The URL at the foot of the document doesn't work unless you add www.

If you download the Word version and enable Track Changes (Tools - Track Changes - Highlight Changes; tick everything) you can see the author's thought processes.
I didn't spot anything too embarrassing in there, although the removed word on p34 is mildly amusing.

Posted by: Matt Round on August 18, 2003 04:04 AM

---

 

1.19. Web managers of small sites or teams should be able to develop a list of roughly ten[deleted] tasks that users should be able to carry out if the site is to achieve its aims of having a usable interface [inserted] .
From Page 9

Posted by: Mac on August 18, 2003 05:10 AM

---

 

It is very interesting to look at the changes in the word document and see where some of the claims stated in the report come from.

I have no problem with committee members relating experiences from their companies, but the references to their companies should have been left in the report so that we would know where the claims originated, and could ask for evidence to back up these claims.

---

Before:
3.46. It has been design agency Reading Room’s experience that the production of content by its clients is usually the single biggest delay in the development and launch of a site.

After:
3.46. Design agencies report that the production of content by clients is usually the single biggest delay in the development and launch of a site.

(Should Design agencies be changed to Design agency ?)

---

Before:
1.41. Eight is the optimum number of people to use for user testing. Once groups of more than eight users are used, the law of diminishing returns applies. In a series of tests with Barclays, The Usability Company found that eight users from each target market group were sufficient. Other companies prefer to observe one user at a time carrying out tasks and to ask them structured questions about their experience.

After:
1.41. Six to eight users is the optimum number of people to use for user testing. Once groups of more than eight users are used, the law of diminishing returns applies. Other companies prefer to observe one user at a time carrying out tasks and to ask them structured questions about their experience.

---

Margaret Manning from Reading Room and Catriona Campbell from The Usability Company are both on the committee.

And I don't know if it's true that a usability tesing session can really be completed in just 45 minutes.

Posted by: Mac on August 18, 2003 08:11 AM

---

 

Someone from Help The Aged is listed as author in the document's Properties (under Custom), although that could come from a previous document (another thing people often overlook when using Word)

The hidden dangers of documents

Posted by: Matt Round on August 18, 2003 08:30 AM

---

 

And I don't know if it's true that a usability tesing session can really be completed in just 45 minutes.

Where is this in the document? I haven't read the passage (obviously since I am asking about it) but could it be a recommendation to not let a participant go longer than 45 minutes? I've found that to be generally true (some research would be nice here) when participants go toward an hour "in the chair" they tend to get very tired and frustrated on small things that didn't frustrate them on similar things toward the beginning of the test.

Posted by: fajalar on August 18, 2003 09:57 AM

---

 

Re: 45 minutes.

Sorry, that was a little joke that will make most sense to people in the UK, and refers to reports containing spurious claims. I am in no way implying that I know how long a usability session should last, but if anyone wants to adopt my "45 minute" claim and pass it off as a well-researched, considered guideline then who am I to stop them.

Posted by: Mac on August 18, 2003 10:10 AM

---

 

Ah, I get it. Still could be an opportunity for research. How long should a usability participant participate before they start giving you lower quality data? Along with that should be "how short" too.

I'll add it to my to-do list of research.:)

Posted by: fajalar on August 18, 2003 10:40 AM

---

 

It's significant that this is all about British goverment's online presence. British goverment itself is not user-focussed:

• British goverment is a grudgingly modified feudalism which still thinks people are the chattels of the government. The most obvious sign of this is that British passports describe the holder as a "subject", not a "'citizen".
  
• British government is widely regarded as the most scretive and inclined to avoid accountability in the Western world. For example the present administration (now in its 2nd and not necessarily last term) promised in its election manifesto to introduce a Freedom of Information Act. The Act it produced was several years late and very watered down - for example it allows bureaucrats to withhold information which might leave them open to prosecution!
  

It would be naive to expect any part of the British government to incur any "administrative inconvenience" in order to make it easier for anyone else to deal with the government.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on August 18, 2003 07:01 PM

---

 

Great article Louise! Clearly the people that put together the Framework don't actually PRACTICE usability or UCD... Nothing like non-experts setting standards!

Posted by: Lyle, Lyle, Croc O' Lyle on August 19, 2003 12:58 PM

---

 

Thanks, Lyle!
The original article has generated a fair amount of heat, it seems. It's now been reposted to Usability News, where Ann Light has contributed another article and I have done a follow-up too.

Posted by: Louise Ferguson on August 21, 2003 05:44 AM

---

 

One more thing.

AIGA Experience Design/Nico Macdonald has organised the monthly London event to talk about 'designing for e-government'. Takes place 7pm, 3 September. The speakers will include someone who was on the committee behind the Quality Framework.

Let me know if you're interested in attending and I've forward you the email for the RSVP (essential - numbers limited).

Posted by: Louise Ferguson on August 24, 2003 06:43 AM

---