語意搜尋(Semantic search)已發展了一段日子，尤其在Google透過搜尋引擎廣告"發大財"後，人人覬覦這塊"肥肉"時想出來的新玩意。語意搜尋的背後原理是盡量詮釋人們搜尋"關鍵字"後的意圖，甚至情緒，聽起來異常合乎邏輯，舉個例子，例如某人在搜尋引擎輸入"壽司"時，利用語意搜尋，會給這字詞進行語意分析，" 壽司"可引起的活動和情緒是有限的，所以背後語意是能夠分析出來，例如"吃壽司"、"壽司是甚麼？"、"那裡有壽司吃？"、"那裡的壽司比較美味？"，語意搜尋就是利用背後目的來給關鍵字找出相關網頁，這樣，搜尋結果便不再獨是關鍵字配對關鍵字，比較具人性化了。

說易行難，經過了幾年發展，語意搜尋似乎未見大熱，原因還是準確度不足，特別是如何給網頁做索引(indexing)，若要連上語意因素，單靠機械是無法成事，依賴人手則花費太大，加上近年社群網絡(social media)大盛，人人都把視線轉移到社群網絡推廣上，試想想，單是一個facebook已有近4億會員，若能在facebook上做好市場推廣，還愁沒有生意蜂湧而來？連Google也洞悉社群網絡的重要性和威脅，於是語意搜尋頃刻被"打入冷宮"。

其實，語意搜尋仍然大有可為，但技術層面的突破是關鍵之一。近日，又再很多市場學網站看見semantic這字眼，但今趟不同是semantic search，而是semantic marketing，這意念仍是雛型階段，大慨是如何將語意搜尋引入市場推廣，改變網上推廣固有的pull方式，而成就push，即主動推銷的方式。這個 Push字確令不是網上推廣的從業員欣喜若狂，利用以上"壽司"的例子，主動推廣不僅是簡單購買"壽司"關鍵字，更是就搜尋者的意圖而顯示結果，這樣，廣告被點擊的機會更會大大增加。

Semantic marketing能否普及，關鍵似乎不是技術成熟與否，應該是社群網絡會否全面支配未來網上推廣。

The first time I was invited to a formal Western dinner, one thing bothered me is how to apply forks and knives for various dishes. When someone told me that it is not necessary to recognize the shapes of them for application. Just follow the placing order, from outside to inside, a pair for one dish. It's easy!

This experience really inspired me about the application of usability. One would think about design immediately when they hear usability. Actually, design is only a part of usability. From the above example, we found that usability is the way of presentation. If those forks and knives are mixed together, you probably can't figure out which one is used for appetizer and which one is for main dish. I guess most of us encounter this problem, so we need to deal with it.

Redesign the forks and knives, it's fine but take too much time to achieve. The economic method is wise organizing the presentation of forks and knives in the table. Since the dishes will be served one by one, different pairs are applied respectively. Placing them from outside to inside, then users don't need to recognize, remember and can use them appropriately.

Back to the web, we often come across many clients with such responses to our services, "We know that usability is important, but we have already publish our site. We can't afford redesign our page or site in this period." Yes, redesign, revamp your site is the best way to achieve better user experiences, but not the only solution. I just want to point out that sometimes better user experiences is not achieved by visual design, it comes from arrangement and presentation.

Some clients complained that important information was ignored in the page. I would review this problem from two perspectives: content and location. First of all, is it wrote into sort of important information? If the content is alright, and think about where you locate this information. Top right corner of the page is the good place to attract user's attentions. I probably would suggest clients to relocate it before rewrite, cause it saves time, and also money.

Other clients were disappointed by the low conservation rate of registration. Registration is the issue of web form design, we would discuss more later. When the long long registration form displayed, I usually asked clients to make it shorter. Most of the cases, the clients would argue that they really need members to provide those information. No input box could be deleted, then we need to arrange the order of those inputs and make sure users could complete the registration plus provide the information. The following is the suggestion:

Basic info for registration >
One more step to get confirmation email >
Provide personal information >
Success

Dividing the previous registration form into different pages was the appropriated solution. Since users would be more patient for fewer input items with page changing frequently, rather than stay long in the same page.

