SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: SIGIA-L: does it have to depend?
RE: SIGIA-L: does it have to depend?
From: Steve Krug (skrug_at_mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Oct 16 2001 - 15:22:45 EDT
When pressed, Lou Rosenfeld wrote:
> ...most of the clients that any of us will encounter today
> aren't experienced enough with information systems design to realize that
> simple, concrete answers are usually unrealistic and often a disservice to
> them. [snip] This won't change unless we continue to do three things:
>
> 1) keep saying that "it depends"
> 2) explain *why* by describing all these ugly variables
> 3) *only then* start the process of addressing the variables
>
> If we can educate (or accelerate the education) of our clients, then we
> might actually be able to help them..
>
> So I humbly propose that we, as a field, do a great service to our clients,
> our colleagues, and all of humanity by answering all questions with those
> lovely two words, "it depends," for at least the next 8-10 years
Bravo, Lou.
And Marc Rettig wrote (in part, with credit to Christopher Alexander):
> Design is a process that seeks "fit." That is, we work to understand the forces
> that push on whatever it is that we've been asked to design, we try to see the
> shape made by those forces, and we attempt to create something that fits into
> that shape. So we have a wild variety of tea kettles in the world. A wild
> variety of *good* tea kettles, because there are so many situations of use that
> designers have sought to fit. The answer to questions like, "Should a tea kettle
> be made of copper," "Should a kettle be shaped like a cat," or "Should a kettle
> be in the form prescribed by ancient Japanese tradition," ... the answer to all
> those questions is, "It depends on <insert list of relevant forces>."
>
> A web site (or any interactive product) has *many* more forces pushing on it
> than does a tea kettle, and many of those forces are less well understood. To
> design a good site, and to answer any of the questions about what the site
> should be like, requires a process of identifying and understanding the forces
> pushing on it.
Right on, Marc.
At the UPA conference in June (and what could be more pleasant than Las Vegas in June?), Sanjay Koyani from the National Cancer Institute did a wonderful
presentation about their attempt to create a collection of "research-based" or "evidence-based" Web design and usability guidelines, available at
http://usability.gov/guidelines/ . It's an great site, and I love browsing through it; the format is excellent, and it's full of good examples and
counter-examples. And they're careful about indicating the strength of the available evidence, their criteria for evaluating strength, and the research sources.
Sanjay was careful to begin his presentation by making it clear that these were *guidelines*--saying, in essence, that "it always depends," or "actual mileage
may vary." So what was distressing--but not at all surprising--to me, was that as he presented a few example guidelines, he was immediately peppered by a series
of questions from the audience, which were all the equivalent not of "How many tea kettles were measured?" or "What kind of tea kettles were they?" or "Who was
using the tea kettles?" Instead, they were all clearly more like "So, exactly how big should tea kettles be, then?" or "So, wooden handles: good or bad?"
And this not from crazed Sterno bums (cf. Firesign Theater), but from experienced usability professionals.
The point being, I suppose, that human nature abhors a vacuum. And the most economical thing to fill a vacuum with--especially when your boss or your
stockholders are at the door--is certainty. Nature (with a capital "N"), on the other hand, seems to abhor certainty and easy answers. (Apparently nature is not
above enjoying a good joke at our expense.) So to those looking for usability rules, I would propose this one:
RULE: No matter how extensive the disclaimers are, advice spoken as
guidelines has a tendency to be heard as rules.
Which is exactly why Lou's three-step formula (and the idea that we should follow it for another 8-10 years) is so good.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Krug skrug_at_mindspring.com
Purported author of "Don't Make Me Think!"
Advanced Common Sense www.sensible.com
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:50 EST
|
