In Jakob Nielsen’s Dated Viewpoint yet another writer picks up what I’ve been saying in a post a few days ago titled Jakob Nielsen – that most of what I’m reading about Nielsen, in the last year or so, has been negative or neutral. I figured that I need to prove that – prove that most of what I’ve read really is negative and more and more people are getting annoyed with Jakob Nielsen, for good reason, he’s attacking pretty much everyone.
Here’s a list of what I’ve read over the last year from my Google Reader Feeds – tell me what you think:
Almost a year ago, on December 21s 2006 Cam Beck wrote a post about Jakob Nielsen at the Movies which sounds a lot like someone who admires Jakob Nielsen but has to reconcile that admiration with statements Nielsen made which he knows aren’t true:
“…there have been times where I have been critical of some of the things he has written. Whether I was being critical or doting, though, I openly wondered if he perhaps lacked the ability to express enjoyment of anything or if the language barrier was just a little too much for him to overcome.”
Then, on January 15th 2007 Richard MacManus notes that Jakob Nielsen was taking potshots at the concept of Web 2.0….Period:
“…I've been following usability guru Jakob Nielsen's annual Best Intranets column for as long as I can remember. This year Nielsen specifically mentions web 2.0, albeit in a very condescending way. The summary is just the start:”
“…He then compares the user ratings to Amazon and weblogs, but takes an unnecessary potshot at the latter by saying that intranet user ratings won't be "degraded by the Bozo effect". Not content with that, he concludes: "ratings and comments from colleagues are likely to be much more useful than those of random blog readers". Charming.”
“…Request: Nielsen Without The Anti-Hype
I'm afraid that Jakob Nielsen has a reputation for being, well, annoying. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about "web 2.0" and continues the cynicism with a section entitled 'Web Trends Without the Hype'.
A few months later Nicholas Deleon at CrunchGear wrote a post about Web 2.0 = Crappy, Unsuitable Web Sites and quotes:
“..Web 2.0 sucks at Web design. That’s what Jakob Nielsen recently said at a conference where he lambasted fancy, flashy Web 2.0 sites that sacrifice usability for pizzazz. (I hope CrunchGear isn’t considered flashy at usability’s expense.) Too many sites, often run and/or funded by people who know nothing of Web design, set aside “getting it right,” and this will turn around and, in so many words, bite them in the ass soon enough.
Essentially, Nielsen thinks that Web sites should get back to basics, and those Web sites that “get it” will be the ones to benefit. Another problem with Web 2.0: there’s too much reliance on user input. It’s already been shown that few people actually participate in Web fun, so sites just looking to get as many users as possible without giving them a real, useful-to-them reason to sign up could also be burned.
But no, Web 2.0 is where’s it’s at. One. “
Then, on May 17,2007, Richard MacManus , in a post titled Jakob Nielsen Sounds Off About Web 2.0…Again!, says that :
“…Over the past few years, web usability guru Jakob Nielsen's star has been waning. Ever since the web 2.0 trend started to become popular (around 2004 till now), Nielsen's 'keep it simple' design philosophy has failed to ignite the new generation of designers. But it's not the 'keep it simple' philosophy in general that is the cause of this decline in Nielsen's influence - you only need to look at the enormously popular 37Signals to see that the 'simple' design approach is alive and well. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that 37Signals front man Jason Fried is the new Jakob Nielsen. But instead of acknowledging that he has fallen behind the times, Nielsen insists on continuing to blame web 2.0 itself - with broad attacks and little in the way of specific examples.”
“..But the problem I have with Mr Nielsen's complaints is that he talks in generalities and does not offer any specific examples.”
“..So once again, broad brush Mr Nielsen! You can do better. I've read your books for years, ever since I was a webmaster back in the 90's. But I think you have lost the plot. Why not subscribe to a few web 2.0 blogs, including 37Signals, and discover some of the excellent 'simple' web 2.0 design that is out there. Stop comparing web 2.0 to boo.com - it is both short-sighted and very misleading for the great number of web designers that still follow your work.”
