UX Critic: photo stamps

Editor's note: today marks the first of our UX Critic features, where we'll be giving rapid-fire critiques of multiple players in a single industry vertical. Today we start with online photo-stamp creation, for soon-to-be obvious reasons....

One of the subtly fun developments of the online era is the introduction of photo stamps, where individual consumers can custom-create official US postage. Having started and stopped a few years ago, the segment has commoditized nicely, with even the US Post Office offering its own online and offline stamp-creation tools.

This writer, having recently had a baby, and having been sent by the new mother to buy stamps at the post office and found a fairly abysmal selection of 42-cent stamps, decided to make his own. (The original image can be viewed here; the stamp snapshots are included below.)

First stop: Zazzle, the popular custom printer. Zazzle's online tools are easy to use and extremely fast. I was able to upload multiple images, move and size them with ease, and compare multiple images atop each other. Their discount pricing model kept costs reasonable ($12.95 a sheet for 10 sheets of 20 stamps). I liked the 24-hour turnaround time. But the large ZAZZLE.COM imprint on the stamp turned me off, so I kept looking.

I next went to photo.stamps.com, the official outlet of the US Post Office. But their stamp layout, a large square, didn't serve my image well. (It should be noted that zazzle.com seemed locked into a horizontal layout--not useful for vertical images.) The site required registration for anything beyond basic image positioning, so I was unable to compare pricing without going into the FAQ--they turn out to be $14.95 for my quantity. They also don't ship for 3-5 days.

Last stop: yourstamps.com. Their site identified my image as horizontal and created a layout that matched--nice! They had custom borders and designs--nice! But they don't have discount pricing, making my order nearly twice as expensive ($18.95/sheet) as stamps.com and Zazzle. Worse, the site logo switched twice midstream, from Fujifilm to Cooper Imaging and then to Epixel, making me nervous about placing an order there. Finally, the site needs 7-10 days to process orders, even for local pickup. Too many negatives despite the visual appeal.

In the end, despite that ZAZZLE.COM imprint, their site had the most compelling offer. They gave the best price, layout, and turnaround time, and their tool was a cinch to use. Even a few of these would be good differentiators; having them all on one site is a real victory for the Zazzle team.

Next-gen ecomm

From our flu-infested president (and reluctant blogger) Alex Schmelkin came this email last week:

I'm lying in bed with two horrendously uncomfortable pillows. Down feather nonsense. Popped onto amazon. Found the cheapest synthetic pillow. $9.99. Cart. x2. One step checkout.

The amazon ecommerce mobile site is phenom. It's fast. Super easy. Recognizes you're coming in on a mobile and serves the correct pages. Login in. Has all your addresses and credit card. Search. Checkout.

Alex sent this email to the team as both a cajoling boss and an impressed consumer. Lying in bed, playing with his BlackBerry, he went dit-dit-dit through the world's largest online store and completed a transaction as easily as he'd send an email.

This is the future of ecommerce. It's already happening in Asia, and it's a matter of time before it gets here, spurred on in part by the iPhone. Simple, clear mobile interfaces. Fast-loading pages. No-nonsense engines and processes. Nothing but goal-oriented transactional functionality.

Look for much more of this in 2008 and '09. And try it, too. Usage drives evolution.

Accessibility design

Many members of our team love 1024-pixel designs. So do many of our clients. And why shouldn't they: the real estate is vast, giving room for airy designs that fit lots of information above the fold. The results support their desires, too; our websites are uniformly handsome and easy to use.

Unfortunately, the average user doesn't have the same 30" cinema display as our creative director. (Alas, neither do I. But I digress.) Visitors to Ai's sites are mostly in the 1024x768 camp, but narrow displays appear on a regular basis.

It can be easy to disregard these folks, to say, "Ah, well, the guy in Jersey with his screen set at 800x600 because he doesn't like to squint, he can scroll to the right, lots of other sites make him do it." What's not so easy is to imagine the financial pain that could come from ignoring them. This forces us to be even more creative with our designs.

Thus our information architecture and graphic design teams ensure that all essential functions of the website appear within that 800px window, from major navigation links to add-to-cart and checkout buttons. Imagine the chaos, not to mention the customer service inquiries, if those smaller screens had to scroll right to hit "continue." At Ai usability and accessibility are of prime importance.

In my days as design director at Economist.com, we set a tiny three percent limit on browser compliance. (This was back in the Netscape-versus-Internet Explorer days, as we debated dropping Navigator from our QA routine.) As I liked to cite to our tech and ad teams: "Three percent sounds like a small number. But 3% of a million is a pretty big number."

These variables are what make web design difficult, and fascinating. Accommodating myriad screen widths, several popular browsers (currently IE, Firefox and Safari), two major operating systems, and layering on mobile constraints--consistency is nearly impossible. What's important is a solid, confusion-free user experience that works regardless of a visitor's variables.

One of my small contributions to Ai is championing the minority. Our websites already reflect the core values of universal user experience. The challenge is in pushing ourselves farther into universality with every site we make.