According to Catalyst Group Design as far a mainstream users are concerned , web sites have a lot more work to do to convince people about the value of blogs. As for RSS/XML it's about time that we all found a better way to describe RSS than as a light weight XML content syndication format !
From June 29th through July 1st, 2005, Catalyst Group Design conducted usability testing in New York City, NY in order to gather qualitative feedback regarding mainstream internet users’ ability to understand and use blogs. Chosen as a testing platform was one of BusinessWeek’s seven recently launched blogs, a personal finance destination called “Well Spent”
The findings: Even assuming mainstream interest, current blog design standards – at least in terms of navigation, nomenclature and taxonomy – are a barrier to consumer acceptance. In fact, the design of most blogs can incite “net rage”
The participants surveyed felt that blogs were a good or interesting development – with almost everyone saying that they would consider visiting blogs in the future. However, almost everyone also felt that there was not enough assistance on the site to allow them to take advantage of what was offered.
RSS is arguably the core of what makes a blog a blog. Being able to review dozens – or more – of posts as they update in real time is central to the value that blogs can provide. Unfortunately, the presentation of both the concept and the mechanics of RSS failed utterly with test participants. And in fact, even the basic idea of RSS ran afoul of users’ fear of unwanted costs and spam.
The report is available here and well worth a read.
The Catalyst findings are right on the mark with what I've noticed and heard from users and colleagues. The content of blogs is central to their appeal, but not everyone can appreciate or understand the roles of RSS, blogrolls, trackbacks, etc. I expect this will change over the next few years as blogs appear in more mainstream 'Net locations, and companies experiment with more accessible blog content.
Posted by: Ian Lamont | July 28, 2005 at 02:03 PM