The guru of web usability

"He's also the man that some web designers love to hate. In particular, they love to heap abuse on his website - UseIt.com."

Here's a Guardian interview with the guru himself, Jakob Nielsen.

But first, a digression.

I like lists. So much that I have lists upon lists. Lists for everything. Lists of life goals, lists of tasks...really long lists of tasks. Then, people send me lists via email (usually more tasks). Those lists get added to my other lists. Then I have Outlook making lists for me everytime I flag something. So I have paper and Outlook lists. Then I go home and I have sheaves and sheaves of paper detailing tasks, things to do around the house, chore schedules, future goals, places to visit, websites to revisit, books to read, films to rent, errands to run, food shopping lists....etc.

Then I found this web application....

In one of my fits of internet browsing, I came across 37signals, an ingenious little company that makes ingenious little applications. I now have my own ta da list (which is a compilation of to do lists). I tried to share a list with both my brother (with whom I must collaborate on a number of house projects) and another one with a client. To my dismay, neither appear to have looked at the lists. Prior to finding Ta Da, I used "now do this", which is a very simple program that allows you to put in your tasks for the day and click the "done" button when you're done, until you uni-task your way through. However, after a couple of days I found that now-do-this was too simple. In fact, if you accidentally close your browser you lose your whole list and you're left thinking, now don't do that, stupid program. So, not functional enough.

I am waiting to see what the pick up is on the Ta Da to do lists before I introduce my client to Highrise or Basecamp. However, both of these web apps could be just what our small, minimally staffed, frequently travelling dance company needs.

Which brings us back to the issue of web usability. What does that mean, anyway? Well, from what I understand from 37signals and Jakob Nielsen (see his retro-looking site), it refers to web interfaces: web design, not graphic design.

Some interfaces work, some don't. We all know this intuitively. Like many semi-sophisticated web users, I do have some basic programming skills, I started a blog in 2000, I use dictionary.com, I get a lot of my news online, google is my best friend....I am loyal to good sites and don't both with bad ones.

From the point of view of the 'user', websites provide a service.
How well they provide that service is a question of their 'usability'.

A real time, enfolding as I write this, example of web usability:
My dear colleague Douglas, despite wearing two watches on his left wrist like a character in Alice in Wonderland, has somehow mistaken the departure time for his daughter's bus trip up to camp. This, he now claims, is the fault of the website. He could not find the departure time of the bus, and when he did find it, it was buried in many other numbers and dates so he mixed it up with some other time.

I just went to the website to find the relevant page and link it for our reference but...I couldn't find it. Disastrous!

Now, Camp Big Canoe is a very small organization that services a limited number of people. But any time you go to a website and get fed up that you can't find what you want, anytime a website drives you crazy by hiding the most important information behind layers of click, anytime they frustrate you as you try to: find a schedule; book a ticket; do a search; find a phone number; donate money; send an email-- they are crippling the functionality of the internet, wasting our time and their own money in the process.

I have gone to a website before, felt confused or irritated, and left right away. I no longer go to those websites (ie. nowdothis.com).

Anyhow, those issues are top of mind because since working for NetGain I have been responsible for generating content for one website and designing two others from scratch. Any sites you love lately or have been forced to use?

Decentralize the Hierarchy

One of the things that I think is a unique asset of the firm (not to toot our own horn, but well...ok) is we are small. I've been here for 2 years and I love that I am directly involved, learning from senior partners, no one has a secretary, when you call you talk to a real person...Some people don't know that we don't have secretaries and how someone communicates with someone he mistakenly thinks is a hireling can reveal a lot.

Anyhow, the NY Times agrees. Small teams can mean more creativity, better solutions, happier employees, happier customers, time and money saved.

update on the Cirque

Photo of Dubai airport by Flickr member goforchris.

If you are following the Cirque sale: here. Opinion on why Quebec lost out and Dubai won.

Digital not-for-profits can make more money...if they know how.

I was reading this article in the Globe and Mail. It recounts the history of a small canadian firm, TakingITGlobal which...does something involving youth and connecting them to changing the world. In the words of the founder "social networking for social change." Hmmm. Formally, "Our mission is to provide opportunities for learning, capacity-building, cross-cultural awareness and self-development through the use of Information and Communication Technologies."

