tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287975342024-02-20T12:17:28.817-08:00PWDoncasterBlogHuman factors in information design, the effective delivery of information, and related musingsPaul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-6296354711127604272007-05-01T12:36:00.001-07:002007-05-03T08:12:30.303-07:00Out like a lion<span style="font-size:85%;">Late spring seems to have brought out the confrontationist in me.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">First it was <a href="http://pwdoncaster.blogspot.com/2007/04/k-i-s-s-my-ass.html">Donald Norman and his assertion that simplicity on the web is overrated</a>. Now it's Lyle Kantrovich and his rail against sitemaps in <a href="http://crocolyle.blogspot.com/2007/04/sitemaps-are-stupid-guides-are-good-ive.html">Sitemaps are Stupid (Guides are Good)</a>.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Guides may very well provide distinct advantages over sitemaps. But calling them "stupid"? That seems incredibly harsh.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Once again (at least to my eyes), the author is not taking into account the special-needs user . In many cases, these text-only representations of site structure may be the only way for certain user types to navigate with any degree of confidence -- for example, those who rely on screen readers, or those who have trouble with sites containing high levels of rich media (navigation in Flash, etc.) </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Sitemaps may indeed be fairly useless for "normal" people, who have good vision and/or a reasonable degree of computer literacy, but their presence on web sites seems to me to be a very small price to pay to ensure that the content is accessible to as many people as possible.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-20292952348054572672007-05-01T12:02:00.000-07:002007-05-01T12:35:53.094-07:00Once again, a little common sense please<a href="http://www.dmi.columbia.edu/~jsa7002/Assets/Ancker%20AMWA%202004.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:85%;">A nice article by Jessica S. Ancker</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> notes why you should not rely on the Flesch-Kincaid scale (or any other scale) for determining the readability of text, on-screen or otherwise.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">To get a quick idea of why, check out the following passages and guess which one was determined to be easier to read by Flesch-Kincaid:</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">--------</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">DISCLAIMER: WE ARE INVITING YOU TO BE IN A RESEARCH STUDY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY IS AN INJURY TO THE BRAIN CAUSED BY SOMETHING THAT HIT OR SHOOK THE HEAD.THIS CONSENT FORM EXPLAINS THE PURPOSE, RISKS, AND BENEFITS OF THE STUDY. THIS INFORMATION MIGHT HELP YOU DECIDE WHETHER TO BE IN THE STUDY. PLEASE READ THIS FORM CAREFULLY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ASK YOUR DOCTOR BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">--------</span><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:85%;">Disclaimer</span></em></strong><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">We are inviting you to be in a research study because you have a <em>traumatic brain injury</em>. A <em>traumatic brain injury</em> is an injury to the brain caused by something that hit or shook the head.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">This consent form explains the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study. This information might help you decide whether to be in the study. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Please read this form carefully. If you have any questions, ask your doctor before you make a decision.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">--------</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Answer: They were given the same readability grade.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-7923495049749502122007-04-19T07:18:00.000-07:002007-05-01T12:02:51.037-07:00Quick-change artist<span style="font-size:85%;">It was to be the highlight of Year 1 at my position.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Seven one-on-one sessions with actual customers over a 3-day period, testing an intermediate iteration of my company's major new product release. Participants had been screened, incentives had been procured, facilities had been reserved and the test plan had been finalized. Everything was ready to go.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Except, as it turns out, the product itself. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Unforeseen development issues pushed back deadlines and left me with a prototype that did not allow for completing any meaningful tasks.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Nobody to blame but myself, of course. I should have had the foresight to (a) insist on a "frozen" set of functionalities in accordance with the particulars of the test plan, and (b) allow for a minimum 2-week buffer between the promised delivery date and the actual testing. Instead, I was too eager to (a) believe that everything would fall into place as scheduled, and (b) put my new Morae software to practical use. In the process, I probably did my role within the company a bit of disservice.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">So what then to do?</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">If my UX studies taught me anything, it's that you never turn down an opportunity to glean direct user input. The opportunities, by and large, are just too few and far between. Fortunately, I was only a few weeks removed from completing a fantastic master's level class on field research methods taught by <a href="http://www.bentley.edu/info-design-certificate/faculty.cfm#kothandaraman">Meena Kothandaraman</a>, and I drew on much of what she had to say to draw up an alternate plan.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Targeting three product design issues that were never quite addressed to my satisfaction, I turned what were supposed to be usability testing sessions into three-part user research sessions, consisting of the following techniques:</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">a contextual interview, to get insights into the likelihood of acceptance for a proposed functionality;</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">conceptual drawing, to discern patterns of experience and preference for the design of a field mapping tool; and</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">a card sort, to provide an organization solution for a group of functionality options within the product.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:85%;">While the allotted time did not allow for full investigation into the issues, I got enough to go back to the project managers with preliminary data to be used to guide design decisions for the product's next dot version (the results of the card sort were particularly revealing). From a personal standpoint, I got to practice a few techniques with which I had very little experience.