Joe Leech

UX and ROI: What to measure and what to expect

joe — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:34:47 +0000

Here’s the video for the Usability Professionals Association talk I did last July. And yes, I did only get a C at GCSE Maths.

UKUPA July 2011 event: UX and ROI from UK UPA on Vimeo.

The slides are here:
UX & ROI: What to measure and what to expect

Why we shouldn’t worry about address book uploads

joe — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:21:29 +0000

Over the last week or so there has been a huge outcry from the tech community about how social network, Path, uploads a user’s address book when it installed. The main criticism: Path doesn’t ask if that’s ok.

The case for the prosecution further states that Path is somehow evil for doing this, that this runs rough shot over privacy, how they are becoming like Facebook.

Here stands the case for the defence.

1. The outcry has come from the tech community. This is an important point. We understand security & privacy. We care about this stuff. Here’s the reality. In the user research I’ve seen it time and again: simply people don’t care. Upload my address book to a server somewhere? This is not in most people’s concept of technology – they aren’t bothered.

2. Which brings me to the next point. In highlighting this has happened, we are making our users concerned. This is our fault as an industry. We design password systems that require uppercase, digits & other complexity to access stuff as simple as a newspaper. My newsagent doesn’t ask for my mother’s maiden name to buy a copy of my daily paper.

The paradox is this. In warning people about security we worry them about security. It’s called Privacy Salience. [1] In asking for a password for something trivial we devalue privacy when it does count. [2] Is this same for security?

The solution suggested is we offer a security message that Apple set in iOS. Rather like Facebook’s.

But how many of us just click through these messages without seeing them? It seems quite a lot of us. [2]

The solution is not to warn people – it’s to be responsible in using that data.

I think a great many users will feel that Path hasn’t broken their trust, Instagram have been doing the same for some time. Trust would be broken if they sold the data, didn’t implement super security, or somehow added a feature where they sent your Mum a text message if you checked into one-to-many bars.

Yes we should be able to opt-out of these features but at the same time in warning about security or using some standard, shitty dialogue that Apple or Facebook have designed we end up making something more difficult to use. After all Path has be praised for it’s great UX.

Reference:

UXBootcamp: Cognitive Psychology

joe — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:27:13 +0000

Last weekend saw me running the latest UXBootcamp. Cognitive Psychology & UX.

When Leisa Riechart first asked me to do I have to admit it made me a little nervous. There is so much psychology theory and application isn’t as easy as it may seem.

I based the 2 day workshop around three themes and made a worksheet for each (Download the worksheets they probably won’t make much sense without the theory matching game):

1. Articles and blogs: understanding perception & how the brain works
2. Forms: memory and attention making
3. Product pages: emotion & cognitive bias aka ‘the dark arts’

Throughout I had a variety of slides to explain theories and we discussed the challenges of application and straight away got sketching to apply.

I also created a matching game which explains each example we discussed.

I’ve also put together a big list of links that talk about theory and application as well as a link to all the RSS feeds that I read to keep me up to date.

We’re looking to run another one later in the summer. Watch this space and follow me on Twitter, I’m @mrjoe

Forms are boring

joe — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:30:25 +0000

My talk at Bathcamp on Wednesday 8th February 2012.

Forms are boring

View more presentations from Joe Leech

The science of form design. Security, honesty & stupid mistakes not to make.

Some recent UX answers elsewhere

joe — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:51:36 +0000

One of my highlights last year was Quora coming of age, it’s become a great resource for the knowledge many of us have locked in our heads.

Spreading the knowledge love I thought I’d highlight some of my Quora answers:

Why do most websites and mobile apps use sans-serif fonts?

It’s worth just discussing what Serifs are. Serifs are the details that sit at the ends of strokes on fonts. Their origins are in the print world where serifs aid readability of text (this is of course a much cut down history of the serif!).

There are a number of studies that look at readability of sans-serif fonts and they are easier to read at lower screen resolutions. As screen resolutions have increased we’ve seen not only more OS bundled serif fonts but increased usage.

The Alex Poole article that is linked in your question talks about low res grid based font design about 2/3s down. The fact we’ve come from low res screens means that sans-serif reliance is a hangover from that.
http://alexpoole.info/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces

All the HCI literature focuses on text size being the major issue with readability.

With my Neuroscience hat there’s a lot to understand from the way the eye works. 94% of eye movement is based on saccades which are quick involuntary eye movements. When reading the eye moves backwards and forwards over the text – known as regressions. With harder to read text there are more regressions. I also use an eyetracker with the UX research I undertake.

The Russel et al experiment used an eye tracker to study, amongst other things, serif vs non-serif font to do this. They showed a 7% increase in readability with serifs (not statistically significant however), they don’t share the data for regressions sadly.
http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_hc08_v2_paper4.pdf

It’s worth saying they chose Helvetica and Georgia in their test. As any good typographer will tell you Georgia was designed for screen use. I’d say for this experiment to be valid, a number of different font faces should have been used. I wouldn’t take this as being a definitive study.

Link: Why do most websites and mobile apps use sans-serif fonts?

What can interactive design learn from the recent advances is the study of the mind?

There is a great overview of the psychology theories a UX person should be aware of here:
http://uxmag.com/articles/the-psychologists-view-of-ux-design

You could also look to buy this book which helps frame design tricks with psychology:
Universal Principles of Design: 100 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach through Design:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1592530079?linkCode=shr&camp=3194&creative=21330&tag=joeleechnet-21

Link: Why do most websites and mobile apps use sans-serif fonts?

How can we design an international website whilst considering cultural context of a country?

The first thing to understand is that designing websites for a different countries is not just about language. I worked for a few years with eBay and one of the things that is very clear is that UK and US English language is not the only difference between the two (I’m English by the way).

I’ve worked with other large blue chips on their website for different markets and the thing that is often important is the overall feeling associated with the design. I’ve heard South American users describe an American site as being very “yanky”. There was no specific thing that triggered this, just an overall feel. I’ve seen exactly the same in China and Japan as well as the Middle East. A design can ‘feel’ western.

My advice would be to if possible hire a native of that country to work with you. Ideally someone with some design expertise. This will give you a good start, an internal voice to help understand the motivations of the users from that country.

If you can’t hire an individual then look for a good user experience company/consultant based in that country. They will bring the local expertise. I’d say spend the money more on a UX agency than a standard design agency as you’ll get much more insight into user’s needs and motivations.

Have the agency conduct a benchmark UX study on competitors in that market. You’ll see how they meet the cultural needs of that country and get a strong idea about what is important for that country by what the competition are doing well and not so well.

Things to look for:

Attitudes towards tone of voice

Attitudes towards imagery

Specific functionality users need and expect

Gaps not currently filled by the competition

Attitudes towards the brand

Link: How can we design an international website whilst considering cultural context of a country?

What is the first step in defining your online strategy?

The first and most logical step is to understand your users’ needs and if you are meeting these needs.

Conducting user research based around user need (rather than say looking for usability issues) is a good first step.

The next step is then to map those needs to your current offering. This can be both rewarding and disheartening. You may find you are meeting a sub set of those needs and missing some very basic ones. Fix the basic ones first.

There are a variety of ways you can map and then prioritise the user needs you are not meeting.

Indi Young has written a great book on mapping user needs to your current web offering:
http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/mental-models/

There’s a nice article here describing the Kano Method which can help you to prioritise the user needs you are not meeting:
http://www.uie.com/articles/kano_model

Also check out Lance Bettencourts book on service innovation for a process to ensure you are constantly meeting your customer needs:
Service Innovation: How to Go from Customer Needs to Breakthrough Services
http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/007171300X.html

Link: What is the first step in defining your online strategy?

You can see my full list of answers on Quora. If you’ve not already discovered Quora you should check it out.

Innovation is a last resort

joe — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:51:22 +0000

The flurry of recent unsolicited speculative redesigns and the responses from those having a redesign thrust upon them has sparked me to think about one of the biggest pitfalls in design.

I tend to work on very technical interactions on sites that have a significant revenue (from millions to billions). Some of these designs have been the subject of speculative redesigns.

In particular one project I worked on 3 years ago and still live today still leads to at least 3 comments a week coming my way. I use this site 3 times a week as do most of my colleagues.

It’s a design I’m proud of. A design that solves a very difficult problem. A design that is successful (in business terms) but in terms of UX it could be better because of technical & business constraints. Constraints that are not always obvious to the speculative redesiner.

