Trivia: Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt, authors of Contextual Design : A Customer-Centered Approach to Systems Designs (an interesting but dry - and very overpriced - book) and partners of InContext Enterprises (a site whose home page and main links are all images without ALT tags), worked with Microsoft on their IA.

Posted by: MadMan on May 31, 2002 12:40 AM

 

I enjoyed this article. Eliot is a good writer and a thoughtful one too.

A couple of problems with this article though (and this includes some of the other "usability backlash" articles posted today). The theme seems to be that we're all taking usability too far, which seems crazy from where I sit. For example, consider this quote:

"Steve Krug's book Don't Make Me Think exemplifies the diminished view of the user, who is characterised in the book as being an impatient, harassed imbecile unable to cope with the slightest cognitive stress. The book is full of passages such as: '[the user] should be able to "get it" - what it is and how to use it - without expending any effort thinking about it' (7).

This is fair enough, from a web design perspective, except when it is used to justify reducing interface design to the lowest common denominator."

Deciding the lowest common denominator is a business decision. And I've seen very few managers or web designers that give more than a passing thought to what the LCD should be. And a patronizing view toward end users STILL seems commonplace among technologists, though they're more private about their now-unPC opinions.

And then this quote (which Rhodes seems to like) paints a disingenuous picture of what Nielsen stands for, IMO: "And when the most powerful vision for the web comes from Jakob Nielsen - a man who criticises Microsoft's homepage because the 'Freedom to innovate' link is wrongly categorised under 'Resources' - one wonders whether things are moving forwards or backwards."

First, I don't think Jakob claims that he has "the most powerful vision for the web". Usability is just one very important ingredient for success, along with many others--Nielsen reacts to the near total neglect of usability in the mix. Second, to reduce a high-impact, decades-long career down to one nit-picky little quote is unfair.

IMO, the usability profession has barely scratched the surface. We've been fighting hard to convince the technologists that technology should stay out of users' way when performing simple tasks. Imagine how much further we must go to make technology serve as "decision support", to actually make us smarter? This is where the future lies.

Posted by: on May 31, 2002 11:02 AM

 

Anonymous Poster,

I enjoyed your comment and appreciate your point of view. I think you are right that usability has a long way to go, both in terms of what it can do for companies and in terms of becoming more accepted in companies. Usability is still new, in my opinion, and there is a ton of research that still needs to be done. We're still building the foundation. I think the second issue of being better accepted in companies is related to the marketing of usability. Listen folks, unless we do a better job of selling usability to our companies, we're going to play a small role in projects. I also feel that unless we understand how to fit better into the overall business process, particularly how usability can help the marketing and sales folks, we're going to continue to squabble.

Here are some things to think about...

A Business Case for Usability

Trouble in Paradise: Problems Facing the Usability Community

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on May 31, 2002 11:22 AM

 

I'm trying to figure out why my comment went out anonymous. Must have pressed the wrong button. (Nope! I see that I didn't check the "personal info" box.)

Also, a note to Rhodes. I get tremendous value out of this website. I am amazed that you are able to do this much each day. I suspect there are a ton of people like me who benefit in the same way.

I've found many nuggets here that have immediately helped me in my work and my thinking. The impact of your efforts, sir, are hard to measure but are huge.

I also wouldn't get too frustrated by the lack of posting responses (though it frustrates me sometimes). People just seem to be so much on the go, but that doesn't mean your efforts are in vain. For example, I REALLY enjoyed the "What I have learned" article by Milton Glazer. It may change the course of my working career. But my reaction is profound, quiet, and personal.

But I wouldn't have found it had you not posted it. So, all I can do is say thank you, and try and close the circle by posting helpful information of my own.

So, step one: Thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Eric Grose on May 31, 2002 01:33 PM

 

I have just come back for HFI's annual usability research review and being on the business side (not a usability expert)found the most enlightening tid-bit.

Usability is not a science...it is not even close. Empirical research shows that usability experts can't agree on what are the problems with a site, plus, up to 50% of the problems they point to are actually not problems at all. Worst part about is they cannot tell you which 50% are the real problems.

John you are indeed correct usability is still in its infancy and has a long way to go.

I also found their candor most refreshing.

Posted by: JB on May 31, 2002 02:38 PM

 

Eric,

You are being too kind.

Here is some information for people to think about; here is why I post news:

1. It satisfies my ego. I would very much like to have the #1 usability resource on the web. I want people to come here. I want to have my traffic increase. I want people to link to WebWord. I want people to think of this site as the place to go for usability and related topics.

