SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: Razorfish lawsuit usability
Re: SIGIA-L: Razorfish lawsuit usability
From: catherine (catherine_at_tgix.com)
Date: Wed Jul 19 2000 - 13:37:59 EDT
Grant Larimer wrote:
"The problem here is how do you judge if a site is faulty and unusable?
By user feedback? The number of visitors? Professional evaluation?"
This issue is probably the most frustrating and fascinating part of my
work right now. Not only is there the implied need for usability at the
beginning and the end of the development cycle but, also, areas of
definition for "usable goals" that can be cross-referenced to the
client's business goals and teams technical goals. This is/would be
tremendously helpful in situations like building UML Use Case Scenarios
where there is a success and failure specified but most times it is a
best guess by the IA or whomever (I won't bore you all with the other
usability details, but, I hope you understand). Also, holistically the
clients goals stated at the beginning of a development cycle are usually
best guesses also if there is no information to support or deny their
hypothesis (more usability information (i.e. user testing, paper
prototypes, demographic information and data collections from this)
could have profound impact on not only user experience but justifying
the need or throw away of certain features and, therefore, a clear
understanding of shifting priorities and defined expectations with the
client. Afterall, how can one manage expectations if the expectations
are derived from a system that is built, and then, only in critical
study of what the site does not do (but what was it supposed to do? --
implying experience and usability here).
What I've found is that understanding the goals and priorities of how
"usable" a system is based on discussions regarding "user experience" is
difficult. Successfully discussing or prioritizing these goals and
building through iteration to the expectation, perhaps, is a safe guard.
Promising a "system" is rarely enough if the goals of the system
from either the success or failure of the system or the user interaction
is not
specified. Basically, everyone is surprised, when say, the navigational
structure leads to nowhere or there is no place to purchase the item
dropped
into the shopping cart. ouch. However, if time to market and client
expectations did not specify both of these components as high priorities
(shopping cart and clear navigation), well, then there is phase 2 and a
clear understanding.
Catherine Forsman
Thaumaturgix
Grant.Larimer_at_luminant.com wrote:
>
> I agree with Andrew that the issue here is not what does or doesn't
> work on this particular site. I'm certain that we could pick apart
> any website and expose a variety of problems as we see them from our
> own experience and unique perspectives. The big question is how
> liable are web development professionals in respect to the sites they
> create. I agree that an architect is not responsible for the
> performance of the businesses that occupy the building he designed,
> however, an architect can be held liable if his design is found to be
> faulty. Although I am not a legal expert, I believe the IAM lawsuit
> is claiming that Razorfish delivered a faulty and unusable site.
>
> The problem here is how do you judge if a site is faulty and
> unusable? By user feedback? The number of visitors? Professional
> evaluation? If a court declares that user testimonials or audience
> levels provide a measure for usability then I fear that web
> development professionals could be found liable for a sites
> performance should that site wish to push the issue. If usability is
> based on professional evaluation, which is what I expect will happen
> in lawsuits of this nature, then who can provide a concrete
> testimonial as to whether a site is faulty? In architecture, if a
> doorway with a 6 foot clearance should have had a 7 foot clearance
> then that can be easily judged. Evaluating a website is far more
> subjective and easily influenced by an individuals perspective. Two
> people can have completely opposite, albeit accurate opinions about
> the usability of a site.
>
> I'm curious if anyone is aware of another case which is similar in
> nature to this one or is this one setting the precedent?
>
> Grant Larimer
> Information Architect
> Luminant Worldwide
> 114 West 26th Street
> New York, NY 10001
> e: Grant.Larimer_at_luminant.com
> w: (212) 842-6434
> c: (646) 279-3426
> f: (212) 842-6559
>
>
> "Andrew Thompson"
<athompso_at_lante.com> To: sigia-l_at_asis.org
Sent by: owner-sigia-l_at_asis.org
cc:
07/18/00 07:06 PM Subject: RE:
SIGIA-L: Razorfish lawsuit
usability
>
>
>
>
> I have not spent time on the IAM site because I have no idea of how it
>
> represents the work of Razorfish, the site content and goals, and the
> needs of
> its users, so my comments are more about the fundamental issues. As
> more
> dot-coms fail there will more finger pointing about exactly who is
> responsible.
> In the past, book designers were never sued because the book didn't
> sell well,
> architects were never sued because not enough people came to visit a
> building,
> and ad agencies were never sued because a campaign was deemed
> unsuccessful. Yes,
> a poor user experience can adversly affect a site (I know all of you
> know this),
> but it is only part of the big picture in the success of a business.
> The only
> facts that IAM can legally point to are the terms of the contract
> which IAM
> signed anyway thus stating they agree to those terms. Many of the
> other comments
> point to a lack of oversight on the part of the client. A client must
> themselves
> be responsible for making sure any product they release is up to
> standards. In
> comparison, GM does not blindly turn over the design of its cars to
> someone
> while they fret over other issues returning later to find a 5 wheel
> car.
> Similarly, most people when building a new house or remodeling an old
> one are
> reviewing the progress daily checking for mistakes. Regardless of how
> much they
> trust their user experience firm a client must stay on top of the
> project and
> meet periodically with the firm to discuss the progress. This is basic
> project
> management stuff.
>
> As IAs I think we have lttle to fear in this particular case, but it
> does point
> to the fact that we can all improve our (people- and project-)
> management
> skills, and continue to educate our clients in that arena.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:20 EST
|