Usability and failure: a recap
by Todd WilkensThere’s been a lively discussion over the last couple of days following my post on usability. While it’s become quite clear to me that I was a bit too aggressive in expressing my frustration, I still stand behind the post. In fact, I doubt that there would have been nearly as much excellent commentary if I hadn’t put myself out there for people to get mad at.
To recap some of the issues discussed: Many agreed that usability is just one part of creating successful products that provide great user experience. Many also seemed to agree that I am an idiot. Slightly fewer people seemed to think that, on the contrary, I am actually insightful. There was some great discussion about what actually falls within the bounds of “usability” both as a profession and a concept. Please take the time to look at the comments for much of the discussion. However, since I know not everyone will, here are a few highlights:
The most expansive and perhaps most scathing response comes from my “friend” Kevin Fox. Check out “Sidelining usability is a path to failure”. (Just kidding about the “friend” thing.)
Robert Hoekman Jr also reacts with a post on “why narrow-mindness is a path to failure”
Jared Spool provided some of the most extensive comments and took me to task on a lot of issues with his usual insight.
Yet despite all of the insightful commentary, most of the people who responded so negatively actually missed my main point. Most interpreted my post as frustration leading to shortsightedness and dismissing the importance of usability. Essentially, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Though I’m obviously frustrated, the post was actually about the shortsightedness of others. My point was much more about organizations and practitioners not seeing the holistic experience forest for the usability trees.
It was also not so much about the success or failure of usability professionals and practice but about “usability” as an organizational strategy. JIm Kalbach got this point exactly and summed it up nicely:
It kinda reminds me of Michael Porter’s take on corporate strategy. He essentially says that operational effeciency is important, but not strategic. It’s operational. It’s something everyone strives for, even your competitors. So there is no differentiator there, and others can easily copy you. Same for usability.
Porter has been a big influence on my thinking. Overall this was a great conversation that is by no means settled. For that reason, I’ve submitted a panel proposal to SxSW on the same subject. I’d like to invite folks like Jared, Kevin, and others to talk about this in person; no gloves, no referee, survival of the fittest. If you’re interested in seeing such an event/spectacle, be sure to vote for this panel when they open panel picking in August.
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am and is filed under Conversations, Experience design, Idealism, uncensored.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
While I felt your original blog post was right on, I felt the title gave people the wrong impression. I don’t think you were advocating a path to failure, so much as a path to not-success. This is addressed in the discussion on Porter and strategy.
No one ever *succeeded* simply with usability. You cannot name a single successful product that is defined by its “usability”. And this has been my frustration with the “usability community” for years now (and I put “usability community” in quotes because I don’t know if it really exists, but if one does, it’s the folks attending UPA for years now). Where usability is lauded as something really interesting in and of itself, which it isn’t.
Now, a few years ago, usability types realized this, and instead of moving beyond usability, they attempted to redefine usability as what the rest of us call user experience. I wrote about this on my personal site: “Usability != User Experience”.
Is usability important, even crucial? Yes. Is it limited? Yes. A focus on usability will get you, well, pretty much nowhere.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
And this is where I think you hit the nail on the head, Peterme. Over the years I have seen people in my line of work spread across all aspects of pre-production, and I am personally finding myself more and more involved in a project from the very beginning, as a kind of ‘overseer’. User Experience. Usability. IA. HCI. Loved child has many names, but content, strategy and concept will still be king, and here I totally see the point in Todd’s frustration. I have seen many projects that was ‘excused’ just as long as usability played a part in the development cycle. Projects that would have benefited greatly simply by the introduction of a wiser pre-production phase and just basically a better fundamental idea.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
An idea for the title of the panel:
“Usability is dead”
July 20th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“holistic experience forest for the usability trees.” - Yup and good timing for the next UPA conference - “UPA 2008: Experiencing Holistic Usability”.
“They focused on overall experience which included usability but also delight, desire, service design; not to mention business models, marketing, etc”
Usability is not dead, its part of the bigger picture & there is room for all disciplines.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:06 am
No offense intended, Todd. But I’m sure that even though this was a bit of miscommunication, the discussion is definitely worth having.