From above examples, you will find that we didn't put too much efforts to achieve better experiences, just rearrangement. So, next time you feel confused of your website, maybe usability could help more than your expectations.

Most people think the criteria to justify usability only based on the requirements of users. It sounds true but not in any situation. Sometimes, besides users, should take other issues into account. Design of faucet in public toilet maybe a good example to explain the factors behind the screen.

The function of public faucet is simple and straight: give out water. And the operation just contains two processes: turn on or turn off the faucet. If you think like this, you could probably design a faucet with manual switch. But I'm afraid to tell you that this is not a good design, even from the standpoint of users. Consider the following scenarios:

• A construction worker wanted to wash the dirt off his hands, he turned on the switch with his grimy hands. After washing, he tried to turn off the switch and found the dirt was sticked on it.
• A child turned on the switch, wash his hands but he forgot to turn off the switch when he left.

The above scenarios reveal the issues about hygiene as well as error correction. To the construction worker, it's ridiculous that using the cleaned hands to touch the dirty switch again. On the other hand, children usually forget to turn off the switch that would bring out the problem of wasting. In order to solve these problems, an sensor faucet will be better.

However, we all know an sensor faucet is not a good choice. Why? Did you come across this embarrassing situation? When you stand in front of the sensor faucet, stretch out your hands, wait for the water but nothing happens.  Then, you move your hands in different angles and hope the infrared indicator can detect. Or you would give up and find another switch and repeat the same actions. The demerit of sensor faucet is we hardly recognize it can operated or not. Since it gets no manual switch, how can we detect its failure by just observe its appearance? Under this situation, users may need to spend more time to observe which faucet operates normally. I usually check those sinks before washing my hands. If I find water drops in sink, the faucet probably can operate.

From the analysis of faucet in public toilet, we learned that designing usable thing is not only concerned the requirements of users. Other factors like hygiene, error correction should be considered. Sometimes, they play more important roles in the process of design. The following is the design concerns about the public faucet:

• Manual switch: easy to operate, dirt on the switch, forget to turn off
• sensor switch: not easy to operate, no dirt, automatically turn off

Users would like to operate easily, but hygiene and wasting seem more important. Then, automatic faucet is "better" design.  So, user won't win every time, something in somewhere would be the main factor which strongly influence our designs.

關於網站的可用性，最被人奉為信仰的是3 click法則，讓用戶在按三次的範圍內完成任務。有些人認為三次太少，有些則認為三次太多，是多是少，爭論不休，也許各有所見，倒不如拿些現實世界事例來比較一下。

• 罐裝可樂：按下拉蓋 (一個動作)
• 電話：拿起聽筒；按下號碼 (兩個動作)
• 自動販賣機：按下想要東西；輸入硬幣/紙幣 (兩個動作)
• 電飯煲：米加水；按下電掣 (兩個動作)
• 微波爐：放入東西；選溫度；選時間 (三個動作)
• 錄影機：放入錄影帶；選電視頻道；按鍵錄影 (三個動作)
• 避孕套：撕開；擠出頂部空氣；套下 (三個動作)

以上東西只需要三個動作之內便能達成目的，但它們也有局限：

• 罐裝可樂：無法再關上，容量不能多，免喝不了造成浪費；
• 電話：當加入其他功能後，例如轉線、重撥，便完全令人摸不著頭腦；
• 自動販賣機：只能找贖硬幣，大銀碼紙幣無法處理；
• 電飯煲：無法評估水和米的比例，只會煮，不保證煮好；
• 微波爐：無法自動調節煮熟食物的溫度和時間，大家使用微波爐時總是"斷估"；
• 錄影機：錄即時節目可以，預校錄影便成災難；
• 避孕套：各位男士心知肚明

網站的3 click法則道理相同，步驟愈少，用戶就愈容易滿足，但3 click法則不是完美無瑕，它仍有其局限，只是在大前題下，它還是比較重要的。