|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: October 08, 2002 Definitions Of Usability -- Ron Zeno said: "Maybe point to a commonly accepted definition of usability as a reference." (Mac comments: What are your favourite definitions of Usability ? )
Reader Comments...
"Have nothing in your houses which you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."
Users have had a positive experience.... or User can accomplish what they set out to do without frustration. these definitions allows for technically poor usability, but if users are happy who cares what the experts say...
My definition is simply: "something that behaves as users expect it to". Everything else is a corrolary. Posted by: Joel Spolsky on October 8, 2002 03:01 PM
I don't think it is useful for people to come up with their own definitions, unless you want to demonstrate the immaturity of the usability field and how meaningless usability currently is. Instead, we need accepted definitions that everyone can refer to. For example, an old definition popularized by Nielsen is fairly hard to find online and is quite narrow: http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2137671-84,00.html ISO 9241 includes a better (broader) definition that is somewhat easier to find and reference: http://www.tau-web.de/hci/space/i7.html Posted by: Ron Zeno on October 8, 2002 05:09 PM
if the user can achieve his or her purpose without being hindered or bothered by the interface, it is a usable interface. i summarize that as "not annoying or obtrusive." i like joel's definition, except that there are situations where users have little or no expectations. how did people expect the first telephone, television, VCR or personal computer to function? a truly new "thing" may model itself after other familiar paradigms, but that's not the same as meeting a person's expectations. Posted by: on October 8, 2002 07:49 PM
I have a formal definition of "User-Centered Design" which has been found useful to students and clients. My experience, based on 25 years in professional usability engineering and testing is that a formal definition only goes so far. If clients are receptive to UCD or usability they will immediately understand the discipline and the ROI. If they are not open you are completely wasting your time: http://www.taskz.com/definitions.php Posted by: CM on October 9, 2002 10:52 AM
I really like Joel's take on usability for software design: "A user interface is well designed when the program behaves exactly the way the user thought it would." (Joel Spolsky, http://www.joelonsoftware.com) Posted by: Lydia on October 9, 2002 04:28 PM
Aw, shrimp. I somehow missed the post from Joel himself. (I wasn't trying to suck up, I swear!) I do find it useful to have a personal definition of usability that you can communicate to the people you do it for (the theory being that you believe in the product you sell). But, a common definition that can be used as a touchstone is also an advantage, since it tends to break down barriers when people can point to a common source of knowledge, even if that common source is not immediately known to the viewer. Flexibility is key.
Ooh, hey, that last apparently anonymous post was from me. I just noticed that if you post twice in a row, the name/email/url saved area disappears. Posted by: Lydia on October 10, 2002 05:11 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |