Special live show: Tuesday 7th Otcober at 10:30AM (UK time). A live Q&A time with the entire Boagworld team. To contribute a question email Paul or join us in the chatroom.

Defying conventions

Published on: May 30, 2008 by Paul Boag

As the web matures an increasing number of conventions are emerging. But should we always follow the crowd?

Let me start by making it clear I believe in conforming to web conventions. I have come across too many sites that are overly confusing because the designer wanted to "do something different".

People have developed certain expectations of a website. From placing search at the top right to ensuring links have underlines, it is wise to observe the emerging trends.

However a bigger crime than ignoring web conventions is to follow them blindly. Take time to consider each convention before you apply it and ask if your circumstances or audience should make you reconsider.

Take for example the commenting system on GetSignOff. A very definite convention exists when it comes to commenting, but should we follow that convention at all cost?

convention1

The norm for commenting is to place the post/content at the head of the page, followed by the comments (oldest first) and end with a box where people can add new comments. The new comment appears directly above the comment box at the bottom of the comments list. This is so common that we don't question it. After all, it is found on...

Every blog
All forums
Photo sharing sites like flickr
Sites like basecamp.

With so many examples of it working, it would be easy to just accept it as best practice. However, lets take a step back and ask why it is done that way.

The common approach to commenting

The traditional layout for commenting makes a lot of sense. For a start it is chronological. The post/content is the original item and therefore the oldest. As comments are added they are placed below the post in chronological order until you reach the most recent item at the bottom.

It is also an approach that encourages users to view previous comments before placing a comment themselves. This is particularly important in a forum where you can easily find repetition.

But does that mean commenting should always be done this way? Not necessarily and in the case of GetSignOff we have decided not.

An alternative approach

conventions2

The traditional approach to commenting works on the assumption that the commenter has not read each comment as it was posted and hasn't been following the conversation in detail. However, that is not true in every situation. For example, in the case of GetSignOff the comments are a conversation happening between two or more parties. It is not a series of individual comments but a dialogue in which all the participants are fully invested. That is why we felt it was unnecessary to force the user to scroll past every comment before being able to post a comment themselves.

In the approach we have taken the comment box has been moved to directly below the concept and then comment appear below that in reverse chronological order (newest at the top). This makes it easier to add new comments and to view the most recent additions. It also places the concept and comment box on the same screen, allowing users to see the concept they are commenting on.

The moral of the story

Why then do I raise this subject (other than to shamelessly plug GetSignOff yet again)? It is simply to stress that although conventions are good we need to be careful that we do not blindly follow them without considering our exact circumstances. We need to avoid designing on auto-pilot.

Comments

Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email

Post by Leesy on May 30, 2008 10:28 AM

What's this GetSignOff? Never heard you mention that before?

Nice post Paul. Completely agree with you and I admit I've been guilty of doing similar things. For example, splitting your CSS into multiple more specific stylesheets. I recently did an internal project where I created a base set of pages for an application which another team were going to use & modify. I used various small stylesheets for the CSS including a reset one. Why? Because lots of people do it for various reasons I agree with (code managability, using a reset to start with an equal starting point on all standards based browsers). Trouble was that when it came to this other team using these stylesheets, it only confused them. Due to this, I rolled the changes into one stylesheet split up with comments. It was what they were most comfortable with.

The morale of this rant? Consider your users, even if they are just internal ones. Like Paul said, just because it's good for one person doesn't mean it's great for you.
Post by Rob... on May 30, 2008 11:33 AM

Funnily enough, when I built our internal job tracking system, I did comments the same way as GetSignOff for very similar reasons. With a small set of people in the conversation, the model is more like top posted email than a forum or blog comments.

Regards,

Rob...
Post by Jennifer Kyrnin on May 30, 2008 4:40 PM

I love the moral! It's also a great reminder that conventions that are popular now may not be popular in the future, so it's good to be flexible. For example, how many sites do you see with rainbow horizontal lines as a design element? And yet, 10 years ago, that was all the rage!
Post by Douglas Greenshields on June 1, 2008 4:20 PM

Good post, though I think with regard to commenting you're only scratching the surface. There are all sorts of problems associated with our common understanding of commenting - one of which is, as you point out, whether we expect our users to have read through all of the comments before they post theirs, or whether it is a comment simply on the original post. Another is the question of whether commenters should write with any kind of expectation that the original writer will respond. The important thing here is to have a strong opinion one way or another. I think that commenting systems as they currently stand are deeply flawed and inevitably schizophrenic, and will evolve towards something cleverer over time. Commenting is one of those conventions that should not be thought of as a durable standard, but is merely the best we have for now.
Post by Matthew Pollard on June 5, 2008 10:47 AM

Have you ever used fogbugz? This allows you to switch the order of the comments - so you can view them chronologically with the newest at the bottom or if you can't bother to scroll you can switch the order and view the newest first.

I think in this context it makes sense as there will probably be many comments as you say almost a conversation and in terms of bugs the newest is usually the most relevant so should be easier to find.
Post by Lee on June 5, 2008 1:15 PM

I think the key is being able to justify why you're using or not using a particular convention.

Conventions generally exist because we become used to a certain pattern or way of working, and as a result following that convention generally eases the way for new users to a site / application. This doesn't mean you can't do things differently, as long as you can justify it as either making your users' life easier, or offering them something tangibly better.

Also, as pointed out in your original post Paul, the example you gave is a different situation than your typical blog comment, so the user has a different mental model of how / why their commenting and what they want from it, so it may deserve a different approach.

A podcast for those who design, develop and run websites.

Latest shows

Have your say

Posts by tag

Defying conventions

The common approach to commenting

An alternative approach

The moral of the story

Comments

Leave a comment

Additional Information

Interesting links

Supporting boagworld

Speaking and writing