2. Right now, at this point in my life, I am willing to expend energy on this web site. WebWord is a labor of love. This topic is fun even after posting news for nearly 4 years. We still have a lot to learn and I like being in the middle of it.

3. I can learn from other people through WebWord. When I share, others share. Everyone wins. It is funny that I tag along with the WebWord crowd just like the other readers.

4. I like the historical aspect of the site. I can go back in time and find out what I was thinking about usability. It is my external memory for usability topics.

5. WebWord generates consulting opportunities for me and my colleagues. It is my place to say -- "Look, I am an expert in this stuff!" WebWord.com helps WebWord the organization grow.

There are other more subtle reasons, but this list pretty much summarizes the major points. Hopefully you think it is interesting.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on May 31, 2002 02:44 PM

 

My personal experience with usability testing clearly tells me that there are very few core usability principles. Guidelines hardly make sense if you plan on being strict. Following guidelines to the letter will simply not work. However, treating guidelines as heuristics is useful.

Almost any bit of research can be countered with other research. Research is a human endeavor. There are strong social aspects to the scienfitic method. Usability plays this game too and is quite guilty of trying to fall back on hard data. However, the major caveat is that data is better than assumptions and guesses. The point is, use data but take it with a grain of salt. There is more to the pie than the incredients alone.

I think it is also important to realize that research on very specific topics can be excellent. The problem is running a few research projects and drawing big conclusions. Creating theories from little research pebbles is a horrible idea. Yet, that is exactly what happens.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on May 31, 2002 02:52 PM

 

John I can understand you point of view and the argument is valid. But as a business I am accountable for a ROI on all the money I spend on the web site. If usability is to be a important part of my budget, I need some personal reassurance that if I go to you or anyone else that there is some level of agreement on what is wrong on my site...not 2, 10, 100 different ideas - especially when the research is telling me that 50% of these are false truths and there can be no agreement amongst experts on what is wrong.

It's almost like planned obsolesce.... here are the things you need to fix, you make the fixes thinking it is OK and then in reality many of the fixes have made it, if not worse, but little or no overall improvement.

Please, don't get me wrong, I am a strong believe in usability and I defer to the experts, but here needs to be an industry-wide push for uniformity or a change in mind set where the changes can be translated into ROI where there are meant to be some tangible results...for exmaple by making these changes you will see a 15% increase in sales and here is why....

I am accountable so usability recommendations and experts need to be to.

Posted by: JB on May 31, 2002 04:14 PM

 

Do you demand such 'hard evidence' from your graphic designers? That would seem silly, right?

I know this may sound naive or ridiculous, but sometimes you need to stop thinking about covering your back with dubious ROI calculations. Don't isolate individual aspects (including usability), integrate them and focus on building a better product. You seem to be thinking of usability as a bolt-on component that may or may not make you money, when it's no more separate than design, IA, programming or marketing.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 1, 2002 05:45 AM

 

Even the proponents of 'branding' test things such as recognition and likeability, even though these get criticized as worthless. These factors are more wholistic of the entire design experience. One quickly gets the impression from the critics of usability that what's being pushed for is not innovation, but the unquestioned creative freedom of times past. You don't for example see an organized refutation -- just Jakob is raining on the parade. Got five or fifty sites, or products, or services that break all the rules? Fine. May I go so far as to say great, even. Post them. ...Do a side-by-side refutation, between one philosophy of design and another. Or throw out a different, wholistic, methodology or concept or whatever you want to call it. Forget Jakob. Many people are tired of meaningless, emperor has no clothes, rampant creativity where the only basis for success is that the designer feel unfettered by pesky client concerns.

Posted by: (the other)JS on June 1, 2002 09:19 AM

 

Matt

I think it is naive to think that usability is a component that is 'above the law' in terms of determining the effectiveness to a business. It is not hiding behind ROI to ensure that you are getting what you pay for....it is called business.

When there is enough evidence in the market today to show that experts cannot agree, contribute to usability issues... I start to ask...where is the value. Not partial value, because I strongly believe in usability, but total value in terms of I give you $30k to analyze and evaluate and the research shows that at least 50% of the issues you show me aren't...BUT you can't tell me which ones aren't right..... I think to myself, the dot-com era is dead and we just don’t fork over money for nothing anymore.

And to suggest that this is covering up and hiding behind ROI is correct...it's called making viable and accountable business decisions.

I just think that usability needs to move beyond the ethereal and start looking at ways it can justify itself from an ROI perspective – if it wants to survive and flourish.

Posted by: JB on June 4, 2002 12:40 PM