“I’d like to invite folks like Jared, Kevin, and others to talk about this in person; no gloves, no referee, survival of the fittest.”
Does your invitation include me? If so, sign me up. I’d love to take part in this discussion, and I already have plans to be at SxSW in 2008. You can contact me directly through my site at http://www.rhjr.net. Thanks.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
How about this for a title?
“Usability is 99% Bad”
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Echoing Robert, there was no offense intended (and Todd and I have already had a much more detailed conversation about our views in emails over the last week).
I would absolutely be up for a SXSW panel. It should be a good discussion.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I really like that you reposted and continued this conversation. That is an insightful act.
It is so true that people can do damage when they only consider part of the information. As in, “I just saw this usability test and we need to change all the navigation!” or something similar. However, I don’t think this non holistic thinking is limited to usability. It is challenging and organizations (most big corporations anyway) are not generally set up to succeed in the ways of holistic thinking. Every part of the business has its own little piece and is very focused on that set of goals. Bringing people up and out of that specificness is a challenge and a talent. We need to keep forging forward for the holistic. Luckily there is NO end in site for the opportunities that can bring.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I think you’ve misrepresented Porter a little bit in the selected quote. His point about operational efficiency is more that any strategic value — the difference in profitability between one company and its rival firms — comes from the extent to which a company is better (ie, more efficient) than competitors pursuing similar strategies. That is, if three companies are trying to be the lowest-cost airlines, say, the most efficient one will win (ie, make superior profits). The problem is that this is a zero-sum game: only one company can be the best (most efficient), only one can win. So, if you as a firm cannot be the best, you are better off trying to be different rather than better.
Applied to usability, I’m not sure the analogy holds. Can there be only one usability winner? If everyone was trying to do the same thing, probably. But I think design strategies are different enough that it probably isn’t true in most cases.
If what you’re really trying to say is that companies are better off trying to design something unique than to design something that does the basic functions efficiently, then that’s a fine point except that there’s still lots of room to be different by getting the basics incredibly right. The real point may be that if you’re going to try to compete through usability, you better understand the implications: you have to be the absolute, number one best, most usable within your category for it to be a viable strategy. And you better be able to sustain that edge for a long time. Otherwise, you’re just keeping up with the ante.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Great post. I wrote an essay a few weeks ago along the same lines titled “usability is not design”. Since I’m still in the process of setting up a blog (too busy with work) I’m just going to post it here first:
I do believe that usability is an important part of the design process but it is also important to understand what usability can and can’t do.
1. Usability professionals are not designers. They can test a design once it has been conceived. This can either validate the design or invalidate it. However, coming up with a good solution to a design problem is an entirely different story. A great designer comes up with unusual, elegant, intuitive and beautiful solutions that a less talented and experienced designer would not think of and therefore can’t be tested.
2. Tasks vs. Goals. Usability is based on tasks. We give people tasks to accomplish and measure if they are able to do that. Usability does not tell us whether the task we are giving people is something they want to do in the first place.
3. Raising the bar. As interactive products mature, task completion is not a goal anymore; it is the minimum requirement. A designed product let’s you complete a task easily, intuitively, and ideally it is even fun to do so.
4. Usability can’t stop Feature Creep. Usability can test features and if people are able to use them. It can’t prioritize features and it can’t decide which features are unnecessary. As the number of features grows, some of them become necessarily less easy to use. To decide which ones is (should be) generally the role of the designer and product manager.
Again I do not at all mean to discredit usability professionals. I believe that in a way too much burden is placed on them. I advocate tasking usability with what they can do and by doing that enabling them to do it really well. Designing is not part of it.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Just registering my vote of complete confidence in your position. It’s a claim I make as often as anyone is prepared to listen.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
As Mr. Jaeger points out, usability is an important PART [caps mine] of the design process. It does not guarantee or even lead to great design. However, lack of usability can certainly lead to a failed design.