|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: June 03, 2003 Why Usability Matters to your Business -- "It’s clear that no commercial online venture can afford damaging brand reputation by annoying website visitors, and it’s equally apparent that addressing usability problems, for instance in simplifying registration and purchase processes, can raise online revenue." (Comments: A Business Case for Usability)
Reader Comments...
"It’s clear that no commercial online venture can afford damaging brand reputation by annoying website visitors" Um, no, it's not clear at all. In fact, it's better to annoy first then slowly change for the better to level X than it is to start at level X.
"In fact, it's better to annoy first then slowly change for the better to level X than it is to start at level X." Ron, what the hell do you mean by that? Posted by: Phil Burstein on June 4, 2003 02:19 AM
No company wants to damage brand reputation. Many do it anyway, unknowingly. The trick is 1) quick and easy diagnosis that the brand is being damaged. 2) quickly connecting the problem to usability Posted by: on June 4, 2003 06:06 AM
"Ron, what the hell do you mean by that?" LOL. I'm taking about studies into how to best influence others. Say you meet two people X and Y. You don't like X but like Y. If X then works to have the same character traits as Y, you will be more trusting of X than Y. Same applies to companies or products. I don't have access to my library to give the citations... Posted by: Ron Zeno on June 4, 2003 10:15 AM
Ron, I think there are differences in the situation you're describing. In the situation you describe, the attitudes towards stimuli X and Y represent the entire attitude towards X and Y. In the situation of a web site for a known brand, attitudes towards the web site are one portion of the overall brand attitude. An inferior web site for a positive brand can detract from the brand image in the same way that a poor line extension can detract from the brand heritage of a strong central brand. (I think a study on the negative impact of a poor line extension was in a Journal of Marketing Research ca 1999, but I recycled them a long time ago...) Posted by: Frank on June 4, 2003 08:34 PM
Yes, but my point is that it is easier to use well-researched and proven techniques to influence people to react more favorably to your product (company, etc) than to invent new techniques that may or may not actually improve products in a way that may or may not actually change people's perception of them. Any manager worth his salt places most of his resources on what is known to work. Influencing people works. Usability is not mature enough for "improving usability" to even mean much. The bottom line is not the quality of the product, but people's reaction to it (even when that reaction is manipulated by things other than the product). Posted by: Ron Zeno on June 4, 2003 09:43 PM
I've been thinking alot about this lately - but it seems to me that Brand Managers of the really big brands out there are looking to create an "emotional connection". The emotion sells the brand, and ultimately the product. Usability? Not on their radar, not in the least, from what I've been able to pick up. So, how do you reconcile "usability" with creating a multimedia experience that creates an emotional response? There's no question customers in an information seeking mode *need* simplified, usable web sites. However, people looking to get to "let the outside in" of a new Volkswagen convertible aren't going to get the same "sense of fun" as they would using the Flash version of their site (and I'm not saying this is a great presentation or anything, I just grabbed the first thing that came to mind.) There's NO question they're limiting their audience; that's probably what bothers me the most about it. But isn't it self-limiting? Will a bad Flash experience *really* stop you from buying a VW if you're interested in it? Most of all - if you limit the traffic, are you still going to get enough people to make your investment in all that high-tech design worth it in the end? (If you're talking about a big ticket item like selling cars, I'm sure you are. But if you're talking about a $5 item you purchase only once...?)
Usability isn't a set of rigid rules or approved / disapproved techniques, it's about achieving the site's objectives by helping users to achieve theirs. For instance in June's VW example:
Usability is not about helping users achieve their goals. That's a frequent side benefit. Usability is about 1) making a thing more easily understood and 2) making a thing easier to work with/manipulate. Usability doesn't care about goals. You can run usability tests that do not even introduce goals or objectives. Sometimes when you do focus on a goal, it's not a user goal - user goals be damned. You are applying usability toward a predetermined end, which is an important distinction. Posted by: Lloyd Braun on June 5, 2003 10:34 AM
"Usability doesn't care about goals. You can run usability tests that do not even introduce goals or objectives. Sometimes when you do focus on a goal, it's not a user goal - user goals be damned. You are applying usability toward a predetermined end, which is an important distinction." Lloyd, I'd like to hear your definition of usability, as I strongly disagree with you statement that usability doesn't include users' goals. Myself, I use these definitions and always discuss them together: User-centered design: The design of systems to meet people's needs and capabilities. Usability: The acceptability of a system by the people who use it as well as those affected by it.
Yes, I also have to agree that you can achieve and measure usability through goals, and the goals are based around the tasks the customer needs. (Customers, not "users" = druggies, man) If the customer comes and wants to "get the feeling" of a VW, then a fun interface/experience that reflects that excitement is, I suppose, usable (but how do you measure "fun"? Hmm. 1 to 7 scale of what you think of the product ("brand") in question once you're done?) It's definitely easier to say, "the customer is here to find out what colors the VW is available in" - set them in front of the site, watch them try to sort their way through to that info. (What you measure depends on what's important to the business & to the customer, again, I'm just making up an example) "June".
Goal-based usability testing is like judging a golf course based on the par for a course. It's a narrow view of a broad subject. Posted by: Lloyd Braun on June 6, 2003 01:18 AM
If users are supported to complete the tasks the marketing or product promises it can do, it will ulitimately have a positive impact on the brand. Posted by: daniel szuc on June 7, 2003 12:25 AM
Users don't want to be supported. They want independence and to arrive at destinations on their own. Posted by: Jackie Chiles on June 7, 2003 06:51 PM
"Users don't want to be supported..." Interesting assertion, Jackie. Any evidence or explanation you'd care to share? Posted by: Ron Zeno on June 7, 2003 07:23 PM
Independence to arrive to the destinations on their own, yes, as long as the ride is an enjoyable one. This is where usability can really assist in terms of removing some of the furstrations that may get in the way of the destination. Other elements can assist too, like stability, design elements etc But before developing the "packaged tour" it probably helps to understand more from the people who want to go and get their feedback after being on it :) Posted by: daniel szuc on June 8, 2003 06:05 AM
Yeah Ron, you are right. Users want to have their hands held and be treated like children. Posted by: Jackie Chiles on June 8, 2003 01:10 PM
"Users want to have their hands held and be treated like children." So Jackie, you are completely unable to back your assertions, relying on ad hominem attacks instead? Note that I haven't given any indication at all of what I think. I've only asked you to elaborate or otherwise support your position. Guess that was asking too much?
Who did he attack? I see you attacking Jackie. Posted by: Lloyd Braun on June 8, 2003 07:50 PM
If I'm attacking anyone or anything, it is the viewpoint expressed by Jackie who chose to make sarcastic remarks directed at me rather than clarify an opinion. At no point were my comments directed an anyone, while Jackie's were of another sort altogether. If you have an opinion, back it up with with information, not caustic remarks. As for my opinion: I think that Jackie is interpreting "support" to an unintended extreme. There are many degrees of support, and though both extremes can be undesireable, complete support is usually best, especially when it is not perceived as coddling or otherwise patronizing. The bottom line is that people prefer convience. Posted by: Ron Zeno on June 9, 2003 05:43 PM
If people prefer convenience why is it that men shun customer service staff in a store, preferring to look through every inch of every shelf for a product they think is there? And when they fail, why are they as likely to leave the store accepting defeat as they are to finally ask for assistance? Is that convenient? Talk about interpreting to an unintended extreme! Posted by: Jackie "Apparently Evil" Chiles on June 9, 2003 07:01 PM
"If people prefer convenience why is it...?" Already answered that: "when it is not perceived as coddling or otherwise patronizing." Of course, thinking that most or all men do any such a thing is a gross generalization. What percentage of men actually do this, in what type of stores, looking for what types of items, in what countries? When do similar behaviors occur? Most importantly, does this behavior actually apply to anything that you are I are likely to design?
Neat! Because everything is relative and there are a million parameters to any situation, we can debunk any thought presented to us and justify any position we want by selecting the parameters that are in in our favor. Posted by: Lloyd Braun on June 10, 2003 12:07 AM
"Because everything is relative and there are a million parameters to any situation, we can debunk any thought" You can do whatever you want. Provide valid information if you wish, gross generalizations, or information-free propaganda. Some people are gullible enough not to differentiate between the three. I promote the first. Posted by: Ron Zeno on June 10, 2003 10:35 AM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |