What are pros and cons of this technique (see Softfolio for an example). Two things I personally thought of are as follows:
Impossible to tell someone where an item of interest is located (like, you probably won't say "324-th row, second column")
Broken navigation when you return back to an infinitely scrolled page.
What else can you think of? And what do you personally think of this approach in general. Would you use this in you projects?
I think it is "neat" but requires more visual clues as to what is going on... and in many circumstances isn't what the user wants.
If I want to get to "page 7 of the results" I don't want to move to the end of the page 6 times to trigger the reload of additional data. (e.g. in an alphabetical list... If I want "M"'s, don't make me wade through a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l
Ensure there is a visual clue of more loading if you do use this (when I press CTRL+END I expect to be at the bottom)
I often find I'm still waiting on these types of pages because the "loading" of the next set of results waits until I'm very near the bottom... thus I often get there before the data is loaded/ready/rendered
(pro) I think this kind of thing would be good for certain scenarios... e.g. when I scroll down my Twitter list... I don't want a "more" button, just load it...
I would prefer better "search" filtering over fancy ajax-infinite scroll results. If I can filter down to 25 results that actually match what I want, then I won't need to scroll!
When results are served randomly, it's a great idea. People are asking, "How do I get back to where I was?". Well, you don't. The results are random, so when you return to page six, you won't be seeing what you did last time.
If you think about it, paging Sortfolio would be a bad idea, because it would imply to its users that the order of its listings are fixed, as many of you have made the mistake of assuming.
For those asking, "How can I return to a result I liked?", well, you click the 'Save to my favorites' link. As for, "How can I share a result with a friend?", you click on the result and grab its URL. Kinda simple really.
I'm not saying this infinity-scrolling business is the way to do it, I'm just saying that some of you guys are unfairly discrediting Sortfolio for usability problems which the site—given its random nature—really needn't concern itself with.
Personally I HATE that example. It makes the site much less usable than if the results were paged.
You're right too, when you hit back, you will have to page by scrolling down again, and while page down works it doesnt work well - I cant remember how many page downs i pressed to get to the site, secondly, what if the ordering changes the number of scrolls would differ anyway - I know paging would too, however its much easier to scan a few pages than keep scrolling.
Lastly, even though I am a developer I scrolled down, and the first few times I actually thought maybe if i leave it long enough it will download all the images/samples...then scrolled down and again the same thing happened AAAAAARG!
I would NEVER use this approach in projects.
I wouldn't use infinite scroll on search results. But it's really nice for casual browsing, or in a random output situation such as psychological test where it's important that items not show up in a constant order. Something like a market preference survey skews towards early choices, so randomizing the order of options is essential.
Where it gets frustrating is when the user leaves a page via a link and then wants to come back. For a browsing situation, I'd probably address that with overlays rather than linking away.
I personally find it gimicky and quite annoying. It diverges from standard navigation techniques that users are used to (such as pagination) and breaks navigating back, which is very annoying (you can't get back to a result without starting again). On top of that it doesn't conform to accessibility guidelines as it is totally reliant on JavaScript to work (which goes against the "progressive enhancement" theory of the modern web). This also has SEO implications as I doubt content "beyond the fold" would be indexed, unless it was linked to directly from elsewhere.
I can see a few limited circumstances where this might be OK, such as a very long text page, but personally I doubt I'd use it in the current form. Kind of reminds me of those Flash sites that are all style and no substance and end up annoying the user rather than enhancing their experience.
I agree this is a mess. If there is a finite list, there should be some kind of pagination mechanism that lets you know where you are.
Alternatively, or in addition, add a filtering mechanism so you can weed out the stuff you don't want to see.
SO provides a handy example of how to do it right.
Actually, It doesn't matter whether we (designers/developers) like it or not. The only thing that matters is the users perception of this. If the user finds it useful, well, then the solution is OK. If the user gets confused and can't accomplish the primary task, then redesign...
I think the cons are that when you hit the back button you lose your place on the page. Could be annoying especially if you are deep within a page.
Etsy discovered the hard way that infinite scroll isn't good for conversions. Recommend reading this article.
Related
I'm excited about the rel="preload" property, because it looks like it can help speed up page render times.
The use case is a web page with a large image above the fold. Right now, Chrome doesn't start downloading the image until after fetching jQuery (a fairly heavy file). With preloading enabled, they download in parallel.
But I'm reading conflicting reports about whether I should use preload for things that are in visible HTML elements elsewhere (as opposed to things made visible by user interaction, like a dropdown menu).
This post seems to recommend not preloading:
When not to use preloading:
When the asset is referred to somewhere else on the same page.
When you're not sure the user will actually require that asset. Like on a page visitors only go to 3% of the time.
While this one seems to indicate it was really helpful for a similar situation on the Financial Times website:
When the Financial Times introduced a Link preload header to their site, they shaved 1 second off the time it took to display the masthead image...
So which is it? Should I provide an early "hint" to display the always-shown, above-the-fold image? Or should I just let the browser get to it in the usual order?
I think that in cases involving performance optimization, you really want to create an A/B test to determine which one you should do. There really is no cookie cutter answer for image preloading that applies to everybody as a best practice.
One of the biggest tenets of a favorite book of mine, Lean Enterprise, is use to A/B tests to prove or disprove a HIPPO (highly paid person's opinion). Certain opinions carry a lot of weight, both in your organization and on the internet. Because of their importance and reputation, their opinions veer towards the realm of fact, even though it may not be.
The practice of measuring performance empirically is also touted by another book I love which deals with performance tuning - Code Complete 2nd Ed. In that book, McConnell gives several code examples where you would expect one piece of code to be optimal, but in fact, it performed poorly (see chapters 25 and 26). One of his key points is that you should always test a performance optimization. If it isn't worth testing, it isn't worth writing the "highly performant" code in the first place. McConnell's premise doesn't just apply to his low level coding examples, but to high level decisions such as preloading images above the fold as well.
I can also attest to the importance of A/B testing at a professional level. I used to work on Amazon's SEO team and we A/B tested everything. The fact of the matter is that you never really know how customers will respond to something. Nobody can predict customer behavior - not even Jeff Bezos - and you really need to back up your hypothesis with real data to prove or disprove the validity of what you're doing.
Even though you can find multiple blog articles and online sources discussing whether preloading is better or not, you don't really know whether that will work for you until you've done it. Different people have different servers with different performance characteristics and different network topologies, etc. You just don't know which way is better for you until you have the data. If you launch your A/B test and find that find that your repel rate goes up when preloading, then you know that you have to dial back your treatment and return to your control. If however, you find that customers don't get bored waiting and click through at a higher rate than before, then you have a winner and you dial up the treatment - deleting the control code entirely after a period.
I hope that helps.
The article is wrong about those statements. Preloading is used by the developer because he already knows those assets are needed on a page. Preloading is not a "hint". Prefetching is more in line with what he states, that you are telling a browser that it's possible the asset may be needed.
If an image is above the fold, then you know it will be needed, and that is exactly what prefetching is for.
Addy Osmani of Google
preload is a declarative fetch, allowing you to force the browser to
make a request for a resource without blocking the document’s onload
event.
I would use rel="preload" for images only if they are to be found in css, javascript that will led to a bottleneck in the render of the page at a later time, if user driven events will request the image and it will have detrimental impact in user experience or if you are experiencing any flows due to this large image in the rendering of the page.
I understand your image is above the fold, and if it's to be found in the source code from the beginning I would let browser prioritize what to download first.
On the other hand you could always A/B this change and see if it works for you.
I like them more and wonder why they are not more common. Explanations involving caching or SEO make sense to me, but I don't see them as directly driven by user experience considerations. In which way are traditional sites with page reloads better for the user?
Personally I think the best argument for normal page reloads from a user's perspective is that when you do that it's much harder to break many basic browser functions. In general the back/forward buttons work, bookmarking works, copying and pasting links works, history works, page titles work, getting an error page when a server call fails works, everything just works as expected. For free.
I have seen single page application implemented in a way that breaks one or more of the above more times than I can count.
It's naturally not a problem if you get it just right (and then it will in general be nicer to use), but not all sites do.
Just as an example here's a screenshot how a site that is a SPA and justifiedly so (they have a music player that you don't want to interrupt with page loads), broke a basic browser function in a way they might not even have thought of. I was trying to find a song I recently listened to but couldn't remember the exact title... but because of the SPAness the page titles weren't properly reflected in my browser history.
We are designing a web site and have run into some UI challenges that would be neatly solved with a tabbed interface. Users will interact with different elements of the site (there are some basic view/edit/copy/paste functions available) and having only one object in one tab visible at a time simplifies things quite a bit.
We are, of course, completely comfortable with tabbed interfaces but what about novice users? I've searched the web for guidance and I haven't found anything definitive. Do you have experience presenting a tabbed interface to novice users and did they have trouble with it? Or, have we reached the point where everyone is comfortable with tabs and we can use them without reservation?
Usability is important-- more so for this project than most. If naive users are confused by a tabbed interface it just won't work and we'll have to find another way.
In his excellent book "Don't Make Me Think" (Sensible.com), Steve Krug discusses the benefits of using a tabbed interface:
They're self evident
They're hard to miss
They're slick
They suggest a physical space
He goes on to describe the keys to successful tabs as demonstrated by Amazon.com:
They were drawn correctly
They were color coded
There was a tab selected when you enter the site.
Obviously, he provides details to each of these bullet items in the book (I won't plagerize him here). The book is definitely worth a look if you want guidelines for creating web sites for novices and experts alike.
Tabs are becoming common place enough that I wouldn't worry about using them, as long as you implement them correctly. Make sure that you make the active tab visually distinct from the other tabs.
Also, try to create the tabs using progressive enhancement so that the content is still there with JavaScript disabled. There are two main ways of doing this:
Load every tab but the first using
AJAX. The tabs themselves should be
links to the content that the AJAX
fetches.
Keep all of your information on the
page, but hide it using JavaScript.
When you cycle through the tabs,
they are populated from the hidden
parts of the page.
A design resource you might find helpful is the YUI Design Pattern Library and their section on tabs.
I think as long as the tabs are visible as such it's understandable by the user. I have seen websites where they present a vertical bar with links that act like tabs but it's not immediately visible to the user and found that very confusing.
I would have to disagree with those are in favor of tabs. In a design test we did for a fairly high-traffic website (over 1mil uniques at the time), we found that tabs have not been used. Tabs were clearly marked, located to the right of the main content area. Based on that experience I would suggest either finding an alternative or, as staticscan suggested run usability tests to figure out which ones work.
Don't think you can decide a-priori what is usable and what isn't. Do usability testing
"It takes only five users to uncover 80 percent of high-level usability problems" Jakob Nielsen
Google usability testing and start learning. It's not hard.
I tend to agree with lothar and ricebowl - people seem pretty familiar with it these days. The most important thing with any GUI element is clarity - the user must innately know what will happen when they press something (they know that clicking an inactive tab will make it active); and in navigation - it must be very clear exactly which tab they are currently on. As lothar said, if it's not immediately visible to the user, it's very confusing. If you address those issues, then it should be fine.
Just wanted to note SmashingMagazine has a new article showcasing tabs: Showcase of Tabs
I think people are used to the metaphor (from binders, or card-indexes and so forth) of tabs. Especially those that use the web for any length of time. I think that, if IE's adopted a metaphor, it implies a common familiarity with that metaphor.
