Accept Contributions Up Front
A lot of users turn away when they see a login or registration
screen. On my site, the number of is around 94%. Part of the reason is
probably that people are just tired of going through registration
forms, and they don’t bother when the benefits of doing so is
dubious. Part of it, most likely, is that they’re wary of handing out
their email address, because they’re more scared of spam email than
they are of junk mail, even though the time and effort required to
deal with physical junk mail is far greater — and don’t even
mention the environment.
|
Rule #1: Accept the user’s contribution before asking them to
sign in.
|
By letting the user contribute what he or she has to contribute
before asking them to register or log in, the chances of them
going through with the registration improves. The user will have
invested some of his or her time in making the contribution, and
they don’t want to see that effort go to waste.
It’s the same trick used in most questionnaires. If you can get the
person started on filling in the survey, chances that he or she will
finish it, no matter how long it is, are pretty good. The initial
investment will make them want to finish, rather than end up feeling
that the whole thing was wasted.
But Don’t Forget
Unfortunately, registration processes can be lengthy. Maybe the
user isn’t sure whether he or she has already registered. Or she
knows, but forgot her ID or password. She may have to receive and
email and click back to the site to change her password. Or maybe she
left out some required field in the registration form.
Even in the light of such complications, you must obey the second
rule:
|
Rule #2: Never forget what the user said.
|
It’s very impolite to forget what someone said, just because you had
to go about dealing with some bureaucratic measures. It pisses people
off, and rightly so.
Ensuring that the user’s contribution doesn’t get lost on its way
through a complex registration process isn’t exactly rocket science,
but it doesn’t come without conscious effort, either.
An example of a site that does rule #1 right, but disobeys rule #2, is
Epinions. I
haven’t tried all possible routes through their registration process,
but what I did try was entering my opinion, trying to register with
an email address already in their system, get a forgotten password URL
sent by email, then go to that URL to change my password. And my
lengthy contribution was gone.
If you’re not going to obey rule #2, you had better not follow rule
#1, either. It’s better that the user don’t waste time
contributing at all, than have their contribution go to waste because
you don’t have your registration process under control.
I recently handed over my car to a valet parking at Venice beach in
Los Angeles. Just before I let go of the key, I noticed a sign saying
This contract limits our liability. Read it.
The intention was clear: By handing over my keys, I was implicitly
agreeing to the contract. The contract was printed with small type, on
a poster, sitting in floor height. So in order to know what I was
agreeing to, I’d have to get down on my knees, take out my glasses,
and spend ten minutes reading it. By the time I was done, my
company would surely have considered me a whacko and left.
We constantly agree to contracts like that. When you sign up on a web
site, or start using a piece of software, chances are that you’ll be
asked to agree to a license agreement. When you go to a new video
store to rent movies, you have to sign a contract. If you want to get
a cellphone, you have to sign a contract. If you want to get internet
access, you have to sign a contract. If you want to work out, you have
to sign a contract. If you want to subscribe to a magazine, you sign a
contract. If you want a place to live, a job, cable tv, or a credit
card, you have to sign a contract.
Honest to God, how many of you read those contracts thoroughly
before signing? How many ask for your lawyer’s advice? How many read
them just briefly? Even though my father preached that I should always
read everything before signing, truth is, I often don’t. When I’m in a
video store, and I just want to go home and watch that stupid movie,
I’m inclined to skip the reading part, and just sign.
But often times, I will read it, only to find that it takes so
much effort to read the legalese it’s written in, that I don’t
bother reading the whole thing: I just read the “termination”
clause. And at that valet parking, I’d never bother reading the
contract.
One noteworthy exception of a contract deliberately designed to be
read is the Borland No-Nonsense License Agreement. I don’t have
a copy handy, but I recall that it specifically said “Even if you
normally don’t read contracts, read this”. It’s written so normal
people can understand it. It basically says that their software can be
used like a book: Only one person can use it at a time, just like with
a book. But you can lend it out or pass it on, just like a book.
Uneven Playing Field
Companies, even small ones, can easily afford to hire a lawyer
to craft a contract for them. Of course, such a lawyer will
diligently look after the company’s interests, and won’t spend a
minute looking after the customer’s interests. They know who’s paying
their bills.
Yet, when I’m in a situation where I have to decide whether to accept
it or not, I don’t really have a lawyer handy. And of course the
companies know that, even though they behave like they believe every
human being is walking around with a
Lawyer-in-a-pocket™. Heck, even the lawyers I know
wouldn’t have read that valet parking contract. They have lives, too.
How would the valet parking guy have reacted if I had pulled up a
contract of my own, and said that this was my contract, looking
after my interests, and that he’d have to sign it in order to get my
business? He’d have refused, of course. Who do you think has the
bargaining power?
Just reading select sections, of course, is far from bulletproof. Most
contracts clearly say that the headings of the sections aren’t part of
the legal document, and so, they could easily place a special notice
about the termination policy somewhere not under the “Termination”
header at all. Or they could try to sneak extra stuff in on the back
side of the contract, with extra fine print.
So you’re not going to read the contract. But at least you can ask the
sales person, right? Well, no. Your salesperson could happily be
lying you straight in your face. “Yes, you can terminate at any
time.” Yet, the contract says you cannot terminate the first three
years. “Your monthly fee is only $5”. Yet the contract says it’s
$50. When it comes time to argue over it, what do you think counts
more, the contract, or your postulate of what the salesperson said? <a
href=”http://www.epinions.com/well-review-1C43-136D8C15-3A0AE564-prod2/tk_CB001.1.59”>Well?.
It turns out that Bally’s Total Fitness is really <a
href=”http://www.epinions.com/well-Fitness-Gyms-All-Bally_Total_Fitness/show_allop/listype_opnr/tk_CB008.1.24”>playing
this game to it’s fullest extent. Stay away from there!
Now, it may turn out that the contract doesn’t even hold up in
court. But how would you know? Who can afford suing them for such a
“tiny” amount as a couple thousand dollars? I bet that no lawyer will
bother with a case that small. Of course, a couple thousand dollars is
not a small amount of money to most ordinary people. Just to
corporations and lawyers, the ones who craft the contracts that
ordinary people agree to.
The reason for this, of course, is the US legal system, forcing
corporations to protect themselves no end. But that doesn’t detract
from the fact that this contract system is inherently
unfair. God dammit, I need to park my car, I have a dinner
reservation, I’m meeting people, what am I supposed to do? Drive
around for hours in order to find a parking that doesn’t force me to
agree to a contract? Hell, no! I have a life to live. Why can’t
the way we do business acknowledge that?