Blue sky, no limits, the best it can be

A few years ago I worked on a project for a multi-billion dollar finance company. The design brief was simple, no limits, no constraints. Make this complex system the best it can be – it scared me to death.

Design history is littered with big budget, blue sky projects. Boo.com famously developed a spectacular fashion website back in 2000 and spent millions. They had no limits; investors throwing money at them, the best technical people, the best infrastructure, buy in from suppliers, buckets of free publicity. They launched and the site all though looking great with good interactions failed. – Why? They were too innovative. The book that founder Ernst Malmsten wrote sums it up nicely:

We simply were too ahead of our time, our audience weren’t ready

The best design comes from constraint.

Backend computer system designed in the 80s? No problem. Has to work on a netbook screen? No problem. Only 4 data requests per page view? No problem. The bottom of the page is delivered from a CMS hosted in Paris, the top, that’s in the UK, the middle bit we need to redesign, oh and none of the parts of the page talk to each other. No problem – all examples of the design challenges I’ve worked on recently.

I have a confession, I love constraints. They make the project interesting. They give the project boundaries, limits and above all rules.

The blue sky project I mention never amounted to much. The final design was the best it could be from a UX point of view, a full UCD process led to something special. What went wrong? We didn’t appreciate the constraints.

The design, by it’s very nature meant a full re-architecting of some heavy weight financial systems, 3rd party data feeds had to be re-negotiated and re-written, a content team employed and trained. The project ground to halt before the team could get to grips with it. It never saw the light of day. It still makes me sad to think about it.

Innovation is a last resort

If the design cannot address the goal & be developed within the constraints of the problem then, and only then, think differently.

A project I was involved with recently took a multi-billion dollar website and radically changed the homepage. All non-essential content was thrown out. It was pared down to the bare essentials. A brave move.

It’s been a success. A lot of hard work was done to research the implications of the changes before it went live. The design is innovative but the business went into the project knowing that innovation is a risk. Nothing else was working. Innovation was the the last resort.

Embrace the constraints and know when to break the rules

Learn to embrace the challenges, live with the constraints. By all means break the rules but be aware that you are doing it. Be aware of the risks and the costs associated with a drastic innovation. For every successful innovation there have been many, many failures.

A speculative redesign can never be fully aware of the constraints, there can be innovation but without understanding the implications involved.

The very best design comes from a definition of the problem, embracing the constraints and, of course, breaking a rule or two.

Cognitive Psychology UX Bootcamp

joe — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:49:27 +0000

I’m pleased to have been asked to present the next UX Bootcamp on Cognitive Psychology. The idea behind UX Bootcamp is to offer practical training for UX professionals.

I’ll be working on the structure with Leisa Reichelt (the organiser of UX Bootcamp) over the next few weeks. But briefly over the 2 days we’ll cover:

Perception (and how it relates to design)
Memory (how experience relate to the now)
Reasoning / problem solving / attention (getting user’s through and to do what you want them to do)
Emotion & communication (creating a meaningful experience)

Tickets are on sale from Thursday 5th January at 12.

Great Outdoors of Design Conference 2011

joe — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:07:36 +0000

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Great Outdoors of Design conference.

The theme was design research with an international dimension. If you follow my tweets you’ll know that’s 3 things very close to me heart.

Session 1 – Breaking down organisational silos

Dan and Jo from Apogee gave a great introduction to the day. Talking about the current state of design research and how it can (and can’t) make change within an organisation.

Themes

Lean UX
Emotional and functional attributes of design [ac] look for article
How we are increasingly becoming discontent with big
Speak the same language as the organisation you work with
Making places to work more fun
Demystifying design – design language is complex

Very nicely summed up in the phrase “Be water my friend” from Bruce Lee

Session 2 Moving beyond the technical to embrace the emotional

From Nicolas Gaudron and Virginia Cruz of IDSL in France.

Empathy is where design & research meet.Get inside the people of the company. The people side of them.

Their focus is on designing empathetic tools. Translating technology in human.

They gave a great example of navigating the video of a football game. They visually mapped crowed noise onto the interface. This made it easy to navigate to the exciting bits as indicated by louder crowd noise.

They finally talked about turning insights into recipes that can be applied across the organisation. Recipes for design innovation. A nice idea.