I know very little about TakingITGlobal. The article is part of the G and M's "business incubator" series which examines and solicits solutions from consultants to problems faced by small businesses.

TIG, like almost all not-for-profits, would like to secure and increase their revenue streams and membership, as the majority of their funding is from government or foundation sources. I discussed the demands made on not-for-profits to secure grants this week in connection to the Wellesley Institute's report, We Can't Afford to do Business this Way.

The solutions offered to diversify revenue:

Typical not-for profit solutions:

• seek sponsorship (that hopefully won't conflict with your mandate and values). Sponsorship is often suggested as a way of underwriting not-for-profit enterprises but has great potential with TIG because of their global reach and sizeable membership. (this was mentioned)


• more government/foundation funding


• earned revenue (institutions: ancillary revenues i.e. gift shops and restaurants; cultural groups: merchandise; corporate fees; service providers: membership fees, product sales, other ancillary revenues)

Uniquely digital solutions:

• on-site advertising. I am surprised they don't have advertising on the site, as hasn't this been the major revenue stream for internet businesses? And, with an estimated 200,000 members, guaranteed clicks)


• create and collect fees for "premium" membership. But will people pay? My personal experience: I blanche at paying for content. Why pay when there is so much good content for free? I really despise when I am forced to watch a video ad before reading an article, but I will put up with it if it means not having to pay! One of the more brutal responses to the G&M article summed it up like this: "only think[sic] people pay for online is gambling, porn and ebay. how many people pay to read newspapers online?" But I know Nerve and Salon have gone this way.


• rebrand in order to attract new members (which would involve redoing parts of the site, I assume). I personally find the site has no point of entry for new users. I'm 26. Am I considered youth or not? Is the site for me or not? It's hard to tell. Confused at the point of entry, I do not waste time going further.


• also to attract new members: use other social networking sites, ie. Facebook. I found out about this wonderful micro-lending organization through Facebook. Funnily enough, my friend whose page it was on wasn't even a lender, but now I am.

The wonderful thing about these (ok, run of the mill) solutions is that they are applicable to any organization that is moving towards a primarily digital offering like....the Canadian Music Centre (with whom we met today!) They are in the process of putting a whole wack of digital music online...

Last comment on the article: I was suprised at the vitriole directed at the organization in the comments section. They can't see why the organization exists at all and generally see it as a charity that sucks money away from 'real' cash-stricken charities. I have found that that is a constant and legitimate question about not-for-profits whose primary role is to direct people or information or funds to/about other not-for-profits.

Variety Thursday: What's on the internet

Something I know very little about: 'Trolls' and 'trolling': Here. Kind of sad.

"The Olympic Games will be played out on Facebook, YouTube and Flickr whether we like it or not. We need to engage, not disengage, with them," said Balfour.
Very wise. Check out the story here.

"Cirque du Soleil was formed in 1984 by Laliberte and fellow street performers in Quebec. Since then, it has grown into a sprawling global operation that plans to put on 18 separate shows on four continents this year." Now investors from Dubai own 20%. I know someone who dances for CdS (she is an amazing breakdancer!). Check out that story here. Another one of our clients, Centennial College, has a program in Dubai. Dubai seems to me like a strange desert kingdom being assembled from scratch, all hubris and glory.

Two of my favorite "affordable" art sites: 20 x 200 and Lumas. My favorite Lumas photographer is Juho Kuva. These sites are also possibly worth your consideration as successful digital models for connecting art to consumers/audience. Aren't these iterations on iTunes/ youtube/ etc. ? Don't they lead me to artists I never knew existed? Now I know Juho Kuva's name and one day may possibly own some of his work.

The problem with grants

I was having a conversation with my brother who works with Big Brothers Big Sisters, a mentoring program in Toronto. Oh, and by the way, if you are a visible minority male-- he is always looking for more mentors. Apparently they have no problems finding women mentors for girls. But I digress. He also works with a number of other not-for-profits and the conversation turned to grants. He told me about a report called "We Can't Afford to Do Business This Way" (Officially, "A Study of the Administrative Burden Resulting From Funder Accountability and Compliance Practices"). If you work with a non-profit at the organizational level and have been responsible for grant writing, this report won't tell you much that you haven't already experienced first hand, and the data collection was not in the area for the arts. It is still an eye-opener and I recommend it highly.



Download the report here.



Three findings that could be applied to arts/culture generating organizations:



The cumulative administrative burden on agencies is all consuming. The agencies respectivelycompleted 182, 48, and 94 major funder reports a year. Each funder and/or program had its ownreport requirements and formats. Securing and reporting on grants is the priority activity for thesurvival of organizations and their programs, pushing aside other organizational priorities suchas overall agency budgeting and strategic planning, community relations, staff development, and program management.

Funders are slow to approve/reject grants, and the slow response time causes “gap”problems for service delivery [here, substitute "arts programming or planning" for "service delivery"]. Agencies often found themselves with “nine months” to deliver“12 months” of service. If an agency guesses wrong and retains staff during the “gap” and thendoes not receive the grant, it incurs significant debt. If it lets staff go, program delivery and continuitysuffer. Response time for 73% of grants was four to five months or longer from the time the proposalwas submitted to the time the funder made a decision.

Grant applications and reporting, and addressing the challenges posed by funder practices andrestrictions, dominated the attention of senior management [...]. Senior managers are very aware and worried that they cannot replace themselves.Senior managers reported that frontline staff are reluctant to take on management jobs.Moreover, the agencies do not have the administrative capacity to train the next generation ofsenior managers. The reluctance of funders to compensate senior managers adequately iscompounding succession-planning. Grant management, of necessity, takes priority over other management responsibilities.

Scary, isn't it.

Contemporary art in Afghanistan

They held a contemporary art contest in Afghanistan.

Reported by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/in_pictures/7397878.stm

Arts funders moving forward on integrated reporting

Today I receive a press release from the Canada Council that relates to a NG project: a system of data collection by municipal, provincial, and federal arts funders.

Doug says that this may be the most valuable thing that the firm has ever done.

The story is that in 2003/04 NetGain Partners began working with the Intergovernmental Roundtable of Arts Funders and Foundations (IRAFF) to craft this system (I will eventually post this more succintly as a case study on the official website as well). The original assignment was two-fold: 1. examine audits to look for indicators of financial health to assist grants officers in evaluating applications and 2. collect aggregate data about funding clients.

But it turned out a lot of the data was bad or corrupt. The clients (such as my little dance organization) would submit their books to an accountant and pay a nice little fee to an accountant. Each accountant has their own way of doing the accounting which is, I would venture, somewhere on the scale of incomprehensible to confusing to some arts administrators. Most can read your basic audit. But then when it comes time to submit data from the audit to various granting agencies, they all ask for data from categories that don't exist in your audit! Different ones! Ones you may even have to make up (of course I nor anyone I have ever worked with has ever done this but I have heard rumours).

One must go into the murky world of figures and break down numbers into new categories. One breakdown for the Canada Council, another one for the Ontario Arts Council, maybe more for non-governmental charitable foundations, etc. Non-accountants (sometimes even dancers! Or writers! who happen not to be math whizzes) are sometimes responsible for this. Given my own experiences with the granting merry-go-round I am not surprised to hear that NG found that 30% of the data was corrupt in some way.

So the firm prescribed a solution: create one template that could be given to the accountant to fill out that would be accepted by all the granting agencies.

The accountant also deserves a proverbial "shout-out" here - so let's give props to David Trahair. He put the caseware audit template together.

It's been five years but something is finally "moving forward."

Official Press Release from the Canada Council follows:
Information Bulletin
Arts funders moving forward on integrated reporting
Ottawa, August 5, 2008 — An integrated financial and statistical online database called CADAC (Canadian Arts Data/ Données sur les arts au Canada) is being developed for launch in late 2008.
CADAC is a web-based database that will lighten the administration burden on arts organizations applying for operating funding to one or multiple public funders by enabling them to submit one set of financial and statistical information.
For years, arts funders have heard from the organizations they fund that they would like a more unified approach to the complex and comprehensive funding application processes. A key element is the financial and statistical data required by each funding agency. The CADAC benefits for arts organizations, arts funders and the broader sector are:
- Arts organizations will have access to reports and historical data on their own organizations, as well as reports that compare their data to all the data in CADAC for similar organizations – by size, region or discipline.
- Financial and statistical information will be secure. Only the arts funders will have access to the information provided by arts organizations applying to their programs.
- Arts funders and arts organizations will be able to use the aggregate data to identify trends and monitor the overall health of the arts sector.
- The arts sector will be able to speak with a common voice on the impact of the arts.
Pilot testing of the database is expected to begin in October with a number of arts organizations and will proceed throughout the fall. Once the testing is complete, CADAC will be phased in gradually over the next two years, beginning in late 2008.
This initiative was originally conceived by the Intergovernmental Roundtable of Arts Funders and Foundations (IRAFF) in Ontario and shepherded through the development phase by the Ontario Arts Council. The following are member partners: the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, the British Columbia Arts Council, the Canada Council for the Arts, the Manitoba Arts Council, the Ontario Arts Council, the Saskatchewan Arts Board and Toronto Arts Council. Discussions are ongoing with other provincial, territorial and municipal arts funders to encourage them to join the partnership.
In addition, the CADAC initiative has supporting partners: the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund, the Ontario Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the City of Toronto.
The Canada Council for the Arts will be the secretariat and host for CADAC.
For more information: CADACInfo@thecadac.ca
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bulletin d’information
Nota : Puisque ce courriel est distribué par des agences fédérales, provinciales et municipales de soutien aux arts, il est possible que vous receviez plus d’un exemplaire de ce courriel. Veuillez-nous en excuser.
Progrès des travaux d’intégration des rapports aux organismes de soutien aux arts
Ottawa, le 5 août 2008 — La base de données financières et statistiques intégrées en direct nommée CADAC (Canadian Arts Data/ Données sur les arts au Canada) est en développement et devrait être lancée vers la fin de 2008.
CADAC est une base de données sur le web destinée à alléger le fardeau administratif des organismes artistiques qui présentent une demande d’aide au fonctionnement à un organisme public de soutien ou plus, en leur permettant de présenter une seule série de données financières et statistiques. Depuis plusieurs années déjà, les clients des organismes de soutien aux arts leur demandent actuellement d’unifier davantage leurs processus de présentation de demandes de fonds très complexes et détaillés. Le volume de données financières et statistiques exigé par chacune des agences de soutien est un élément clé de cette complexité. CADAC présente les avantages suivants aux organismes artistiques, aux organismes de soutien aux arts et au secteur dans son ensemble :
- Les organismes artistiques pourront obtenir les rapports et données antérieures de leur propre organisme, ainsi que les rapports comparant leurs données à toutes les données de CADAC sur des organismes similaires – selon la taille, la région ou la discipline. - Les données financières et statistiques seront protégées. Les données fournies par un organisme artistique qui présente une demande de soutien financier ne pourront être affichées que par l’organisme de soutien aux arts qui offre le programme de soutien en question. - Les organismes de soutien et les organismes artistiques pourront utiliser les données d’ensemble pour relever les tendances et constater l’état de santé général du secteur des arts. - Le secteur des arts pourra parler d’une voix commune sur le thème de l’incidence des arts.
En octobre, plusieurs organismes devraient commencer la mise à l’essai de la base de données et la période d’essai se poursuivra tout au long de l’automne. Une fois cette étape terminée, CADAC sera mis en application graduellement, à compter de la fin de 2008 et au cours des deux prochaines années.
L’initiative avait été conçue à l’origine par la Intergovernmental Roundtable of Arts Funders and Foundations (IRAFF) en Ontario et son développement a été piloté par le Conseil des arts de l’Ontario. Les partenaires de CADAC sont : la Alberta Foundation for the Arts; le British Columbia Arts Council, le Conseil des Arts du Canada; le Conseil des Arts du Manitoba; le Conseil des arts de l’Ontario; le Saskatchewan Arts Board; et le Toronto Arts Council. Des discussions sont en cours avec d’autres organismes provinciaux, territoriaux et municipaux de soutien aux arts et ceux-ci sont encouragés à se joindre au partenariat.
De plus, l’initiative CADAC compte des partenaires de soutien : le ministère du Patrimoine canadien; le Fonds pour les manifestations culturelles de l’Ontario; le ministère de la Culture de l’Ontario; la Fondation Trillium de l’Ontario; et la ville de Toronto.
Le Conseil des Arts du Canada sera l’organisme hôte de CADAC et en hébergera le Secrétariat.
Pour des renseignements additionnels : CADACInfo@lecadac.ca