Nonsense. Management is simply not sharing what they know of the target audience. (Perhaps some of them are hiding their incompetence as well.)

I'm sure they have very specific requirements for language, culture, age, income, technology access, technology competence, etc. Otherwise, the only product you can make and market has to be something not much more complex than a pen and a pad of paper. ;)

Posted by: Ron Zeno on January 27, 2003 07:12 PM

---

 

Whenever I have heard of directives like that (thank goodness I have never one of these personally) it has always been a case of management thinking they are too smart for developers. "We'll tell them we want something simple and leave out all the messy details because they'll just complicate things if they knew what was really involved." Translation = we don't trust you.

The result is usually disaster, especially if the developer really tries to make it work. They fall far short of what management actually wants (because management wouldn't tell them what they want), and get in trouble for it (because management forgets that they didn't tell the developer what they want).

As for advice, I would try reason first, and humor second. Try to explain that you can't create a usable interface under those guidelines, and why. If that doesn't work, prototype something so ludicrous (yet simple, that's the key) that they are forced to give you guidelines.

Or, you could overcomplicate it. Build in a voice interface for disabled users, put one field per screen so it works in early versions of Netscape without a mouse, whatever.

I wish I could say option #3 is to get a new job, but that isn't feasible in this market.

Posted by: Lydia on January 27, 2003 09:31 PM

---

 

Somebody at my old job (I'm the wino on the street: "I used to be somebody!!") has my copy of Cooper's "The INmates Are Running the Asylum," and I think (on memory!) something like chapter 2 starts with this kiss of death (words to this effect): "Squandering a gazillion dollars is not easy to do, but a poorly managed software design project is eminently suited for the task."

Cooper's book is incredibly valuable not just for its practical advice, but because it offers scary sound-bite-like riot acts which can stop a meeting dead in its tracks. Its worth picking up for thatb alone. But it also takes you through the value of imaghining user scenarios (even if he doesn';t recomment verifyinh the validity of the scenarios). Useful lines even in these areas...

Somewhere Nielsen also talks bout the needs for interfaces that alolow shortcuts for expert users and the yellow brick road for the beginners... That if your interface needs to address them all, you have to allow some kind of different navigation tools.

(again, sorry for the typos due to the carrot slicing incident. and the kid unit didn't even -like- the seitan in the shepherds pie.)

Posted by: Frank on January 27, 2003 11:11 PM

---

 

Cop??t!

Posted by: on January 27, 2003 11:21 PM

---

 

Here's what I wrote to Berna, incidentally.

They say the design should be SO simple that if you were to pull Joe Smith from the street he'd be able to use it.

Impossible. NOTHING in life is "intuitive". It all carries various learning curves. Telling the time isn't easy. Remember how much we struggled with it as children. When children are born, they don't associate smiles with happiness. It's a learned response.

When you make a computer interface, you assume that the person knows how to turn on his PC, how to surf to your Web site, how to use a mouse, how to type, how to click links, how a web page works, etc. There is no guarantee that Joe User off the street has ever used a computer. In that case, your hands are tied. If he doesn't know how to surf to a web page, for instance, YOU can't do anything about it.

All design has to make compromises. All design has to make certain assumptions. In doing so, you WILL lose a percentage of "everybody", but you CAN'T be everything to everybody. It is better to make a product that works extremely well for a smaller group of people than to make a product that is mediocre for everyone.

Actually, you *sacrifice* simplicity when you target everyone. The more the types of target users, the more potential paths they can take. This means more scenarios to cater for. The less reliable your usability testing becomes (Why? Because as you expand your user base, you increase the chances of some important usability flaw NOT being discovered in your testing.) The simplest product to design is that which will be used by only ONE person. As you keep adding people, you increase the complexity of the process. Is that moving towards simplicity? I think not. Try those arguments with your boss.

Posted by: MadMan on January 28, 2003 01:17 AM

---

 

If Managament don't want to descibe an audience, then take responsibility and define it yourself. Would you rely on management to do your design for you?

(line em up against the wall and shoot the lot of them hee heee heee... hang on I didn't say that did I? I was only supposed to think it. damn, now they'll all know that I'm not a reasonable unbiased person )

Posted by: Mac on January 28, 2003 04:10 AM

---

 

"SO simple that if you were to pull Joe Smith from the street he'd be able to use it."