Session 3 Community involvement in sustainable energy use

From Rikke Ulk an applied anthropologist at Antropologerne.com in Denmark.

They talked about community involvement in promoting sustainable energy use.

Understanding culture and putting people at the centre of change.

Dong flex project which is a longitudinal study looking at tools and approaches to reduce electricity usage. A common theme across the day.

The research participants and the client share the same shared project space. A great way of including clients in the research. Breaking down the barriers between researchers often can create and not getting in the way of customer client dialogue.

Podio was the online project space used. Looks really useful.

Research participants can comment on each others’ experiences as can the client. Participants can steer the research & the project through the time it’s running.

Also mentioned was working alongside qualitative researches to create business & financial models. Linking the stories and the numbers.

Session 4 – Design & research a love story

From Lekshmy Parameswaran & Laszlo Herczeg at Fuelfor who specialise in experience design in healthcare.

They used the analogy of a love story, the ups & downs & building a relationship.

They asked design and research practioners to talk about the relationship between design & research and they came up with the following key words:

Respect, acceptance, playfulness, passion, trust, seduction, time alone together.

Words all associated with a relationship.

They also looked at the terms that describe each discipline.

They suggest both disciplines work together from the start.

Design your research for and with your designers
Best research systematic & playful

A couple of great quotes:

Create frameworks that honour the research

Good research should seduce everyone in the room

Session 5 – Local insights affect shifts in global organisations

From Klebel Puchanski from Feel the Future.

Klebel talked specifically about the Brazilian market, an important one for growth (and somewhere I’ve researched twice already this year).

He talked about Brazil being a dynamic paradox. How there is no such thing as a typical Brazilian –
to be Brazilian is to be a mix of people. Brazil is a true multicultural nation.

Who is the new Brazilian consumer?

The middle class in Brazil, the C class, is different to the middle class in other areas of the world. There is less of an aspiration to become say upper class. A real feeling of being happy in the middle. The middle class don’t care about prestige. He talked about Brazilians being the happiest people in the world.

Klebel then went on to discuss the approach he came up with for his PhD and has put to the test on recent projects:

Process // branding = consistency
Don’t respect the global attributes too much
People // flexibility = new ways of thinking
Flexible country & people
Design // vernacular creativity = intuitive
Cultures have developed their own aesthetics, respect these in your design

Session 6 Thinking big by starting local

From Daniela Hammel, Jan Schröder, Martin Beyerle minds & makers, Germany.

They described a recent service design project a highly participatory approach to design services for street kids.

Session 7 The Power of Many & the power of one

From Indri Tulusan & Fumiko Ichikawa Spur, Singapore & Tokyo.

Fumiko talked about the recent earthquake in Japan. She told some interesting stories about life immediatly after the quake. The technology we rely on in modern life no longer worked & how the society coped.

How there were large (and orderly, being Japan) queues at public phone
No more heels (everyone had to walk)
No more virtual cash as no ATMs
Board games sales went up

Indri went on to to talk about Kenya and how people live off the electricity grid.

TVs + generators sold together
Charging up mobile phones from generators & solar panels

Fumiko then went on to talk about the electricity forecasting following the shutdown of the Fukishima reactor.

This screen from the Tokyo underground shows electricity usage. How much electricity the country is using:

They concluded by looking at how technology has changed in Japan following the quake. They talked about a rechargeable TV. The battery is charged overnight then used in the day when no electricity.

The parallels between the evolution of technology in Kenya and the recent changes in Japan were stark. For the world to cope with future energy shortages there are lessons to be learnt from both Kenya & Japan.

Session 8 – Defining the global by exploring the local

(I was getting hungry at this point so excuse me if I don’t do this session justice)

Bas Raijmakers STBY, UK & Netherlands.

Bas talked about recent research projects across multiple countries.

He discussed how the regional teams need to be story tellers not data collectors How the teams need to be agile to adapt to findings coming out of their country.

He further discussed the importance of collaborating with clients.

The following quote from Bas outlined a key theme of the day:

You need as a researcher a strategic view of the organisations to make your findings useful.

Obvious but sadly not always done by many researchers.

Breakout sessions

After lunch we split into groups based on topic. I attended the ‘How can global perspectives encapsulate an increasingly complex world?’ stream.

Bas from STBY led the workshop. We started by looking at how technology is often used in unexpected ways to solve immediate problems.

We then discussed some of the major themes of the day.

Sharing vs owning. Sharing is more sustainable but needs a strong trust network to succeed.
When technology no longer works how can an individual and society prepare for this

We discussed a research approach to look into this second theme.

Bas suggested giving participants in each country a Japanese survival kit. Getting them to explain the usage of each part. eg plastic bags to hold water. Specifically looking at cultural items in the kits. The Japanese kits contain slipper for example – the slippers help reduce the dust carried around on the feet.

We then discussed what items would be specific to other cultures survival kits and what this tells us about that society.

Themes for the day

Wrapping up the day the following key themes emerged:

Design can solve many of the problems organisations have however it often fails to speak the language of the organisation so has a lower impact
Build on the local to develop the global. Strong local foundations mean projects can succeed globally
Don’t be dogmatic in the research approach chosen. Be agile.
Many of the solutions to modern problems are present in other cultures. Research can identify these and design can show how to adapt them.

Overall we as design professionals need to adapt to the organisation & the culture we are working – as Dan Szuc said while channeling Bruce Lee we need to “Be water my friend.”

Thanks to everyone I met and talked with. Please add a comment below if you feel I’ve missed anything.

Personas: the good, the bad and the ugly

joe — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:00:14 +0000

Following on from the discussions on Twitter earlier today around personas I thought it was time I shared my experiences. Alex, Emma, Andy & Mark shared opinions and no doubt blog posts will follow. This has been a point of discussion before of course.

Richard Caddick, my boss at cxpartners following the conversation mentioned how as as young UXer are you supposed to think about personas? Are personas a useful tool or not?

I thought it was time to share my thoughts. (by the way these really are my thoughts not those of the other happy people of cxpartners).

A few years ago we all agreed any form of user centred design (UCD) in a project meant better results.

Fast forward 5 years. UX is more widely understood, more widespread and as a discipline has more collective experience. The UCD toolbox is bigger meaning we can select the right tool for the problem at hand.

Personas: the good

Back in the dark days when I first started working in UX. Any kind of UCD approach yielded results. By results I mean, a measurably better final product, a smoother project role out and meeting timescales and budgets.

User research is and always has been, expensive and time consuming. Personas are a great tool for representing the user if timescales and budgets don’t allow for research.

In the design process when there is a choice the difficulties arise. Should this call to action say this or that? Should we focus the IA on services, or products or something else?

Without UCD we see personal subjective opinion rule. Decisions are justified based on personal preference and opinion. “I think we should do this…” rules; personal, subjective opinion often drives design.

Personas give the user a voice. “Anne, Persona A, would think this…” helps give design direction. The final project is more user centred. Equally if the project team have a shared view of what the user wants, constant changes are avoided thus reducing costs and time.

Personas: the bad

In my experience the above rarely happens, certainly on the projects I’ve worked on.

I’ve worked on projects with great personas. Well researched, robust, representative. It’s not the individual personas that are the problem. It’s people.

A representation of something is by it’s very nature is not the original. Personas are a level of abstraction removed from the real user. Personas are designed to foster a sense of empathy with the people they represent – but using them requires a sense of empathy. The ability to put oneself in the shoes of the persona. To be good at UX we need to have empathy, not everybody has the same level of empathy as us.

Personas: the ugly

I’ve seen some really badly designed personas over the years. Often they have solid demographic underpinnings. Audience segmentation, extensive attitudinal research, market sizing etc are used to form a persona.

Our audience is 20 – 30 years old women, married / co-habiting with no children, ABC1s, living in the South East, earning £25 – £50K a year. They shop online frequently and use facebook everyday. Reads the Sunday Times.

And a nice little touch from James Chudley, “has 2 kittens called salt and pepper”. Often this wrapped up with a great stock photo of someone with perfect teeth.

The problem here is how do we address design decisions with the above?

We need to add behaviour to the mix. Let’s take travel as an example. We can include research that shows the above audience books a yearly holiday 3 moths before they go away. They research the hotel for 3 hours, share it with the partner by email, they book it at lunch time. Typically they have a short list of 4 hotels and compare across 3 other websites. Here a persona can become more useful.

Arguably the above data might be enough to make decisions. Knowing that the target audience has a cat let alone it’s name doesn’t help make a decision – it helps with empathy but isn’t useful. User research will give you this information. Packaging it as a persona may reduce it’s impact. Techniques like mental modelling are far more effective as a tool to describe behaviour but that’s another blog post.

You’ve gotta have faith

I made the facetious comment on twitter that personas share a lot in common with astrology.

Astrology like personas has a scientific basis, the month of your birth has an impact on who you are. Astrology looks to get a deeper understanding of people, what makes them tick, what makes them behave in a certain way, a way of predicting what will happen in the future. Sound familiar? Astrology like personas relies on a sense of empathy to succeed.

The very problem that personas are trying to solve – a lack of empathy with a user group – relies itself on empathy to succeed. Personas it seems, by design have a fundamental flaw.

But then hey, I’m an Aries, I would say that.

It’d be great to hear other people’s experiences either below or on Twitter, @mrjoe

The browser is broken and needs some UX love

joe — Fri, 20 May 2011 04:44:42 +0000

As a UX designer I spend my life developing interfaces that are easy, efficient and above all satisfying to use but when it comes to the browser interface they are presented in, things start to unravel.

The recent versions of browsers from Firefox, IE and Opera have highlighted just how broken browser design is. I’ll list 3 reasons why browser design needs to be improved.

1. Using space wisely

Screen resolutions are ever increasing and one of the most important changes of late is in screen size ratios.

When the original browsers were designed back in the 90s screen ratios were effectively the same as a TV, Defined as 4:3, 4 wide by 3 high, close to, but not quite a square. WIth 4:3 screen ratio it made sense to place all interaction elements at the top of the screen where the menu was placed.

Modern screen resolution tends to be 16:9, that is 16 long by 9 high. Meaning screens are much wider than before. Placing all the tabs, bookmarks, menus and everything at the top no longer makes sense when we have much wider screens. You can see the trend in browser design to minimise the clutter at the top of the screen. Chrome started this trend and the other browsers have followed.

We can still go further yy moving all the controls to the left (or right in some cultures) we can make better use of the screen real estate.

2. Too many white boxes to type in

Yahoo! list the top 20 current popular searches. As of today, May 29th 2011, Facebook is first and YouTube is second. They lead the rest of the results by a factor of 10. These aren’t searches, they are mistakes. People typing an address into a search box.
Edit: Fri 20 May 22:49 (Sing). Justin Stach makes the point that this is less a mistake and more an alternate route to the same goal. A desire path.

Chrome have taken the lead and removed the search box and integrated it into the URL box. All browsers should be doing this. Especially mobile browsers on touch screen phones as it can be really easy to select the wrong white box. See the picture above. There is no need for 2 boxes. Let’s just have one combined URL/search bar.

3. Error messages

For the simplest error possible, no internet connection. Many browsers still present fairly incomprehensible, jargon heavy error messages.

Google Chrome states:

This webpage is not available. The server at whatever.com can’t be found, because the DNS lookup failed

What’s DNS? Is it the web page that’s not available? No.

Firefox isn’t much better:

Server not found, Firefox can’t find the server at www.google.com

What’s a server? Most internet users would have no idea.

Ok, Opera, otherwise Bruce & Pat will shout at me:

Network problem

Better but still not user friendly. Most users would have no real idea what a network is even though anybody reading this will of course, know.

IE again isn’t much help:

Network problem, why don’t you try [Diagnose connection problems]

Network, diagnose? All very technical, intimidating terms.

Well done Safari:

You are not connected to the Internet.

Not surprisingly Apple get it right. Safari isn’t perfect, it offers the button quite intimidatingly titled: “Network diagnostics”. Sounds technical and difficult.

Let’s fix the browser

Here’s how I’d recommend writing the ‘No internet connection’ error message. More often than not I find refreshing the page fixes this issue, so suggest that first. Next give lo-fi, non-technical fix. Next try connection helper and finally the advanced technical solution. Here’s what I suggest wrapped in an updated browser layout to include better use of the screen and no second white box.

Browsers are far better than they were 5 years ago thanks to competition in the market. But as I’ve shown, they still have a long way to go.

I’d love to help, if any browser developers are reading this, just get in touch.