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">When life gives you lemons . . .</span></p><p> </p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-41396347229863318822007-04-19T07:12:00.000-07:002007-05-01T11:50:13.650-07:00Hints of things to come<span style="font-size:85%;">A while back, <a href="http://pwdoncaster.blogspot.com/2007/03/forgive-me-readers-for-i-have-sinned.html" target="_blank">I brought myself to task for not posting more often</a>. I'd almost like to be able to say I've been up to my neck in User Experience to the point that writing hasn't been possible.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Truth is, I'm in up to my neck in UX, but for reasons other than project work. For some hints, check out the following from </span><a href="http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/so-you-think-you"><span style="font-size:85%;">Erin Malone</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> and </span><a href="http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/three-pronged-fork"><span style="font-size:85%;">Christina Wodtke</span></a>.Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-88004433384162850722007-04-09T10:35:00.000-07:002007-04-10T08:20:53.439-07:00K-I-S-S, my ass<span style="font-size:85%;">Does the "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle have it wrong?</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Could be, according to Don Norman, who's been cited numerous times here. His recent article, <a href="http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html" target="_blank">Simplicity Is Highly Overrated</a>, seems to argue that the K-I-S-S principle should be replaced by something like the K-I-S-B-M-S-I-L-C-E-S-T-I-F-B-A-M-P-D-S Principle:<br /><br />"Keep It Simple But Make Sure It Looks Complicated Enough So That I'll Feel Better About My Purchasing Decision, Stupid"<br /><br />The point he wishes to emphasize (located in the addendum) is that "people are not willing to pay for a system that looks simpler, because it looks less capable." In other words, systems that look more complicated seem capable of doing more, which positively effects the desire to purchase.<br /><br />Josh Porter offers a great summary and commentary in <a href="http://www.uie.com/articles/simplicity/" target="_blank">Simplicity: The Ultimate Sophistication</a>. Here's an excerpt:<br /><br /><blockquote>"When users don't understand the advantages of each feature, such as when a user is buying her first digital camera, they are much more likely to avoid making a trade-off by choosing the feature-laden product . . . When users choose a feature-laden product, they may not be exhibiting a desire for complexity. Instead, users are anxious about predicting their future needs. Norman states it plainly: 'the truth is, simplicity does not sell'."</blockquote><br /><br />For UCD practitioners, these could be interpreted as "fightin' words" that run contrary to the principles that guide our profession.<br /><br />What strikes me, though, is that neither Norman (in his essay) nor Porter (in his commentary) explicitly takes into account the age factor, which will kick in very soon when the aging boomers predominate the purchasing market.<br /><br />Given the advances of the last few decades, the coming generation of seniors is probably less likely to be intimidated by new technologies. But to what degree will this be offset the various degenerations that inherently accompany aging (cognitive processing, decision-making, motor skills, peripheral vision, etc.)? Does the visibility of extra controls, or an overall high-tech look, carry any weight at all when it comes to forking over their hard-earned retirement allowances?<br /><br />For these users, simplicity may indeed sell.<br /><br />I think of my parents (both in their upper 60s), who, when shopping for a new appliance or gizmo, repeat the phrase "All I want to be able to do is . . ." an awful lot and are turned off by anything that they perceive as being beyond their ability to operate. What's more, they have very little motivation to learn, especially if "all I want to do is (watch TV, wash clothes, whatever)." Are they really unique to the coming generation of seniors?<br /><br />To his great credit, Norman wants only for his essay to be understood, and the addendum does a good job of clarifying his intended point. However, sweeping statements such as those made in the essay cannot be fully understood until all relevant issues are included. In this respect, my humble opinion is that Norman has come up short.<br /></span><br /></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-40947833276983157872007-03-27T13:03:00.000-07:002007-03-27T19:26:08.989-07:00Forgive me reader(s), for I have sinned<span style="font-size:85%;">With the coming of the new year, I promised myself that this space would not fall victim to expiration -- that is, I would commit to posting frequently. Not because I expect to become <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">UCD's</span> answer to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Arianna</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Huffington</span></a>, but because amateur writers can be very much like infants, in that they tend to thrive on routine and regularity. I reasoned that if I could commit to posting at least once a week, I would eventually not need to <em>remind</em> <em>myself </em>to post at least once a week. (Sharp moviegoers will notice that I'm borrowing here almost verbatim from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108160/" target="_blank">Sleepless in Seattle</a>, so disclosure is warranted.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">So here it is, almost April, and I've not posted in more than a month. (There are reasons, as you will undoubtedly see in this space as spring unfolds, but I can't use it as an excuse.) I'm also far, far behind in the monitoring of my industry-related <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">RSS</span> feeds. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Leave it to the powers that be to send me a loud-and-clear wake-up call, in the form of Linda <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Bustos</span>' recent article, <a href="http://www.domaininformer.com/guides/General_Information/articles/070326the10sins.html" target="_blank">The 10 Sins of Blog Usability</a>.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I'm not sure whether or not the title represents a mixed metaphor -- there are 7 Deadly Sins, and 10 Commandments (I suppose it depends on the way they are worded.) In any event, I am clearly in violation of #8 -- Inconsistent Posting:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Now that you have a loyal fan base who are notified of every new<br />post, don’t disappoint them with time lags between posts. Pick a posting<br />schedule that’s realistic for your time schedule and stick to it. If you can’t<br />think of anything to post about, blog about someone else’s post related to your<br />topic and include a link back to that post . . .</span></blockquote></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">(You'll note that not only does she wake me out of my self-imposed slumber, but she gives me the means of rectifying it.)</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Fortunately, this space appears to hold up fairly well against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Bustos</span>' criteria -- comments are moderated, there is no advertising to "get in the way" of the message, there's no mixing of subject matter (no matter how much I might want to brag about my daughters), the pages are easy to read (dark text on a light background), and references to previous posts are link-enabled. My two failings against the list are (a) not having a search functionality and (b) an awkward means of subscribing via <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">RSS</span> feed, but until I noticed huge increases in my <a href="http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp">Site Meter</a> reports, I'm going to let those pass.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">What I can't afford to let pass, regardless of the size of my "loyal fan base," is old #8. My hope is that if I make my intentions public here, I'll hold myself more accountable -- or, to carry the analogy further, I'll have given myself the leeway to "go forth and sin no more."</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Your kind <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">indulgence</span> is greatly appreciated.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-86507543168896195222007-02-18T10:52:00.000-08:002007-02-18T11:34:47.626-08:00RSS Part 2: Taking Stock<p><span style="font-size:85%;">The most interesting thing I came across in the study was the degree to which people equated the concept of an RSS feed with that of a "ticker" at the bottom of a TV screen, with stock prices zooming by from right to left. If this is representative of a larger portion of the population, no wonder RSS hasn't caught on -- where's the value in being forced to stare at the bottom of a browser window all day?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The findings and recommendations for content providers are as follows:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Finding:</strong> Although users continue to employ “hunting” methods most often when checking for added or updated content, certain “gathering” methods (such as email notifications & alerts) are used frequently and provide a sense of value for users (saving time and effort, better organization of important information, serving as a reminder for busy people to "check in" with a site).<br /><strong>Recommendation:</strong> Companies investing in RSS feeds and technology should find ways to incorporate the concept “invisibly” (i.e., deliver the benefits without any learning or undue effort required on the part of the user). Read Gossnickle et al's .pdf, <a href="http://publisher.yahoo.com/rss/RSS_whitePaper1004.pdf">RSS – Crossing into the Mainstream</a>, for more information (Acrobat Reader required).<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Finding:</strong> There is not a high degree of awareness or understanding of the terms and visual targets used to represent “gathering” methods on websites (see <a href="http://pwdoncaster.blogspot.com/2007/02/rss-part-1-hunters-gatherers.html">Part 1</a>); for those that <em>are</em> noticed, there remains a strong association with delivery via email.<br /><strong>Recommendation:</strong> Aside from direct links to personalized “start” pages (“My Yahoo!", etc.), content providers should devise and use a single, more intuitive means of conveying the RSS feed concept. (“XML” is highly misunderstood and should not be considered.) In addition, differentiation from delivery via email should be emphasized and explained simplistically.<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Finding:</strong> Understanding of the RSS concept (as a “gathering” method) can be improved by exposure to a well-written description; however, understanding of the implementation/delivery of information continues to be a problem.<br /><strong>Recommendation:</strong> Short-term, companies need to make the required use of an RSS reader/aggregator more understandable to the general public, in a positive way that eliminates any association with email notifications or content “crawls” within browser windows. Descriptions and definitions of RSS require <strong>clear, plain English --</strong> technical-sounding phrases such as "XML-based format" and "aggregating Web content" are big no-no's).<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Finding:</strong> The already recognized benefits of “gathering” methods (time savings, organization of information, etc.) are enough to encourage further investigation of using RSS feeds. Concerns about information overload, management, privacy and technological conflict (can it lead to viruses and/or spam, etc.) can discourage investigation.</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Recommendation:</strong> Further promote the “gathering” concept within all references to RSS on websites, while directly addressing the areas of concern as noted.</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:85%;">My sincerest thanks for those who took time out of their busy schedules to speak with me. Please leave a comment if you'd like more details about the study.</span></p><p></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-58867177816872621802007-02-15T09:58:00.000-08:002008-12-08T22:32:06.982-08:00RSS Part 1: Hunters & Gatherers<span style="font-size:85%;">If you check in frequently with a news, sports or blog site, chances are you've seen them and wondered what they mean:</span><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4gVNjH34u9Qe5QinxsuPm-HPg3AP55ALIbIXgbm2HJefM1q-vJba8elE-EVQy7t9KQfBdNOtuRGa0HVBXw5nvgsI03oiVDCdXLYXC-0XyHWNans9q3E-JkEGOoovSF-NBROzQ/s1600-h/RSS.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5031821991666375858" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4gVNjH34u9Qe5QinxsuPm-HPg3AP55ALIbIXgbm2HJefM1q-vJba8elE-EVQy7t9KQfBdNOtuRGa0HVBXw5nvgsI03oiVDCdXLYXC-0XyHWNans9q3E-JkEGOoovSF-NBROzQ/s200/RSS.gif" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiY-jX-BleO7ZY9Qg_sKWQ78fUJKSlOJsICXojqxJHMvq_ZnvRwW9YgDIXPvniraWpsgwGDSEJqo7tywmULElvM_Mqp6Z9p4-LhRcSEKgPo1IKJOGOoNq7lsBQoq7Mx8AHz5wZ/s1600-h/dingbat_xml_icon.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5031822322378857714" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiY-jX-BleO7ZY9Qg_sKWQ78fUJKSlOJsICXojqxJHMvq_ZnvRwW9YgDIXPvniraWpsgwGDSEJqo7tywmULElvM_Mqp6Z9p4-LhRcSEKgPo1IKJOGOoNq7lsBQoq7Mx8AHz5wZ/s200/dingbat_xml_icon.gif" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKPSd_HfGpl7YDaXcDOvU0oBaBfRO6IhT8joCtnkDcCoE75JOvx7PW1ilk200LQNME8zcRk5keBezQ5jITb14iu4qEcyshGVHCL9NgkgGQXBmezhEB6SKcsUelTyOjrSU-IVcu/s1600-h/xml_rssFeed.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5031822219299642594" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKPSd_HfGpl7YDaXcDOvU0oBaBfRO6IhT8joCtnkDcCoE75JOvx7PW1ilk200LQNME8zcRk5keBezQ5jITb14iu4qEcyshGVHCL9NgkgGQXBmezhEB6SKcsUelTyOjrSU-IVcu/s200/xml_rssFeed.bmp" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPeNFhMcKvJ8Fenw375XVQAlcC5Jej9Ic9H59kC9ShrdyCc_YCm54F8BPXJnKQMTBsIsT3tmOgJD3mhDPFoWsNrphWIQPjhC9fq9VLNoki6zkitCRgZYsOpIvVP0xB55rlHQ_G/s1600-h/rss_xml.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5031822060385852610" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPeNFhMcKvJ8Fenw375XVQAlcC5Jej9Ic9H59kC9ShrdyCc_YCm54F8BPXJnKQMTBsIsT3tmOgJD3mhDPFoWsNrphWIQPjhC9fq9VLNoki6zkitCRgZYsOpIvVP0xB55rlHQ_G/s200/rss_xml.gif" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIDTQaMREA4YAW4QfF2LsYzKAIe0_81DW6wLW0-ytKCY3xUrjCJInuyLfTjFe0eUg5sxG7jWQJtJ6xCqdUuftjBjiU9xnS5uscCESfHkwbgEuApPuFAqzi5zLhrf5bYcKtW26/s1600-h/myYahoo.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5031822403983236354" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIDTQaMREA4YAW4QfF2LsYzKAIe0_81DW6wLW0-ytKCY3xUrjCJInuyLfTjFe0eUg5sxG7jWQJtJ6xCqdUuftjBjiU9xnS5uscCESfHkwbgEuApPuFAqzi5zLhrf5bYcKtW26/s200/myYahoo.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The I<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">nternet</span> world remains largely one of “hunters” rather than “gatherers” – that is, we tend to actively seek out additions and changes on web sites, rather than having them come to us. Think about your favorite news website -- if you want to see what's new, you probably access the site by typing the URL into the browser's address window, selecting the URL from the address <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">drop-down menu</span>, or choosing it from your Favorites menu, then browse the pages "hunting" for the new, updated, or changed content.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Compare that to signing up to receive an "alert" or notification about updated content (new headlines, shopping deals you <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">might</span> be interested in, etc.) that comes to your email inbox. In this instance, you'd be "gathering" the new, updated or changed content before acting on it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">RSS</span> (Really Simple Syndication) is the next step in this "gathering" concept, and it offers enormous opportunities for Internet users (and content providers as well, but that's another story). Its major selling point for Internet users is in saving significant time and reduced effort, by driving the content that matters most to a central viewing location automatically.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;">Providers of frequently updated content (news, weather, blogs, etc.) have been quickest to implement <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">RSS</span> strategies – for example, <a href="http://www.bivingsreport.com/campaign/newspapers06_tz-fgb.pdf" target="_blank">76 of the top 100 U.S. newspapers offer <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">RSS</span> feeds on their websites</a>. User adoption figures are far less precise – in a <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Data_Techterm_aware.pdf" target="_blank">Pew Internet Project survey</a></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, only 9% of Internet users say they “have a good idea” of what an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">RSS</span> feed is. Another study concluded that <a href="http://publisher.yahoo.com/rss/RSS_whitePaper1004.pdf" target="_blank">27% of Internet users receive content driven by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">RSS</span> without ever knowing it</a>, via personalized “start” or “home” pages (My Yahoo!, My <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">MSN</span>, etc).</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">At first glance, it's another great concept that is slow to catch on. But if at least some subsection of Internet users is using <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">RSS</span> without knowing it, that first glance may be misleading. My questions were:</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">How well (if at all) do people understand the "hunter" vs. "gatherer" approach?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">How much (and in what ways) do they value their "gatherer" instances?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Do people notice icons lie those above (or their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">clickable</span> text <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">equivalents</span>), and do they have any idea what they represent?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">How well can non-users grasp the concept of what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">RSS</span> is? If presented with an definition and explanation, how well can their understanding be improved?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">What would encourage people to investigate using <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">RSS</span> feeds? What is discouraging them?</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:85%;">To get some answers, I performed a very small pilot study, using semi-structured phone interviews with 7 people to try and flesh some of these perceptions, motivations and attitudes out. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Findings will be posted in Part 2 -- suffice to say that content providers need to start paying attention to their users before widespread usage of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">RSS</span> can be realized.</span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-9300657846076691732007-02-02T05:59:00.000-08:002008-12-08T22:32:07.208-08:00Scott Adams nails it once again<span style="font-size:85%;">My fellow practitioners will appreciate </span><a href="http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070202.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">today's Dilbert</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">:</span><br /><br /><div></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5026937364738655298" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3yMX-7bfet3-0peodn0vYEhE4ZHxA9EMWZAwOnnlGyPoMVgjD5TNBqiKFrMNugYlCwl4aDqkxmoL2PgT13v25RFDvdty581UYEuHmE4wDqVv0bkeXI3u_8wOQHVMPvN1y03FT/s320/dilbert2007073307202.gif" border="0" /><br /><div></div>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-26872959515301137912007-01-29T09:55:00.000-08:002007-01-29T10:17:34.894-08:00Usability and human-centered design on 60 Minutes<span style="font-size:85%;">The Jan 28 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">episode</span> of 60 Minutes featured a segment called "<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2405937n">Get Me The Geeks!