderstanding can be

identified, the cheaper it will be to correct. It must be

recognized, however, that later phases tend to

uncover insufficiencies in earlier phases. Thus

design may well highlight missing functionality, and

implementation will surely point out gaps in the

design. So developers should be willing to revisit

each life cycle stage more than once. Development

can be viewed less as a waterfall, where each phase

leads clearly to the next, and more as a spiral, with

each phase revisited as often as necessary.

All of the above phases have a traditional

functionality component and a usability component.

The two are not fully independent, but neither are

they the same thing. Insofar as careful

methodologies have been applied to Web

development in the past, most of it has been directed

towards functionality: is the HTML correct, do the

links point to the correct pages, is the appropriate

content present, are the scripts and applets fully

debugged. This is critical to a fully functioning,

successful site. Equally important are other

questions: Does this make sense to our expected user

population? Can new users figure out where to go?

Can experienced users take advantage of shortcuts?

Does the site assist the users in accomplishing their

underlying goals? Usability analysis, usability

design, and usability testing run parallel to their

functional counterparts.

The SDLC is not unique; some general

equivalent exists in most professional fields.

Publishing, for example: common advice to authors

would include “identify the audience before

beginning to write”, “clarify in your own mind what

you wanted to say”, “begin with an outline, then flesh

out the outline, then have others read and critique the

work.”

SHAKER PRINCIPLES TAILORED TO WEB

SYSTEMS

The preceding sections have focused primarily

on utility and quality – how these can be determined

and how they can be produced. It is time to return to

the other two Shaker principles, simplicity and

elegance.

Webster’s gives one definition of simplicity as

“absence of affectation or pretense”, and elegance as

“grace and restraint of style.” In the Web context,

these characteristics define a design philosophy

which concentrates on supporting, enhancing, and

emphasizing the underlying content by careful

arrangement and use of graphical elements, but never

allows the design itself to become prominent. If the

user becomes aware of the design beyond an almost

subliminal sense of aesthetic satisfaction, the effort

has failed.

In an earlier paper1 Levi and Conrad took a set

of general-purpose usability principles originally

proposed by Jakob Nielsen and modified them to

apply specifically to Web sites. Of the nine

principles thus derived, five are relevant to this paper

because they deal with simplicity and elegance:

Design aesthetic and minimalist systems.

Create visually pleasing displays. Eliminate

information which is irrelevant or distracting.

Simple does not mean ugly or boring. Shaker

crafts are quite beautiful. Web sites can be engaging

and visually pleasing without succumbing to excess.

The key point is that no amount of graphic or other

technical virtuosity can make up for insufficient,

inaccurate, or poorly organized content. On the

contrary, baroque or otherwise unnecessary stylistic

embellishment (see below for examples) frequently

hides or draws attention away from the substance of a

site.

Be Consistent. Indicate similar concepts

through identical terminology and graphics. Adhere

to uniform conventions for layout, formatting,

typefaces, labeling, etc.

The importance of consistency can not be

overemphasized. Not only will use of uniform

vocabulary and graphic layout add to site aesthetics,

but it will enhance utility as well. In a 1996 study2

Mahajan and Shneiderman report up to 30 percent

degradation in speed of task completion when

synonyms such as question/inquiry, search/browse, or

counselor/advisor were used on different screens of

an application. According to this study, such

inconsistencies in wording decrease user’s

 

1 A Heuristic Evaluation of a World Wide Web

Prototype, Michael D. Levi and Frederick G. Conrad,

interactions Magazine, July/August 1996

2 Visual and Textual Consistency Checking Tools for

Graphical User Interfaces, Rohit Mahajan and Ben

Shneiderman, IEEE Transactions on Software

Engineeering 23, 11 (November 1997), pp. 722-735
performance regardless of the user’s level of

expertise.

Speak the users' language. Use words, phrases,

and concepts familiar to the user. Present information

in a natural and logical order. Avoid jargon

wherever possible. Use acronyms cautiously, usually

spelling out the complete phrase upon first use (note

that in a hypertext system the designer can not

assume that the reader has already traversed any

given page, so such clarification might be required

every time an acronym is used).

A site designed explicitly for users highly

familiar with a given task domain will probably

employ a specialized vocabulary; a site designed for a

general audience must use a more accessible

vocabulary.

Build flexible and efficient systems.

Accommodate a range of user sophistication and

diverse user goals. Lay out screens so that frequently

accessed information is easily found. Provide

instructions where useful.

The goal is to build a Web site that is clear

enough for a novice or intermittent user to navigate

with relative ease, yet is powerful enough or contains

sufficient shortcuts so that an experienced user is not

slowed down unnecessarily.

Simple does not mean simplistic. Web sites can

and should contain a wealth and richness of material.

A well-structured page, for example, can support

scores of links without being confusing or

overwhelming.

Don't lie to the user. Eliminate erroneous or

misleading links. Do not refer to missing

information.

SOME THINGS TO AVOID

As a general rule, anything that detracts from

ease of use, including legibility, comprehension,

ability to focus, etc., should be eliminated. New

techniques, such as extensions to HTML or

programming languages such as Java or ActiveX,

can usually be used either to facilitate users’ tasks or

to complicate them. Web developers should be aware

that technology for technology’s sake (cool for cool’s

sake) is unlikely to help the users.

Backgrounds. Since at this time most computer

screens are rather grainy, the pixels in background

graphics tend to interfere with foreground text,

making it difficult to read. Virtually all patterned or

textured backgrounds fall into this category. Since

there is already a performance penalty in reading off

a screen rather than reading from reasonable-quality

paper, such further degradation just adds insult to

injury.

Equally problematic are poor choices of

background and foreground color. Pastel on pastel,

or bright contrasting colors, may provide a striking

and memorable display, but will not make reading

any easier.

Scrolling text, blinking text, animated

graphics. These can all be lumped together as

"gratuitous moving stuff". Movement anywhere in

one’s field of vision is very seductive and distracting;

this draws the user’s attention away from content and

degrades performance and possibly comprehension.

Some concepts can be very effectively illustrated

through animation; one of the great strengths of a

computer screen as opposed to a printed sheet of

paper lies in the ability to dynamically change what

is displayed on a CRT. Designer should use such

capabilities wherever they enhance or explicate the

subject matter. But waving flags, grinning monsters,

or slithering marquees are unlikely to add much

value.

Frames. Frames are an attempt to solve a real

problem: how to present multiple views of an

information space or task domain. Unfortunately

they are a failed attempt. Frames break the common

metaphors of the Web (one page at a time), and don't

work well with many browsers (the back button

behaves erratically, bookmarks and printing may not

work as expected). What’s more, they don’t even do

a very good job at the problem they were intended to

solve. Coordinating multiple frames so that an

action in one frame updates multiple other frames is

difficult if not impossible; certainly few if any sites

have implemented such functionality correctly.

PDF files. Adobe’s Portable Document Format

(PDF) is perhaps the best way to support perfect

facsimile printing, but what works well on paper does

not necessarily work well on a computer monitor.

PDF files typically do not render well on screen (the

typeface is often fuzzy). Layout options such as

multiple columns depend on having an entire page

visible at once; this is typically not the case on a

screen, so the user ends up paging down one column,

then returning to the top and paging down again, and

then perhaps yet a third time. Such scrolling is time

consuming, error-prone, distracting, and a waste of

precious screen real estate. Finally, having a PDF

reader as a browser add-in makes the user’s work

environment that much more complicated by adding

another set of buttons and commands that may work
subtly different from the buttons and commands

which are part of the standard browser.

If the designer’s intent is to provide material to

be printed, PDF is a very good choice of formats. If

the intent is for users to view documents on screen,

provide HTML. If users can be expected to do both,

provide both formats.

CONCLUSION

The World Wide Web is an interactive

information dissemination mechanism unprecedented

in scale and accessibility. Never before has it been so

easy to provide computer-supported data, news,

knowledge, analysis, opinions, and advertising to so

many people around the globe. And never before has

it been possible for a computer to confuse, frustrate,

and annoy so many people in such a short time.

Given the vastness of the information space

represented by the Web, only the best sites can be

expected to thrive. Slick technology tricks are

fascinating the first time, but become boring after the

second or third iteration. Fancy design curlicues

become stale equally quickly.

If a site is to endure, it is the value of its content

that will make the difference. For the value of

content to be apparent, the site must be designed to

sustain and enhance that content. Shaker handicraft,

and the philosophy that gave rise to it, provides the

model to do just that.

In a paper on Shaker architecture, Robert P.

Emlen wrote:

“Nineteenth-century visitors wrote

of the unity of design in Shaker villages.

Developed according to the community's

standards and requirements, the

buildings in a Shaker village are more

consistent in appearance than those of

the neighboring farms. Their clustering

on the land, the way they relate to one

another in function and scale, the

consistency of aesthetic choices

employed by Shaker craftsmen, all attest

to that communal society of spiritual

brethren and sisters devoted to creating

an ideal life on earth.”3

 

3

 Robert P. Emlen, The Distinctiveness of Shaker

Architecture. Originally published as the foreword

in: Julie Nicoletta, The Architecture of the Shakers.

Photography by Bret Morgan. Countryman Press,

1995

If a few words in the above quote were changed,

it could describe a well-crafted Web site. Anyone

should be very proud to have created such a Web site