On a mailing list the following question was asked:

Does anyone have links to any usability studies comparing 2-column layouts (1 column with navigation + ancillary information, 1 column with content) against 3-column layouts (2 columns with navigation + ancillary information, 1 with content)?

As an independent web developer I don’t get to do usability studies for my websites. I have to rely on published studies and common sense. That’s okay: most small businesses can’t afford usability studies but they can, and should, have the best website they can afford.

The question piqued my interest so I did a quick Google search for “web design usability study two-column three-column“. The first result led me through a virtual wonderland of usability studies that provided a lot of really interesting information:

Is Multiple-Column Online Text Better? It Depends!

Large high-resolution displays can now have resolutions of over 1900 pixels, resulting in extremely long lines of text. One way to resolve the problem of very long text lines is to divide the text into multiple columns, thus decreasing the width of each individual line. Some sites even allow users to customize pages into one, two, or three columns…

Effects of Link Arrangement on Search Efficiency

Results indicate that column treatments of a large numbers of links has an effect on search time. - This statement could imply that if the designer is given no choice with regards to page depth, that no tested improvement can be made on the search time. In other words, nothing shows that arranging many links in particular formats is going to generate lower search times, so choose the best one from a design point of view.

I found this study to be particularly interesting because it determined that users were able to find links quicker when they were spread across multiple columns whereas I would have expected people to more easily scan a single vertical list.

What is the Best Layout for Multiple-Column Web Pages?

An important issue regarding the physical layout of a web page is the use of space or in this case, how the contents of a web page should be placed within the confines of a window. Web designers have dealt with this issue by using several different methods…

This study found that fluid layouts are preferred by users. Left justified layouts (fixed to the left of the window) are least preferred. None of the tested layouts caused a significant difference in usability. Unlike the previous study regarding link columns, the results of this study are exactly what I would have expected.

Where Should You Put the Links? A Comparison of Four Locations

Online newspapers and journals, as well as many other types of informational sites, are invariably confronted with the question of where to place links associated with the online document. Currently, many informational sites place associative links below (as seen with CNN.com) or on the side of the document (as seen with techreview.com), while a shrinking number of sites embed associative links within their documents, such as scientificamerican.com.

This one studied link locations. Again, no significant difference in
usability based on location of the links. Users preferred links embedded in
the content. I’m with the users and, despite the findings, disagree on the usability aspect. Embedded links appear within a context. I know what they’re about and that makes them more useful to me.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

When the sale of management of six major U.S. ports to the UAE (technically Dubai Ports World of the UAE) first became a topic of discussion I didn’t know what to make of it. I learned, almost immediately, that the management of nearly all U.S. ports are in the hands of foreign or transnational companies.

Rather than assuage my fears, this made me even more concerned. It’s well-known that port security is the weakest point of defense in this country. It’s been repeatedly pointed out that security is still in the hands of the U.S. for all ports, but that’s not entirely true, is it?

Yes, military and police aspects of all port control are in the hands of the U.S., but that’s like saying that the military is the only necessary aspect of an invasion of a foreign country. Turns out that a police force and management play equal roles. They are three equal parts of the whole.

We are not talking about a sale to a foreign company. The ports management was already in the hands of a foreign company. We’re talking about selling national assets to a government-owned company. We’re talking about a sale to the country of UAE. The more I find out about this deal the more concerned I become:

• A law requiring a mandatory 45 day review of sales involving foreign governments was ignored. [1]
• Congress was not informed of the deal. [2]
• The deal was approved by Treasury Secretary John Snow, the same individual who sold off operations of CSX Rail’s port operations to Dubai Ports World when he was the chairman of CSX. [3]
• Money for the 9/11 attacks was moved through the UAE banking system. [4]
• The UAE has been named as a “key transfer point” for shipments of nuclear components. [4]
• David Sanborn, a former Dubai Ports executive, was appointed as head of maritime administration in the transportation department. [5]

Ultimately, I believe this is another case of cronyism and imperialism (”we can do whatever we want”) by this administration. I don’t fear that nuclear material is going to be smuggled into this country by Dubai Ports World. I do fear that there is a potential for mismanagement; that there will be no incentives to scan more cargo (we currently scan less than five percent); and that we are selling off our national assets to corporations.