So, no, I'd suggest that they're not confusing and suggest that you go for it. Just, maybe, post a welcome/first-time introduction (or a prominent 'help' link to such an intro) to the use of the tabs.
I've been a developer for an intranet app that used a tabbed interface, generated with HTML and controlled by JavaScript. This was way before IE7 and Firefox. In fact, it was a bit of a novelty on websites in general, too.
Fortunately, a previous developer had discovered that if you made it look like a dialog box - even down to using a grey background, then people usually understood the metaphor. We also loaded all the content for all the tabs in the initial page-load, and had the Save/Cancel buttons outside the tabbed structure. Because of this, most people immediately understood that they could move between tabs (we used JavaScript to hide and show the DIVs) and a Save would save changes to all of them.
If you want to deviate from such an obvious metaphor, then you need to do some usability studies.
A well implemented Tab interface should not confuse users.
In line with what others have said one of the most ipmortant things to consider with Tabs, or any other navigation interface is for it to be obvious where they currently are in the navigation scheme.
Another important point is not to break the browser! Many AJAX or javascript implemtations break the back button. This is a minor annoyance to some and a major inconvieniece to others. Make sure to consider your target audience here.
Personaly I prefer the oldschool method of not preloading all of the tabs but having each tab as its own page and using a templating methodology to manage the navigation interface, be it tabbled or otherwise. This maintains the browser history and works fine with or without javascipt.
Tabs, etc are just tools. How we decide to lay them out and use them is what determines their effectiveness.
What I try to keep in mind is:
1) Keep it close. The things we use the most should be on the front or up close to the top as much as possible and bury the rest based on how often they are used/adjusted.
2) Easy enough for Mom to use. All interfaces are confusing if they are not laid out in a clear and logical manner.
3) Organize how it's used, not how you think it makes sense.* I often use tabs to break up steps in a process, or to break up areas such as basic / advanced options. I group them based on similarity or usage depending on what works better
4) Keep them few Either way I try to stay below the 7-10 range tops as the human brain has a hard time jumping beyond 7-10 digits, so I assume the same for pieces of information. Vertical Accordians might be something you want to look into as well.
I have also embedded tabs within tabs before. Works well but only one layer deep most of the time.
I have a horrible habit, actually something I'm wrestling with right this moment, when I think of a better way to do something - either a refactor, or something that would just be SO MUCH COOLER LOOKING, or such a better UX, I just HAVE to do it. Even when it would cost me time and I'm in a time crunch. I never know when to say, "no, there isn't time for this I can do it later."
Is there a line you draw?
Like right now I need a way to display magazine articles that are in the database. The easy way would be to create a new .aspx page and just pass the article id. the AWESOME way would be a jquery fade in modal that would display the article. At least that's what I think. Not being a guru it would take me longer to write. We are launching next week no time for extra crap. However, I just can't bring myself to do it the easy way.
Does anyone else run into this problem? Wondering if more experienced programmers have some wisdom to share.
I'd go the quick route first.
Write an ASPX page that is showing an article based on ID, or even cooler and more SEO-friendly, a slug. You'll be able to meet your deadline. Then, I'd start on the awesome jQuery way.
The bonus to this is that you'll have a fallback option, in case that a user has JavaScript disabled.
You're talking about "gold plating". It's a very common and well-known issue for software developers.
From the glorious founder of StackOverflow himself:
30: Developer gold-plating. Developers are fascinated by new
technology and are sometimes anxious
to try out new features of their
language or environment or to create
their own implementation of a slick
feature they saw in another
product--whether or not it's required
in their product. The effort required
to design, implement, test, document,
and support features that are not
required lengthens the schedule.
The proper way to cure this problem is to volunteer for so much work that you don't have time to do it right, let alone add on extra bells and whistles. :)
Edit: Other "classic mistakes" link here.
I think it's just a matter of setting priorities. Also, if your client, or boss doesn't want you to do things the flashy way, and you don't really have time to do it the flashy way, just do it the simple way, and come back and upgrade to flashy if you have time later. Clients and bosses are usually happier when you finish the work they gave you before moving on to making things better.
I look at how much time I have left, and if I feel I am pressed, I don't venture outside of my area of expertise. I am all for doing it correctly and elegantly, but the reality is that the majority of the time the deadline takes precedence, and I know if I stay within my comfortzone when pressed, I will most likely make fewer errors which means I save the QA people time in testing things.
That all being said, I have been known on more than one occasion to push the limits of how much can be done. If you aren't working an immense amount of overtime already, you can always make extra the time necessary for going the harder route. Yeah doing this can cause a little more work for extra people but sometimes that's the difference between having the best application or having the first loser.
My other advice is don't try and do both options. If you create a basic version stick with it and move on. If you try and do both, you're really wasting time in the end.
The right way is to have it functioning so that users can get to the information they seek. The designer way is to have it kind of working but also have javascript light things up and move around.
The best way is to get it working correctly then revise it. There shouldn't be much refactoring involved if you know where to place things. Obviously retrieving the article is going to be business/app logic and the actual fancy design (like fades/animation) will be part of the design/view aspect of the setup. These portions should be able to sit and be somewhat ignorant of what the other is doing - they shouldn't be tightly coupled.
Sounds like typical feature creep. Convince yourself that tabling a feature idea now to meet a deadline is quite different from simply dropping the feature altogether. You can come back to it months after release and put in new features.
I think you've pretty much answered your own question there. You said that adding this feature would take too much time, and you're in a time crunch and are launching next week. I think it's fairly obvious you need to go the "easy" route.
You're basically describing feature creep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featuritis
You need to discipline yourself, what I would do in your position is document the new feature I want to add, and implement it after your out of crunch mode when you have time to work on it. You're obviously aware that adding this feature is going to cost you time and may very well set back the launch of this product, you just need to have the discipline to prioritize and stick with it.
I think every developer has this problem if he is interested in programming and isn't coding just as a way to make money in a 9 to 5 office job.
Here is my advice:
Make a list of every cool thing you think of as you're writing the code. After you have a working basic version, commit it to your source repository.
Now if you have time left go back and do as many cool things as you have time for. Use branch tags if you're going to have to seriously rework the code.
Once you run out of time, if you're doing Agile, write the leftovers up as stories and give them to your project manager or client.
I think when you say you are doing something the "right way" that implies a balance of quality with the speed you can write it in.
If you make something as high quality as possible, but never release it, it's not the "right way". On the other hand, if you write crap but get it out super fast, that's also not the "right way." To do something the "right way", you must balance these two.
An economic phrase that comes to mind is "Quality, Price, or Production Speed, pick two."
Things like this used to absolutely kill me!
Here's my advice:
Do it the easy way (the aspx with the
id parameter)
Write a small proof of
concept to show the client
Show the client the working page and the proof of concept later along with an estimate on how long it will take. The experience of designing the prototype will give you a better idea of what is involved, how to do it, and how long it will really take. The proof of concept can also inform maintainence developers what's what (fading vs logic), and allow them to issolate if the fading mechanism or logic is broken.
Personally, I would stay away from the fading thing. In my experience the client will see no added value in the fading functionality and IMHO seperating it to another page will be easier to maintain. I believe it will be less prone to bugs later since code for the 2 pages will not be intermixed onto one page (if I understood you correctly).
In test driven development approach, when you implement a feature by writing a test for it and implementing it the easiest possible way, you will be able to go back and do it "right" only when you find really need to do so. Knowing this allows you to avoid overdesign. And often, you find you won't need to after all.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
For instance, customers that we're creating web sites for, request things like:
all links should open in a new window
put custom 'Back' button on every
page while there is a working
browser's equivalent
make some part of the text blinking etc.
Of course I tell them it's wrong, but is there some nice list of bad things to have from a respected source that I can point them to?