Step 1. Define the target audiences IF YOU CANT
Step 2. Take them up on the offer and usability test it with anyone (without a definfed target :) IF YOU CANT
Step 3. Test it on members of management who are not close to the system being built (i.e. those who have only seen demos) and usability test it on them.

After all, they are in the "Joe Smith" target group. Right? :)

Posted by: daniel szuc on January 28, 2003 08:10 AM

---

 

i've had something like this, where a client wanted a logo that appealled to everyone ("from babies to 80-year-olds"). occassionally i'll get one of those ultra-vague descriptions where the client has some overblown idea of wanting "universal appeal."

i tell them that if i could promise that, i'd be retired on the profits from my book. then i try to extract as much info from them as i can...

Posted by: dix on January 28, 2003 09:52 AM

---

 

All of these comments are kind of right.

The best way to deal with an undefined Target Audience is to make assumptions about them - BUT make sure that you keep a list of the assumptions. Each time you show the design you also remind them of the assumptions on which that design is based. If they change one of the assumptions that brings you closer to defining the target audience.

By the end of the design process you will have a usable design, and a target audience description (assumption list). If the management then don't like it they have had visibility of the assumptions all the way down the line so could have changed/challenged an assumption at any time.

Posted by: Toby on January 29, 2003 08:57 AM

---

 

Thanks so much for all the comments. Definitely helps alot. I was able to get out of the lock-up meeting today, so I can post. I've updated my site Naturex. You can read the detailed updates on the issue from there.
But they seem like they're not going to change their minds on the "design it so simple that anybody and everybody can use it" motto. But I am beginning to understand that what they mean by "everybody" is really not Joe Smith off the street. It's more or less themselves... won't comment on the "off the street" part. :pp

I've tried rationale first, didnt go too well, tried humor, they seemed to get the point but still no signs of flexibility. Still no sound user demographics. But I did get some ideas, so I'm even ok with that. Better than nothing.

The good news is I've been dubbed "The Queen of Simplicity" because I keep reminding everybody during practically every idea thrown on the table to keep it Simple. It's really not suprising because we have a room full of engineers and developers and me! I wish I wasnt bound by so strict confidentiality rules and able to tell you about some things they come up with and expect "everybody" to know what it is heheh. It's informative and amusing to say the least...
Afterall these meetings, we still have 2 more weeks to go, in lockup, to finalize the Requirements. I just hope I dont get a different kind of nickname in the meantime.

Posted by: Berna on January 29, 2003 11:37 AM

---

 

I've had a bit of experience with clients like this. What I've found is that when clients say they are targeting "everyone" it's a sign that they don't know who they are/should be targeting. Even if you point out why they can't target everyone, it often doesn't help -- because they can't figure out how to define their target. Even if they understand your need, they don't know the answer and can't figure out how to get it.

Your best bet is to help them define their audience - lead them through the process or find someone else who can. You might start with questions like:
- what industries do we serve?
- what size companies are we targeting?
- what specific companies are we targeting?
- what roles do decision makers at customer companies hold (e.g. CIO, R&D, Marketing, QA, etc.)
- what things to these people care about?
- what questions do they ask our sales people?

This is just a start, but these kinds of questions will help you zero in a bit. Of course, all the answers you get from internal people might be inaccurate mis-characterizations...so proceed cautiously and look for ways to validate the answers you get.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on January 30, 2003 01:53 AM

---

 

Thanks for the comments Lyle. I will try those questions. There is no one single industry that we are targeting. Our customers are made up from retail to government to educational institutions and more. The decisions they hold on the other hand, is a huge list. For instance one of the issue we face is that the user who places the order might be an assistant to the actual decision maker and might not know which billing account to use. etc...

The scope of the project has already changed and it is now determined that the users are going to be internal users for the first release. But my dilemma about having a variety of expertise continues. No two internal people specialize in the same area. From everybody, it is now down to being targeted to about 100 people with all very different areas of expertise, vocabulary, technical knowledge and even age and years of experience with the company. I am trying to keep the assumptions to a minimum at this point. I dont know if that's a good or bad thing.

Posted by: Berna on January 30, 2003 10:21 AM

---