I’m concerned that most port operations have been sold off. I’m also concerned that Bush is selling off national wilderness to oil companies to raise a fraction of the money he waived that was owed by the same oil companies for leasing the same land. But I digress…

For all the reasons listed above, this deal is more troubling than most. I don’t fear the company will smuggle nuclear materials into this country, but I don’t trust a crony company of this administration to take the steps necessary to ensure that nobody else smuggles in nuclear material.

This goes straight back to what happened after Katrina. We saw firsthand how badly managed FEMA had become under the Bush administration. We cannot afford a FEMA response to port security (again, the management aspect of security).

[1] Where’s common sense?
[2] Bush tries to salvage ports deal
[3] The “people responsible” for port deal? Bush, Rumsfeld say: Not us!
[4] Bush threatens veto — his first — over port deal
[5] Bush insists Dubai firm is safe to run US ports

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The New York Times has the article up under a different title: “Ban on Most Abortions Advances in South Dakota”

The ban actually goes further than either title suggests. The law, which is expected to pass, will outlaw all abortions except to protect the life of the mother. That means no abortion if the pregnancy is only going to cripple the mother. No abortions for rape victims. No abortions for incest victims. No abortions during the first 40 or 50 days when even the Vatican doesn’t believe a soul yet exists.

Welcome to the new Republican World Order, where a clump of cells has more rights than an adult woman.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Over the last year I’ve noticed changes to how Google searches. It stopped telling me that “the” and “of” were common words. It started searching for phrases first, then words. Now I can get different search results for the same words by putting them in a different order.

For example:

“turning of the screw” vs “of the screw turning”

Google has become the first search engine to work the way my brain does.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Some real work is being done to show how right-wing our media has become. Here is a brief list of recent items:

• A Challenge to Rightwing Bloggers Who Blame the Media for the Cheney Mess
• A Seminal Moment in Blogland
• Dispatches From The Fever Swamp
• Do Bush followers have a political ideology?
• If It’s Sunday, It’s Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005
• Meet the Press responds to the [Media Matters] report
• Media Matters responds to Meet the Press
• Open Letter to Tim Russert
• Open Letter to Chris Matthews
• Open Letter to the Washington Post
• Pro-Bush Media Bias Blowing Rightwing Minds

Update:

• The Gasbag Gap

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The entrenched party leadership, with their heads still firmly up their asses (next to their tails) have managed to twist enough donor arms to drown the financial life out of Paul Hackett’s senate bid in Ohio. Paul Hackett. The Democrat who won 48% of the vote in a House election in a heavily (Heavily) Republican district last year.

Fuck the Democratic Leadership. (Can’t say it any plainer than that.)

I just sent an email to the DSCC/DCCC that is included below. Before I get to that though, I want to address the only comments coming from the idiots supporting what happened today:

Idiot statement #1: What’s done is done, now we all have to rally around our party’s guy.

No. Absolutely fucking not. How on God’s Green Earth will the Democratic party ever evolve or change if we blindly go along with whatever they do. I’m a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I could just as easily be as Republican as a Democrat. The reason I’m not is that Republicans march in lock-step behind their leaders without independent thought, honesty, integrity, or moral judgement. I will NOT tolerate that behavior in my leaders or my party.

Idiot statement #2: Stop arguing. The Republicans are laughing at us.

They probably are. I laughed my ass off for weeks on end after Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the supreme court. Let them laugh. Oh, and try growing up. See #1. I’m not going be quiet for the sake of the party. The party had damn well better learn how to respect it’s members for the sake of the party.

Idiot statement #3: To be clear — Hackett didn’t stand a chance. He had a tenth of Brown’s money –Kos

I lost a lot of respect for Kos today. Many blogs have pointed out how he changed his tune on this topic. He waffled just a hair slower than the DSCC/DCCC he was railing against not to long ago and for the same reasons as them. One more Democrat who seems to have traded in his spine in exchange for a seat at the table of power. Maybe he’ll run for office now.

Here is my letter:

I am a lifelong liberal who switched to the Democratic party from the Green party after the 2000 election. Politically, I think I’ve wasted the last five years.

