Mr. Richard N Griffiths

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on March 8, 2003 09:44 PM

---

 

The introduction for this piece promises more than the lecture notes deliver. This is really just a laundry list of laws and regulations (mostly from the UK) that this lecturer finds specific or "relevant" to usability. One is left to read into the things highlighted, since there's no discussion on how or why the author finds these laws relevant. It might be a great set of notes for discussion in a classroom, but I didn't find it very interesting as a stand-alone piece.

First, it leaves out a very important question for debate: How much and what should governments legislate in regards to usability? What balance should be struck between regulation and market-driven results? Given the amount of debate within the HCI community over ROI, methods, and what's 'right' in general, how would governments create legislation that would work? Isn't there the risk that the legislation would be either so high level as to be ineffective or full or loopholes (to be exploited by corporations, agencies, and lawyers alike), or the legislation would be so specific that we limit innovation and market freedoms (e.g. All links MUST be blue, all the time!)?

Secondly, and most importantly, the author includes a laundry list of 'human rights' that he thinks should be included in a discussion of usability. He says "as software embeds its self into more and more of the artefacts and systems that support civil life, the possibility of infringing human rights should be born in mind."

In my opinion, torture, slavery, and forced labour are not things that usability professionals deal with. To imply that non-usable systems torture people (if that's what the author intended) is truly taking it way too far. The over-the-top rhetoric that usability advocates take up at times doesn't help our cause - rather it makes us look like unreasonable zealots.

People in third world countries deal with human rights violations all the time - they are really tortured bodily, psychologically, and culturally (for example, talk to the Kurds in Iraq). We show little respect for victims of real torture when we imply that a non-usable system is "torture."

Third, the author implies that laws actually make a difference in the usability of software. Where is the proof? To what extent do laws have an impact? We have many laws against crime, in many different countries, yet there are millions of crimes committed every year, and billions and billions of dollars spent every year to enforce the criminal codes in place. Poor usability is NOT a crime, and is a less important issue in the world. One must ask, what is the 'return' on laws related to usability? Should we have more or less of these laws? Or do we as 'usability advocates' just want usability at any cost?

As a someone trying to champion usability in industry, I find that usability advocates are only taken seriously when they can be pragmatic. When we are rational, and give and take when the situation calls for it, then we can be effective.

Posted by: Lyle, Lyle - Croc O' Lyle on March 9, 2003 06:14 PM

---

 

I agree with Lyle's commnets (see also my comments at http://webword.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1598).

But thanks for posting this! It's the best accessibility "laundry list" / one-stop-shop I've seen for the UK.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on March 12, 2003 06:16 AM

---