Usability abuse? (Take III)

Subject: Usability abuse? (Take III)
From: Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:26:22 -0500


Observing the "three strikes and you're out" rule, my final posting on this particular thread, leaving the final word to others. (Flames will be hand-delivered off-list to those who abuse the privilege. <g>)

I noted that "All that a usability expert does in _conducting_ a usability test is collect a list of what you call "gripes"--both those reported by the test subject and those observed by the expert." TechComm Dood replied:

<<Geoff, this simply is incorrect. This is but a small subset of what a usability expert *can* do, and when they do this type of thing, it's to gain initial data from which to begin an investigation.>>

No, it's correct but incomplete. As you note, usability testing is iterative, which is the "gain initial data" part. But that doesn't negate my point in the slightest. The goal of the test or analysis is to detect problems. Once detected, you then need a certain amount of expertise to pick an appropriate solution--which may involve changing user attitudes rather than changing the product in some cases.

I also observed that "The definition of usability is ... "_I_ can use it effectively". TechComm Dood replied: <<No, you're wrong here Geoff. That may be YOUR definition, but that certainly isn't the one that sound usability decisions stem from.>>

First, it's the only useful definition of usability. Second, my definition in no way prevents sound usability decisions. To wit:

<<Qualified or unqualified, every person indeed has a preference. That's all well and good, but it doesn't mean they're correct in their preference or that it even needs to be addressed.>>

Of course not, which is why I noted that your opinion has to be ***broadly representative*** (that's the third time I've said that, which suggests that some people really aren't paying attention). Furthermore:

<<Who knows that they are broadly representative? How? That's a neat trick!>>

It's called statistically random sampling of a population--or stratified random sampling if you're being a bit more sophisticated in your approach because you already know a bit about that population--and if you didn't already know that, I find myself wondering why you feel qualified to be participating in this discussion. Or were you just posing a rhetorical question to avoid making a substantive statement?

<<But as a technical writer, the product isn't intended to be used by you, so if it doesn't work well, then is it still not usable>>

As the technical writer, you are taking on the role of the intended user by trying to accomplish the tasks that the intended user will accomplish; in so doing, you attempt to determine how the product is supposed to work and choose a documentation strategy intended to support the user's use of the product. You're given a set of goals to accomplish using the software, and must document how you did so. Techwriting 101. Which part of this is difficult to understand?

<<[Usability analysis is] an immature *field* but a very mature *exercise*.>>

You lost me here: if the field is immature, who cares if the exercise is mature? Run through a well-defined and mature testing exercise as often as you want, but if it doesn't reflect the real experience of the person who will use the product, it's irrelevant.

<<And, the definitive judges are not those who use the product, but those who see benefit from the use of a usable product. This, in many cases, is seldom the user.>>

You don't honestly believe this, do you? The only possible valid reason to perform a usability test or analysis is to determine whether "the intended user" is able to use the product successfully. By successfully, I mean that they must be able to achieve the intended results. If those results aren't useful to "those who see benefit from the use of a product", then the product is by definition not usable--or diverges so broadly from user expectations that extensive user re-education is a precondition for using the product.

<<I don't think that there are a lot of tech writers who can do this [report a problem] effectively, though. We see evidence of this behavior on this very list daily.>>

I'll agree with you that a good many people could stand to improve their diplomatic skills. I disagree strongly that a few injudicious comments "among friends" on techwr-l from the ca. 2% of the list membership who regularly contribute represents a representative statistical sample.

In any event, your observation doesn't take away from my argument in the least. The exercise (reporting problems) should still be undertaken--even if it takes time to learn to do it well. Documentation should be a cooperative endeavor with the developers, not a battle of wills.

--Geoff Hart ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP X5 - SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION!

RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward in Help authoring technology, featuring all new Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! View an online demo: http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



References:
Re: Usability abuse?: From: Andrew Plato
Usability abuse? (Take II): From: Geoff Hart
Re: Usability abuse? (Take II): From: TechComm Dood

Previous by Author: Usability abuse? (Take II)
Next by Author: MS Word glitch?
Previous by Thread: Re: Usability abuse? (Take II)
Next by Thread: Re: Usability abuse? (Take II)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads