Comments on: Usability and failure: a recap http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/ Adaptive Path Blog Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:08:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Ray Gulick http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-176025 Ray Gulick Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:13:49 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-176025 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. 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.

]]> By: Paula Thornton http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-132490 Paula Thornton Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:01:39 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-132490 Just registering my vote of complete confidence in your position. It's a claim I make as often as anyone is prepared to listen. Just registering my vote of complete confidence in your position. It’s a claim I make as often as anyone is prepared to listen.

]]> By: Daniel Jaeger http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-109678 Daniel Jaeger Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:54:37 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-109678 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. 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.

]]> By: jz http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104426 jz Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:37:45 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104426 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. 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.

]]> By: Jen B http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104180 Jen B Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:43:51 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104180 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. 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.

]]> By: Kevin Fox http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104115 Kevin Fox Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:13:51 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104115 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. 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.

]]> By: Jared M. Spool http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104034 Jared M. Spool Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:20:57 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-104034 How about this for a title? "Usability is 99% Bad" How about this for a title?

“Usability is 99% Bad”

]]> By: Robert Hoekman Jr http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103639 Robert Hoekman Jr Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:06:37 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103639 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 www.rhjr.net. Thanks. 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.

]]> By: Daniel Szuc http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103577 Daniel Szuc Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:18:53 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103577 "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. “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.

]]> By: Joshua Porter http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103561 Joshua Porter Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:49:32 +0000 http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a-recap/#comment-103561 An idea for the title of the panel: "Usability is dead" An idea for the title of the panel:

“Usability is dead”

]]>