Nothing Earth-shatteringly new, but it always says something about an idea when the BBC deigns it is interesting enough to cover. Jakob Nielsen talks about the dangers of “Web 2.0” sites ignoring good practice, in the rush to ‘innovate’.

Apologies for using the term “2.0”, but as the web becomes ever more interactive and application-like, people are thinking about how to keep the web usable and accessible to all. Websites such as Facebook, Flickr and the whole Web 2.0 crowd are coming up with interesting ways for users to interact with information, which is great, but the danger is that each site will create it’s own method to similar actions. Luke Wroblewski discusses this: “This surge of new Web experiences that give users more control is probably the biggest change impacting usability online.”

One of my ongoing frustrations over the last few years is how difficult the Transport for London website is. Trying to comprehend the complex structure just to find out whether the Hammersmith and City Line is working at the weekend was always a chore - even though I had fought my way through it many many times before. So finally, in the last few days, Transport for London has updated their site with a brand new structure and visual design. I’m not too excited about the ’Web 2.0’-style visuals, but it is very easy to understand, and I can now find out if the tube is going to be useful at the weekend in moments.

“It is lumbered with a bewildering array of unnecessary ‘features’ aimed at idiots”. Charlie Brooker lays into the Samsung E900 in The Guardian. It’s funny, harsh, but probably true.

37signals talk about how you have to be careful with the above ingredients - they are probably not central to what your project needs to do.

“Poor usability is the main reason behind the limited adoption of Google’s services such as Gmail and Google Talk, according to Jeff Bonforte, senior director of real-time communications at Yahoo.” Computing.co.uk discusses how removing features encourages user adoption.

After five years of ups and downs, Microsoft has finally released Windows Vista, its’ new operating system. Released simultaneously, Office has been revamped with a radical new interface. We haven’t had a chance to significantly use either yet, but we’ll be interested in improvements (or degradations) in usability, elegance and style. Reviews have been mixed so far, to say the least, but our initial experiences have been positive - especially in terms of the ‘richer’ feel of the interface, including system-wide text anti-aliasing (at last). Many of the criticisms have been aimed at the perceived sense that Microsoft is playing catch-up to Apple’s Mac OS X, while this is true, it is also a good thing. In many areas, such as security, visual experience, ease-of-use and stability, OS X has been far better than Windows for a while. The launch of Vista means that finally there is some competition for Apple. Competition, that is, in terms of user experience. In terms of sales and impact to the way the vast majority of people will interact with their computers, Vista has already won.

Business Week discusses the influence of Apple as a design standard for other companies. See Nintendo, Motorola, Microsoft, BMW, Adidas, Lacie… and most companies we come across.

Everyone else is talking about it, so we will too. Here are our 12 initial small observations…

1. It appears that it has a beautiful, flexible and refined UI.
2. It makes all other phones look clunky, awkward and unrefined.
3. It makes the iPod’s interface look clunky, awkward and unrefined.
4. That said, in reality, making a call, starting a text message and entering my calendar on my Sony Ericsson k800 is efficient and fast. It will be interesting to see how fast the iPhone will be to do the same.
5. The iPhone doesn’t offer any actual features that other phones don’t already offer. Will the interface and ease-of-use sway people to switch to the iPhone. It worked with the iPod, but lots of people bought Motorola’s RAZR despite its’ interface.
6. Your fingers are going to be moving and tapping a lot, rather than sticking mainly to a small area like most phone’s joystick. Will this become annoying?
7. The virtual QWERTY keyboard used for typing looks possibly awkward without real buttons.
8. In the future I’d like a tiny Apple phone that does the basics well, and an iPhone without the phone element (i.e. a very slick iPod).
9. Developers should be given a clear path for making applications for it. Apple is currently saying that this won’t happen, but a range of games, VOIP and Office-type applications immediately spring to mind as great features they may not deign to make, but would be a natural fit for the iPhone.
10. While much of the functionality and interaction has been patented - it will be interesting to see how Nokia, RIM, Sony Ericsson, etc. will react to this. Can they in time before the iPhone launch? This is much bigger, richer and arguably better competition than the iPod’s original competitors.
11. The iPhone’s web browser illustrates how well mobile interfaces are beginning to deal with pages that are larger than their screen. Designing a website for all shapes and sizes is not necessarily something we will always need to do.
12. We want one.

Browser-based WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) text editors used in Content Management Systems (including ‘TinyMCE’ in Wordpress) rarely work as well as everyone would hope giving a false sensation of Word-style control. Take a look at this article discussing the issue and that proposes WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean).

Take a look at this page that makes it easy to compare competing video sharing players.

On the upcoming Windows Vista users are presented with up to 15 ways of ’switching off’ their computer.

A World Usability Day blog put together by some friends of ours at Flow Interactive. Oh, and I’d forgotten, but today (14th November) is actually World Usability Day…

I’ve refrained from mentioning the Zune (Microsoft’s wannabe iPod competitor) before as much discussion about it has been often very partisan guess work, but this post at Engadget about the nightmare of installing the Zune software (the iTunes equivalent) changed matters. Microsoft undoubtedly now understand why iPod/iTunes worked for Apple, hence the Zune vertical business model, but it sounds as if they are not looking after the fine details. Coupled with the Zune’s draconian licensing restrictions, the Zune, as a brand, has had a disasterous first few weeks. Microsoft’s very expensive advertising push for the Zune could be a huge waste, as these real usability issues threaten to engulf the brand. Update: The comments to the original post indicate that many people in contrast have had relatively simple installations of the software. Also, Ars Technica have some interesting points to make about the Zune’s future.

“Three quarters of RAZR users would not buy another Motorola handset because they are difficult to use”. A bad thing for the users becomes a very bad thing for the brand. It’s one thing to work to have an attractive device, such as the RAZR, but if the interface does not live up to the exterior then the whole effort will ultimately fail. A simple lesson, but still one being learnt.

Take a look at the article including results for this Motorola survey by Mobile.