Become that respected source. Seriously: if your clients are showing reluctance to take your advice directly, compose documents that illustrate good and bad user interface design and publish it on your website. You gain three things from this:
You become more knowledgeable about the why of bad and good design. Having to think through something to compose it into a document is more helpful than many give it credit for.
If this is publicly published, you probably will get feedback about your ideas. Throw away the bad suggestions and integrate the good, and you become better at your craft.
You have the source for these discussions in a presentable format, yet you retain all your personal branding. If you include examples and demos of the good and bad, most people can see why you advocate for your ideas.
EDIT: epotter is dead on as far as the "buck stops here" aspect of interacting with a client. If your documents can show why irritating a user is a loss of revenue in the long run, it is unlikely you will have much push-back. On the other hand, if your personal preferences includes UI designs that don't help with retention... stop doing that. (I recall the days of "CSS Only, No Tables" designers before CSS had matured: they insisted on forcing their designs on clients, even though in some browsers they didn't render well. While a cause is admirable, you work for the client not a cause.)
Always try and show them how it will cost them money. For example, if they are going to do something that annoys the user, they will have less traffic which will lead to less revenue.
For better or worse, dollars always speak the loudest.
First, don't tell them it's wrong.
They may take it personally.
Instead, understand the need they are trying to fill, then suggest alternatives that don't include the bad behavior. Mock all the alternatives up and point out the good and bad of each one. Let them choose. As long as you have a good alternative, and sufficiently pointed out the faults of the bad implementation, then they generally come around to your point of view.
In other words, act like a designer. When a customer says, "I want green text on a red background," you don't immediately tell them that 10% of the world's males cannot read that, you first need to understand why. "Well, it's Christmas," then you can suggest alternate themes to give the site a festive feel without the design error. As long as the mockups you suggest are better than theirs then they will generally acquiesce.
Not because they made an error, but because you saw their real need and improved on their idea.
If they're adamant after that, though, do the work - don't spend your time trying to convince them the error of their design sense, it's a waste of resources.
Educate them over the long term, but if it takes you an hour to convince them not to make a change, that's one hour you could have spent improving your relationship with customers who treat you as designers rather than web-monkeys.
-Adam
I've had to play a semi-sales role at time with web projects and I have to stress how important it is to keep the customer happy.
Nevertheless, I completely agree with you that you are obligated to say something in the name of giving them what they want. I always found that the best approach is to start by agreeing with them (in principal at least). You could say,
"I completely agree with you that this
text is very important to your users.
Many testers that I've worked with
have strongly preferred using this
font/graphic/color to call out
critical text. Unfortunately, some
users associate flashing text with ads
and avoid it"
I find that this approach lets them know that you
Understand what they want
Appreciate their motivations and suggestions
Only want to help
One last word of advice, if after the gentle nudging, they don't get the point, consider doing two quick mock-ups. (their idea and yours). If that doesn't work, then just give them what they want. In the end, they pays the bills and if they really want an ugly site (assuming you can't afford to turn away business on aesthetic grounds) just give them the site.
Good luck and take deep breaths!
Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox has been an invaluable source of common-sense usability advice for me for many years. Here's something he wrote way back in 1996 that still applies today:
The BACK feature is an absolutely
essential safety net that gives users
the confidence to navigate freely in
the knowledge that they can always get
back to firm ground. We have known
from some of the earliest studies of
user navigation behaviorthat BACK is
the second-most used navigation
feature in Web browsers (after the
simple "click on a link to follow it"
action). Thus, breaking the BACK
button is no less than a usability
catastrophe.
And here are the first two of his Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 1999:
Breaking or Slowing Down the Back Button
The Back button is the lifeline
of the Web user and the second-most
used navigation feature (after
following hypertext links). Users
happily know that they can try
anything on the Web and always be
saved by a click or two on Back to
return them to familiar territory.
