CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)

CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nasir Barday <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nasir Barday <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:43:29 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Thanks for elaborating on your test data.
   
  I remember the origins of "logging on" originating in the *nix/mainframe world, where a user's activity on the system is written to a security "log." I couldn't confirm this with a quick Google search, though.
   
  "Sign in" probably sounds more natural, because it's what you do in most places in realia where visitors need to be tracked (e.g. "Visitors must sign in").
   
  - N
  
 
  Todd Warfel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  Participants have been more receptive to it. It doesn't bear the technical burden that is associated with "log-on." Logging on is something that "engineers" do. And we've also received comments like "log on just sounds so strange and foreign." It's jargony.   

  The environments that we've noted this in were:
  * Academic
  * Commercial (telecom products, web-based apps for non-profit sector, but that were publicly available to everyone, just built by a university or non-profit), iTV
  * Financial (moreso the public and intranet side, less on the IT side of finance)
  * Medical (an app for SUNY medical used by doctors)
  

  It's pretty broad. I do wonder if part of the sign-in familiarity could be related to "signing" our names to paperwork quite a bit anyway. Not sure, just a thought.
  

      On Feb 6, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Nasir Barday wrote:

    >> The "log" is too technical in nature and doesn't test as well as "sign," 
>> which is a more user friendly term vs. and engineering term.

  I second that motion. Someone is more likely to "sign in" at the beginning of an event outside of the computing experience (e.g. a group gathering), so it fits the "get started" task better.
   
  Todd, I don't doubt your results, but what metrics do you use to conclude that "sign in" tests better? Emotion? Amount of time it takes to find this functionality? I shamefully only have opinion to go by on this issue.
   
  - N


    

  Cheers!
  

  Todd R. Warfel
  Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
  Messagefirst | designing and usability consulting
  --------------------------------------
  Contact Info
  Voice:    (607) 339-9640   Email:    [log in to unmask]
  AIM:       [log in to unmask]
  Blog:      http://toddwarfel.com

  --------------------------------------
  In theory, theory and practice are the same.
  In practice, they are not.



			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

    --------------------------------------------------------------
           Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
     CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
              MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
       SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ:  www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
    --------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2