David A
rmano takes issue with Jakob Nielsen on May 21st 2007 saying that Nielsen, he thinks, doesn’t understand Social media or Web Apps – that’s why his pronouncements sound so “off” on these subjects :
“…Jakob 2.0
Jacob Nielsen single-handedly takes on the 2.0 movement saying:
"they should get the basics right first"
(I agree, most sites including 2.0 ones don't get the basics right)
…and goes on to say:
"Most people want to get in and get out"
(I disagree and wonder if Nielsen uses social media Web apps at all)
But if you think Jakob Nielsen is down on Web 2.0, what about Bloggers and Blogging in general? Ugh…. He thinks we should all stop Blogging and become magazine article writers: Wha?
In Jakob Nielsen on Blogging: Don’t do it! Howard Kaplan at GrokDotCom points out that “…Avoid shallow postings and instead write value-added content, he says. I couldn't agree more. But what exactly does this have to do with the medium chosen for the writing in question? Is it possible to write regularly scheduled and published "articles" that provide little value add? Is it equally possible that some have found an ability to "post" interesting and thought-provoking commentary in real time, and influence an ongoing discussion?
Jakob has never written a blog–at least as far as I can tell–but he has written an excellent and respected newsletter for years. Seth Godin, on the other hand, has never written a regularly scheduled newsletter full of articles–at least as far as I can tell–but writes an excellent and well respected blog.
Marshall McLuhan said, "The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially." So, don't worry about Uncle Jakob. He's simply mistaking the medium for the message.
Then on July 9th, Jakob Nielsen takes a pot shot at Robert Scoble and Tony Hung of Deep Jive Interests also echoes similar concerns about Nielsen; GhrisG of also reacts.
“…Jakob Nielsen says “don’t be like Scoble”
Jakob Nielsen’s Web 1.0 post today sends lots of gestures:
1. Don’t do quick posts like Scoble.
2. Don’t risk being an idiot like Scoble.
3. Don’t put comments on your idiocy like Scoble.
4. Don’t link to other idiots like Scoble.
5. If you want to seem like you know something, unlike Scoble, write long ass white papers with lots of charts.
6. Don’t have fun like that idiot Scoble.
7. Don’t you dare put pictures of cats or babies or other personal details up like Scoble does.
8. Don’t add Web 2.0 mechanisms to your Web site like Scoble does. Definitely no “del.icio.us” or “Digg” voting graphics.
9. Don’t get caught dead inside an Apple store like Scoble does.
10. Don’t give Fake Steve or Valleywag a reason to deride you like Scoble does.
11. Definitely don’t get close to Twitter/Jaiku/Pownce/Facebook like Scoble does. If you can say it in 140 characters you shouldn’t say it at all.
OK, he didn’t quite say all of those things on his Web site today.
Well, I wish I could tell you the truth about Jacob (he worked for me back in the 1990s at one of our conferences — we never hired him again) but Steve Wozniak taught me to never say anything if I can’t say something nice about someone.
“…I will say this, it’s amazing that we’re listening to a guy who has an uglier Web site than I do.
Then on August 17th, in a post titled Deconstructing Jakob Nielsen, ChaosScenario tries to rescue Jakob Nielsen by saying he’s just been misunderstood – his negative pronouncements about most of Web 2.0 and Blogging are really things we need to hear and he’s actually our “friend”.
Fast forwarding to the present,
“…since Nielsen relies on a bunch of bozos to tell him what they think does or doesn't work on a website, which he then reports to us
as the criteria suggesting what we should and shouldn't do. Is he saying that now we should not listen to him, since he relies on the ability of people who are not worth listening to?
Added to that voice is B.L. Ochman – who wrote Jakob Nielsen Misses The Boat on Web 2.0 (Big-time)
“..But now that he's calling Web 2.0 dangerous to business and that saying that "on the Web, most people are bozos and not worth listening to," I have to agree with my friend Adriana Lukas' eponymous evaluation that Nielsen's turning into "an old fart who’s right about usability but not much else, with the syndrome ‘doesn’t understand the Web’."
I’m not saying that what Jakob Nielsen says is valueless – use what you can but take the rest with a grain of salt.
In fact, there was some good ideas I read about, hardly surprising, that navigation the looks too much like advertising will be ignored - and proof of it. Ok, so it's kinda like common sense really - yes, I'm suspicious of advertising and not if my navigation looks too much like that - I'll ignore it. Also the idea of writing titles of posts in the Passive voice works better than the Active Voice …again good ideas - not particularly surprising .. but OK, it's helpful to know that.
Jakob Nielsen, if he just sticks to what he knows about, fine ….. but I think attacking Web 2.0, attacking blogs .. No, that's going too far. He needs to stop.
