This article dovetails nicely with our discussion yesterday afternoon about the benefits/pitfalls of a/b testing. One of the reasons we fail at designing for our customers or are surprised when customers aren't acting the way we think they should is that they haven't mastered the web like we have. Anyway, read the article, and then try and answer this question for me: "How do we unlearn our mastery of the web in order to design for non-masters of the web?"

One problem with website design is perhaps that has tended to be a one-size-fits-all proposition (notwithstanding A/B testing, etc).

I recently came across a situation in which elderly users were confused by a prompt to submit their biography on our website before commenting. Instead of clicking the link and posting their biography on their personal profile page, they instead posted it as a comment itself: not the intended outcome!

As I think about how to solve the problem, I wonder whether sites may need more micro-targeting for different user groups: an elderly user who is less au-fait with the internet may need a fuller explanation of what to do, but that explanation may be obtrusive, unwelcome or patronizing to other users.

WDUT?

"How do we unlearn our mastery of the web in order to design for non-masters of the web?" - I really don't think we can. Instead of unlearning our mastery we have to find people who aren't "masters of the web" and let them tell us what the problem is. We did this with our user testing on YLS and it worked great.

Adam, to your point about micro-targeting, that is definitely an interesting idea. How would you want to do that? Would you build out different versions of the same content that target different queries? Less web savvy users may be entering a site from different keyword than web savvy users so that would theoretically be possible.

Or would it be easier to have two separate sites entirely - one made for savvy users and one made for the technically challenged?

That entire concept has a similar problem as the one we find when designing the overall feel of the website. The YLS website is very salesy. It gives you price information and a CTA right when you get to the page. We have wondered if we shouldn't try to make a user feel more at home with our page - but is there a certain subset of people who are actually just looking for the phone number and a price? There has to be, otherwise YLS wouldn't be making much money. How do we decide how to target both audiences? Do we use different pages on the same site or have sites that cater to the needs of different users?

I'm not sure catering to all the possible mastery levels is an effective strategy (nor is it scaleable). Good design (UX) should be easy for everyone to use.

It is a myth that savvy users aren't frustrated by bad design. They may be able to navigate it better, because they are "masters of the web", but that doesn't mean they enjoy the experience. For example, when I create a password for a new service and the password is rejected. The interface tells me: "Your password needs to contain: 8 characters or more, at least 1 letter and 1 number." Well, thanks for wasting my time by not telling me beforehand.

I may complete the process that a less-savvy user couldn't, but that doesn't mean I had a positive experience.

I think sometimes we believe that extra explanation or clear direction will annoy more savvy users. If we clear out the password requirements the page will look "cleaner," right? Savvy users like clean interfaces, right?

But if those requirements help me have a more positive experience, I won't find them annoying.

I would point to IOS as an example of a product that has good, clear UX but frustrates more technical users. This post reviews.cnet.com has a few examples of features that were probably designed with ease of use in mind, but are actually frustrating to technical users.