</a>" -- on the surface, it documents how the deluge of technology into our daily lives has made us addicted to highly complicated gadgets and products. They're so complicated that we can't set them up by ourselves and can't fix them when they crash, break, or otherwise don't work as they should.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Look a little deeper, though, and you'll see confirmation that increased focus on usability and simplicity in design is necessary now more than ever before -- and that there's no indication that the need is going away any time soon.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Norman">Dr. Donald Norman</a> (author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0385267746">The Design of Everyday Things</a>, an oft-referenced work in our field) is featured prominently in the piece, offering the following insights:</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>("When people call up geeks to come and fix something or install it, a lot of them seem very apologetic for not being able to do it. Should they be apologetic?" )</em> "Absolutely not. No, it's not their fault. It's the damned designers of this stuff who have no understanding of real people, everyday people."<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>(on own his inability to install an HDTV)</em> "Someone complained to me, ‘You'd need a degree, an engineering degree from MIT, to work this damn thing,’" Norman says. "Well, I have an engineering degree from MIT. And I couldn't work it."<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>(on a not-too-distant future where appliances run the house)</em> "So what's really gonna happen in 10 years is, all these things are getting smart," says Norman. "The kitchen appliances will talk to each other. Can you imagine, you go to the refrigerator and it says, ‘No. I've been talking to your scale – that's not on your diet?"</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-2027265219146666282007-01-22T19:00:00.000-08:002007-01-22T19:49:13.350-08:00The dangers of using the mirror<span style="font-size:85%;">I recently read David Gilmore's "Understanding and Overcoming Resistance to Ethnographic Design Research" (<em>Interactions 9, 3 [May 2002]</em>, pp. 29-35).</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />This article tackles the dilemma of making the case for an ethnographic approach to user research – i.e., how to differentiate it from marketing research. The critical point seems to be that they are two kinds of research studying the same thing (potential users):<br /><ul><li>Marketing research uses generalities to inform business decisions;</li><li>User research uses a true understanding of user concerns to inform design decisions. </li></ul><p>The author argues that encouraging stakeholders to hold a mirror up to themselves -- to self-observe and to tell specific stories about their own experiences -- is a good way to open the door of acceptance to detailed user research.<br /><br />Gilmore's right about the need to differentiate between marketing efforts and user research efforts. However, when push comes to shove and dollars are on the table, I’m hard pressed to believe that self-observation and storytelling alone will be enough to get decision makers on-board. </p><p>I've been involved in too many instances where those in power used self-observation to kill any efforts to research the users of their products: </p><ul><li>"Hell, I go to plenty of web sites, and nobody I know does it like that!" </li><li>"I asked a few people around my office, and they all do it this way."</li><li>"Common sense should tell you that most people would do it this way."</li></ul><p>Either that, or they use marketing/sales objectives to justify a design decision. I'm reminded of a job I once had as content administrator of a 1800+ FAQ database. Someone came up with the idea that links to purchase information should be included at the end of every piece of FAQ content. The thinking was, "while we've got their attention about the product they already own, why don't we provide a link to a detail page for one of the product's accessories? If they don't click on it, fine -- if they do, we may have a potential sale."</p><p>All well and good, but they didn't take the user into account. What if (s)he was having trouble with the product and came to the site to get troubleshooting information? These people would likely have at least a small amount of irritation or frustration that their product is not working properly -- is that the right time to hit them up for a sale? In this case, what on the surface makes sense for marketing could actually harm user relations.</p><p>Influential stakeholders may indeed need to be educated on the value of detailed user research, but deflecting the observations back on them probably isn't the answer. Better to demonstrate value in terms of bottom line (decreased calls to customer support, increased traffic to a buying environment, etc.) and of benefits that come from designing with real user goals, motivations and attitudes in mind.</p><p>As Gilmore ultimately states, "The aim should be to develop a design process grounded in the realities of people’s lives, not in stereotypes."<br /></p></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-47297575214011111672007-01-12T07:00:00.000-08:002007-01-12T07:11:02.914-08:00Giddey-up, giddey-up 508<p><span style="font-size:85%;">There's nothing like the threat of being sued to force companies into "doing the right thing."</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">A </span><a href="http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php"><span style="font-size:85%;">lawsuit against the Target store chain</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, claiming that their website fails to meet the minimum standard of web accessibility, has put a lot of companies in panic mode. At my place of employment, the push for accessibility compliance has led to the reevaluation of almost all web-based products and software. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Web users with special needs (blind, impaired vision, deaf, cognitive difficulties, etc.) can use assistive technologies like screenreaders to help navigate websites. But if, as is usually the case, the site was designed and constructed with this group of users as an afterthought, those technologies are of only limited value. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Here's an analogy -- The designer of a beautiful new hotel realizes that wheelchair users require a ramp to gain access to the lobby from the street. He finds a way to do so without disrupting the design vision he's already established by locating the ramp in the rear of the building. Legally, he's covered. But these special needs users must go around to the back the building to get to the ramp, then navigate numerous hallways simply to get to the check-in desk. Has accessibility and accommodation really been achieved?