Except, of course, for those sites
that break Back by committing one of
these design sins:
opening a new browser window (see mistake #2)
using an immediate redirect: every time the user clicks Back, the
browser returns to a page that bounces the user forward to the undesired location
prevents caching such that the Back navigation requires a fresh trip
to the server; all hypertext navigation should be sub-second and
this goes double for backtracking
Opening New Browser Windows
Opening up new browser windows is like a
vacuum cleaner sales person who starts
a visit by emptying an ash tray on the
customer's carpet. Don't pollute my
screen with any more windows, thanks
(particularly since current operating
systems have miserable window
management). If I want a new window, I
will open it myself!
Designers open new browser windows on
the theory that it keeps users on
their site. But even disregarding the
user-hostile message implied in taking
over the user's machine, the strategy
is self-defeating since it disables
the Back button which is the normal
way users return to previous sites.
Users often don't notice that a new
window has opened, especially if they
are using a small monitor where the
windows are maximized to fill up the
screen. So a user who tries to return
to the origin will be confused by a
grayed out Back button.
These aren't crazy newfangled ideas, they're decade-old guidelines based on hard research. You'd need a really, really, really good excuse to repeat a decade-old mistake.
Find examples of actual pages that do this and show them. Here's a good place to find some.
If you show them the examples, and instead of being awed by the suckyness and changing their minds, the clients say, "Yeah! That's exactly what I want!", then make them sign a nondisclosure contract saying they'll never tell anyone who designed their web site. :)
You have to explain "why". It's not enough to tell them something is "wrong" (and in these cases, it's not so much "wrong" as it is a "bad idea")
Most people respond well to logic and reason. If you can make a reasoned argument for why doing something a certain way is a bad idea, they'll usually bow down to your experience and knowledge.
useit.com is an excellent resource for usability arguments
but you're probably wasting your time. Either do it their way ("the customer is always right") or walk away - arguing is unlikely to improve the situation unless you can demonstrate a significant monetary gain from not doing it their way, which you probably cannot do given the issues you listed.
if your name will be on the site, i'd politely walk away
Show them some articles on sites like http://useit.com which has some empirical studies on how adherence to web standard practices increases usability and so therefore user satisfaction and so therefore profit.
Ask them what results they're after. "Have all links open in a new window" is a statement of solution. Solutions are your job, the client's job is to state objectives.
Start with this: "Oh, you'd like links to open in a new window. Tell me more about why you want that - I'd like to explore with you whether there are alternate ways of getting the same results."
Perhaps continue with this: "Also, I might point your attention to other consequences of opening all links in a new window - consequences you might not have considered, and which perhaps you wouldn't like."
Suggested reading: Dale Emery's articles on resistance.
At the simplest, try to explain them each of it in a user understandable manner.
e.g. Blinking text is an old style thing not supported by all browsers
Not sure why "back" can be a problem. But put your viewpoint.
It's always convincing if you demonstrate to the user that his design is unconventional or wrong by showing a list of very well known websites that he would "respect" and pointing out how they don't do X. Your customer will probably want his site to be like the big players' web sites.
If he still insists that his weird design makes sense you could say: "yes, I agree that sounds like a good idea in theory, but the fact is that users are simply unaccustomed to X and would walk away from your website if it diverges too widely from the standard way of doing things".
IOW, when all else fails, use fear.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
With customers (of any type), the best you can do is inform them of their choices, and why they are not the best ones and then leave it. If it's really bad, require sign-off stating that they find that design acceptable. Do you want to be 'right' or do you want to get something into the customer's hands that works?
If it completely impedes a working solution, then (and only then) should you stand on principle, but beware you have very few (if any) of these 'stands', so use them wisely. Be prepared to walk away.
Paul.
Unless there is a compelling business case NOT to do it (and I'm not sure this is the case with any of your examples) then if the customer is adamant DO IT! They are paying for it after all. They can always find someone else who will do it if you won't!