Every once in a while, I read a journal article that represents a heck of a lot of research effort, and wonder, how did they reach that conclusion from the evidence? For example, Kristin Eschenfelder explored how web standardization projects contribute to conflict in Web design.
After 20 years experience helping organizations create effective application and web standards, I read this with some puzzlement. After all, doesn't a design standard settle conflicts by saying "this is the best answer to the conflicting demands on navigation, layout, vocabulary, and branding"?
Each company was substantial, with 5,000 employees or more. She asked the Web managers to "describe problems they experienced in coordinating Web management work with others in their organization". (To avoid "leading the witness" she did not mention "standards" or "information architecture" or "design".)
Her findings emerged from a systematic content analysis of these interactions. She found three sources of organizational conflict:
At this point, pretend you are watching the usability version of the television hit "CSI" (Crime Scene Investigation). Pretend you are a "usability forensics expert".
What caused these organizations to have conflicts from "standards"?
Interestingly, Eschenfelder's content analysis of the conversations yielded additional insights into why the standards seemed to have fallen short. Note the word "seemed".
In summary, many factors conspired to put the blame on "standards" while the actual blame should fall on lack of a strong usability methodology. If your appendicitis operation fails, do you blame Modern Medical Practice, or do you blame the doctor and his operating procedures? Probably the latter. Let's take a look.
Eschenfelder found her 18 participants discussed "ambiguity about customer needs". This was manifest in issues you and your team have probably met as well:
Consequently, as Eschenfelder says, "If it is not clear who the customers are, and what needs they have, it is difficult to develop consensus on how to design a classification scheme to help them."
Here's a big clue for your usability forensics. Eschenfelder quotes how a home page manager depicts the bickering among different business groups:
"As an individual business unit becomes more aggressive and understands [that] one of the ways that people are coming into their site is through [the home page], they're going to want to control that, too... So that's what I get challenged with. How come one business is listed ahead of another business?"
Let's cut to the chase. You probably felt from the quote just seen, that design "standards" were more of a battle of wills or persuasive eloquence by some manager.
But what about a "usability approach"? We know the answer. If the interests of the organization as a whole were considered, the standard should incorporate knowledge of the user types as well as the relative profitability of the various lines of business.
We didn't see any of this systematic thinking when hearing Eschenfelder's depiction of the problems with standards.
So now you know. The problem was not the standard. Instead, it was a lack of usability methodology that normally would support the correct design of a standard.
Let's take a look at how usability methods solve the problem of conflict.
1. How do you know who your customers are?
You conduct research on user profiles. Get your marketing data on who uses your product or service. From there you conduct interviews to identify clusters of people who share similar goals, skills, and task requirements. We call these clusters "personas". A single "persona" captures the flavor of a user type. You might end up with 3 to 5 personas that allow you to rapidly evaluate how your design gets interpreted and utilized. So you need personas to help make sure your standards work.
2. How does your organization make money?
Some personas may be more profitable than others. You should prioritize which persona gets the biggest chunk of attention. Or, alternatively, you could "segment" your website to provide functions for different groups among your personas.
One example comes to mind regarding selling auto insurance. Perhaps your research shows that some consumers like to shop on the web because they like to do the research. They also feel qualified to compare plans. Meanwhile, a different "segment" of personas might prefer to delegate these tasks to an agent.
Voila, you steer the researcher personas toward a website comparison tool, and the agent personas towards their nearest agency. (Check out the Web regarding landing pages for "audience segmentation".)
Both of your "forensic solutions" given here contribute to making a standard that resolves conflicts in your organization.
As Eschenfelder concludes her study, she reminds us what standards contribute to any organization:
And as you enter your new career as "usability forensics expert" you have learned a few things too.
1. Don't expect a standard to work unless you really understand "usability" as a methodology.
Don't practice surgery until you complete your MD and internship.
2. "Institutionalize" usability.
Have your organization commit to a set of personas and the research required to get them right. Make sure colleagues understand your discipline.
3. Understand the return on investment (ROI) from each persona.
Decide how to handle each persona whether it's using the Web, phone, brick-and-mortar, or all three.
All in all, prepare to segment your audience. Design your standard to include landing pages that let visitors select their interest. Then, based on their selection, deliver the types of pages best suited for their vocabulary and intention.
Usability offers a lot. But your intelligence offers more. Watch CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) and consider how being a scientific sleuth applies to your job.
Maybe sometime soon we really will have a job title "usability forensics". Today's study was your first lesson.
Eschenfelder, K. The customer is always right, but whose customer is more important? Information Technology & People, 16(4), 419-439, 2003.
But wait. Those users are all human. They all have only one focus of attention apiece. That's why we want the mechanisms to stay out of the way. We don't go to the theatre to watch the projector. Indeed, if we ever notice it, it detracts from the content.
See Raskin's summary of "The Humane Interface" at Nitpicker.pbwiki.com and note that we can only multi-task if all but one of the things we're doing is automatic so our attention can remain on the other. Ban modal dialog boxes. They guarantee to break your train of thought.
Don't demand credit card numbers without blanks, they are on the card for a reason, it's easier to get it right that way. Don't even have a save button. You mean if I don't remember to click on this button, you're gonna take my twenty minutes of work and throw it away? That would be cruel. Don't do it.
I like Lean and Agile, but that only gets you bug free code, you have to measure and test to get code that doesn't get in the way. Jef shows how, but nobody seems to have noticed yet. When they ever do, they'll find that the result is absolutely addictive.
Wait till you see what happens when you accomplish links by rollover in an auto-zooming world. It will take over the WIMP GUI if it ever gets into use at all. Pie menus haven't yet, either.
This sounds very familiar for every organisation I have worked at.
This article has some good information. Parts of it seem a little confronting to Eschenfelder.
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ‚Äúcookies‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúweb beacons‚ÄĚ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users‚Äô PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ‚Äúdummy‚ÄĚ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users‚Äô experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI‚Äôs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI‚Äôs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant ‚Äėper module‚Äô processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.