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">And the issue goes further than accommodating the disabled. As we're reminded almost daily, the graying of the US population is going to mean big changes in all facets of everyday life, and websites will not be immune. Older users means more consideration must be given to accommodating users with diminished vision, hearing, fine motor skills, memory, information processing, and spatial abilities. Forget about meeting government mandates -- failing to accommodate these users will mean risking a significant portion of overall sales markets.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Trouble is, there currently is no set minimum standard. </span><a href="http://www.section508.gov/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (1998)</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> provides a mandate for government websites and is most often used as the de facto standard for private enterprise, but even this is imprecise. In the end, companies are left to do what they can given various forms of suggested guidelines, accept that trade-offs are eminent, then make a decision for themselves as to whether they are at a point where they can reasonably argue that they have met the 'minimum standard of web accessibility" (whatever that ends up meaning).</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">To test your favorite sites, use one of the following tools:</span></p><ul><li><a href="http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/servlet/Submit"><span style="font-size:85%;">ATRC Web Accessibility Checker</span></a></li><li><a href="http://webxact.watchfire.com/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Watchfire Webxact</span></a></li><li><a href="http://www.wave.webaim.org/index.jsp"><span style="font-size:85%;">WAVE 3.0 Accessibility Tool</span></a></li></ul>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-29439534253733506152007-01-04T10:53:00.000-08:002007-01-04T10:59:45.531-08:00From the mouths of babes<span style="font-size:85%;">Not about usability per se, but it cuts to the quick of what's required when providing or designing something that's to be used by others . . .</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">From an </span><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/04/we_need_help_avoiding_trouble/"><span style="font-size:85%;">op-ed piece in the Boston Globe</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, written by a middle school student seeking better alternatives for keeping kids off the streets:</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">You should always ask middle and high school kids what they think they<br />need, instead of only listening to grown ups tell you what they think we<br />need.<br /></span></blockquote>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-24570746007839312392007-01-04T07:42:00.000-08:002007-01-04T10:59:58.686-08:00Deja-vu all over again<span style="font-size:85%;">Happy New Year to all.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I came across a couple of articles recently that touched on a theme I experienced in previous professional life --</span><br /><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">In <strong>Sale must end: should discount methods be cleared off HCI's shelves?</strong> (2002), Cockton & Woolrich assert that discount usability methods (heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, etc.) produce results that are so error-prone as to be unreliable and of little value. Consequently, they run the risk of undercutting the validity of traditional full testing and the damaging the usability field as a whole.<br /><br /></span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">In the <a href="http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/11/14/world-usability-day-is-it-harmful-to-usability-practitioners/">Nov 14 '06 edition of Brain Sparks</a>, <a href="http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/author/jared/">Jared Spool</a> asserts that the execution of the most recent <a href="http://www.worldusabilityday.org/">World Usability Day</a> draws attention to the wrong aspects of the usability profession (from a business perspective), and that it could wind up doing the field as much harm as good.</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:85%;">If I read both articles correctly (and my apologies to the authors if I haven't), the concern centers on the viability of the usability practitioner within the design process and the prestige of the profession within the business enterprise.<br /><br />For the first 10 or so years of my professional life, I was an in-house corporate video professional. Back then (circa 1990), the buzz was that the use of video was going to explode within the communications departments of corporate America -- perhaps not to the point of full-fledged TV studios in every headquarters, but at minimum a group of professionals taking advantage of the "democratization" that the medium was experiencing. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">At the same time, a number of influential people in the field worried about the possible downsides: If more and more companies had the ability to create their own programs, where did that leave the seasoned "professionals" of the day? Would select instances of a more visible and expanded role within the business be worth the risk of more and more examples of sub-standard quality -- a "dumbing-down" that would ultimately cause more harm than good?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">As an active member of the predominant trade group of the day, I was very friendly with video pros on both ends of the spectrum -- heads of entire video departments in large-scale businesses, as well as "one-person shops" who were trying to produce enough product to justify their jobs. Equal amounts of fantastic work and absolute crap were produced on both ends of the spectrum. And the video revolution kept on going -- accessibility to equipment, resources and distribution expanded to the point where now you don't need any formal education or professional experience to become a video "star."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">In the end, of course, the key was the ability to provide, and prove, value to the business. If the business wasn't getting adequate value for the effort, its use of video was scaled back or eliminated altogether. When I think back on most of the projects I was responsible for in those early days, I honestly wonder what my employers were thinking when they decided to jump on the video bandwagon. On the other hand, for those who were able to derive tangible value from the effort, it didn't matter what was going on in the video world at large.