I keep hearing talk about how we have to support the Democratic party because it’s the only opposition in town. Well, too bad. I’d rather the Republicans kept winning until there was actually a party that supported liberals and listened to us, the little people. The net-roots. The activists.

After the Fiasco with Paul Hackett today, I guarantee you that the DSCC and DCCC will not see a penny of my money in 2006 or 2008. I will consider giving to the DNC but not if I think, for even a moment, that the rest of the “Democratic Leadership” will have any say in how that money is spent.

Grow a goddamn spine. Stand up for what you believe in, if you believe in anything other than your own power and the latest polling data.

I will continue to support local candidates here in Texas. One can only hope that you’ll stay the Hell out of the primaries down here.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The New Deal is dead. The Democratic party, indeed most of the country, just doesn’t realize it yet. In this regard, the Bush administration is a huge success — for Republicans. That’s what they really wanted to have happen.

This year the national debt will reach 400% of federal revenues. By the time Bush leaves office it is likely to be more than 500%. Most of that debt is being bought by China and other Asian countries. They see the strategic wisdom in buying up our debt. Welcome to the new America, a wholly owned subsidiary of China. You’re worried about American values. You think it’s bad today? Just wait.

Of course, Bush doesn’t really want to sell off our assets and liquidate the country. The debt is as much a strategic move on his part as it is on China’s. Sure we can pay off that debt — we just have to eliminate all social programs. After all, the nanny state is here to tell you what to think, not to pay for your education.

And once the Republican government gets rid of all those pesky social programs, well, then they’ll be the Small Government Party that they’ve always claimed to be. Nevermind the gross spending on the military industrial complex. We NEED that. It’s not as if we could save costs through oversight, the elimination of war profiteering, or smarter management of our security dollars.

So you see, the New Deal was put on life support in 2000 and murdered while it slept in 2004. The funeral has just been delayed a bit while the Republicans carve up the carcass. Bits of flesh and gore just don’t look that good in a casket, even with a nice suit and tie. For those of you who would like to pay your respects, don’t worry, they’ll hold the services just as soon as they finish carving. It’ll have to be closed-casket though.

Update: In the original post I mistakenly referred to federal revenues as GDP (gross domestic product). No, I don’t know why. I just wasn’t thinking clearly.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Like I said the other day, I’m using a canned template that was created by somebody else (Denis Somar. I don’t want to knock the template in any way, on the contrary, I picked it because I liked the look. As I also mentioned the other day, it’s not exactly valid XHTML (although I think Denis made a good faith effort here).

At any rate, I figure the design will work until I have some time to create my own. The previous design wasn’t so much a design as it was an experiment in creating a Wordpress template.

Why am I repeating so much from the previous post?

Because I just found out that in IE6/PC the content was way down below the menus in the sidebar which means ~75% of people visiting my website may have thought there was no content. Oops.

The lesson here is to never assume that something you didn’t make yourself is going to work as advertised. (You would think I would know this already having grown up in a Microsoft world.) It’s also entirely possible that I made a change somewhere the caused the problem as well, even though I didn’t touch the code for the main divs.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

DocG suggested the following government reforms in the comments section of the conservative-yet-honest Balloon Juice blog:

Term limits, public financing of campaigns with a reasonable budget, elimination of spending personal money on seeking election to comgress, a sixty day campaigning window for ALL politically related money sources, 4 free daily 60 second spots on public airwave media during the 60 day window, banning lobbyists from providing anything of value to congresspersons, an absolute ban on former Congressmen from ever lobbying or providing legal advice to Congress or the administrative branch, build a new Capital building in South Dakota (modern communication has eliminated the need to huddle together in DC and the cost of living would be cheaper, its beautiful there, as well as dispersing power) are some ideas for real reform. Add your own to work for.

The bit about South Dakota may be a bit of tongue-in-cheek cheerleading, but these are excellent ideas. I’ve seen most recommended in liberal circles for some time, but I’m willing to bet that dries up the next time liberals come to power. The current leadership of both sides needs to go and some or all of the above needs to be implemented.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
–Herman Goering at the Nuremburg Trials

Sources:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWgoring.htm
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.