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I can't help but think that HCI/usability is at the same point in its development and acceptance. It's not so much of a crossroads, where the field will take one direction or another. Rather, it could be seen as a widening of the same single road forward. Providing value keeps us near the center line, where moving forward is easiest, and allows the road to accommodate more travellers. Inevitably, some who join the journey will cling to the shoulder, using means, methods and approaches that are risky. Some of those will fall by the wayside, while others will wind up providing even more momentum for moving forward.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">To take this automotive analogy one final nauseating step further, my guess is that business is beginning to see enough tangible benefit to what we're doing that use of discount methods and uncertainties over self-promotion are really very minor bumps in the road. As with any facet of business, the measure of value that HCI/usability provides will be the determinant of its fate.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-84791010313476452952006-12-16T13:02:00.000-08:002006-12-16T13:29:52.523-08:00News of note<span style="font-size:85%;">Once again, the result is wasted time and wasted money.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The NBA has <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/basketball/nba/12/11/nba.ball/">reversed its own decision to use a new microfiber ball </a>and reverted back to using leather balls, due to player complaints.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">In other words, they didn't check in with the users before making a design/implementation decision.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">(My wife is the one who mentioned the connection between this story and the field of usability, so either the concept really makes sense, or I'm talking about it way too much.)</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Also in the news . . .</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Time's most recent cover story, <em><strong>How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">th</span> Century</strong>,</em> outlines the 21st- century skills that leaders of business, industry and education say that our children MUST have moving forward. Among the notable quotes:</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">Jobs in the new economy -- the ones that won't get outsourced or automated -- "put an enormous premium on creative and innovative skills, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">seeing patterns where other people see only chaos</span></strong>," says Marc Tucker, an author of the skills-commission report and president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. Traditionally that's been an American strength, but schools have become less daring in the back-to-basics climate of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">NCLB</span>. Kids also must learn to think across disciplines, since that's where most new breakthroughs are made. It's interdisciplinary combinations -- <span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>design and technology</strong></span>, mathematics and art -- "that produce <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">YouTube</span> and Google," says Thomas Friedman, the best-selling author of The World Is Flat.</span><br /></blockquote></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Sound familiar?</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-12418062025902882742006-12-12T06:37:00.000-08:002006-12-12T06:54:51.659-08:00Clips from here and there<span style="font-size:85%;">I'm neck deep in accessibility issues and need another week or so to get back to active posting.<br /><br />In the meantime, a few interesting clips regarding the usability of voting machines and automobiles:<br /><br />In the first one, a documentary filmmaker shills for his latest project by noting the </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG9oOAEiElE"><span style="font-size:85%;">flaws in testing the machines for the state of New York</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. Aside from his central point about full disclosure (an important one to be sure), the testing approach appears to be flawed. What kind of result are you getting if you instruct the participant in how to use it beforehand?<br /><br />In the second one, a representative of the MIT Media Lab provides a </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfOGI6FFPE"><span style="font-size:85%;">demo of a new voting machine prototype</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. Not sure I'm on board with all of the decisions they've incorporated thus far, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.<br /><br />Finally, an amusing look at the attempts to implement </span><a href="http://www.fquick.com/videos/viewvideo.php?id=520&file=520&autoStart=false"><span style="font-size:85%;">new automatic parking features in automobiles</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">. The actors are playing it up, but the point is made.</span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-7564913995183021742006-11-21T06:15:00.000-08:002006-11-21T20:45:16.658-08:00Look beyond the numbers<p><span style="font-size:85%;">Information visualization teaches us the intricacies of displaying data graphically, and how one must look beyond first impressions to see the "truth" behind the data (</span><a href="http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:85%;">you can see a gallery of "best" and "worst" examples here</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">). </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">To take a (presumably) fictitious example: a line chart showing how the cost of living has gone down at the same time that sales of the automotive Big Three has gone up. A politician representing Michigan might be able to get considerable mileage (no pun intended) out of a chart like that. Problem is, the data tends may be true in and of themselves, but by placing them together, the impression is given that they are interrelated, when in fact, it's very likely that they're not. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The lesson is: the data doesn't necessarily represent the picture it intends to portray. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Recently I came across a website for an elite boarding school in the Northeast. In the <em>Admissions</em> section, there is a page detailing grants and financial aid, with the following sentence:</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"Intent on enrolling an economically diverse student body, (the school) offers<br />financial aid to students, based on financial need. In this school year, $2.8<br />million of financial aid was awarded to 28 percent of the student body. "</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size:85%;">A very admirable goal, and with board-in tuition at just shy of $39,000/year, $2.8 million in grant aid is truly nothing to sneeze at. This chart is offered as an outline of their distribution method:</span></p><table cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" align="center" border="1" frame="box"><tbody><tr><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Income Level</span></strong></td><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Grants more than<br />$30,000</span></strong></td><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Grants from<br />$15,001 - $30,000</span></strong></td><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Grants up to<br />$15,000</span></strong></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$0 - $ 25,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">9</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">0</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">0</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$25,001 - $ 50,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">5</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">1</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">0</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$50,001 - $ 75,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">13</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">6</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">1</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$75,001 - $100,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">5</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">6</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">2</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Over $100,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">9</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">22</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">7</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Total</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">41</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">35</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">10</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-size:85%;">After looking at it for a while, I decided to do the math, using the maximum dollar amounts for each grant award type (i.e., for this example, "grants more than $30,000" equals the full in-board price of $38,800) and came up with the following:</span></p><table cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" align="center" border="1" frame="box"><tbody><tr><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Income Level</span></strong></td><td align="middle"><p><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">% of<br /></span></strong><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">grant recipients</span></strong></p></td><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">% of<br />grant money</span></strong></td><td align="middle"><strong><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Grant $ awarded<br />(in dollars)</span></strong></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$0 - $ 25,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">10%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">12.5%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">349k</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$25,001 - $ 50,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">7%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">8%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">224k</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$50,001 - $ 75,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">24%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">25%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">699k</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">$75,001 - $100,000</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">15%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">14.5%</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">404k</span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000000;"><strong>Over $100,000</strong></span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000000;"><strong>44%</strong></span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000000;"><strong>40%</strong></span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;color:#000000;"><strong>1114k</strong></span></td></tr><tr><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Total</span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span></td><td align="middle"><span class="maintext" style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">2790k</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Let's take it a bit further -- remember, according to the opening statement, 72% of the student body is not receiving any grant aid, and it's reasonable to assume that those students come from households earning more than $100,000/year. If almost half of the remainding 28% are from >$100k households that are receiving grant aid of some kind, that means that roughly 85% of the total student body falls into that income category.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">So, upon closer examination of the data, those for whom "economic diversity" is a major concern might want to start asking some detailed questions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Of course, there is equal danger in using this data to make a potentially false judgement of the school as a haven for the well-to-do -- after all, I'd venture to guess that many of those >$100k households are middle-class two-earner families, just trying to stay afloat while giving their children to an academically advantageous environment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The point here is not to use data to make snap judgements, but rather to advocate for a healthy skepticism of data representations, so that more informed decisions can be made.</span></p><p></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1162572135868913492006-11-03T08:34:00.000-08:002006-12-12T06:57:37.787-08:00Label, baby!<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">A central tenet of user centered design (UCD) is that the people who create a product -- content experts, technical experts, marketing, management and other stakeholders -- are not <u>actual users</u> of the product. Each has biases (both positive and negative) that are brought to the table and are inherent in the input and feedback that they provide. Armed with credentials in the UCD/HCI/usability field, part of my job is to hammer that concept home as much as possible.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">So it's particularly humbling when my own biases are put on display.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">One of my current projects is a new version of an online learning management system (LMS) that allows instructors to offer exams, training session, or a combination of the two to their students. Once once of these modules has been created, it can be scheduled according to preferred parameters and made available to be taken by students in the class.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">In the programs current version, the interface has two views -- Instructor and Student. On the student side, these modules labeled <strong><em>Assignments</em></strong>. On the instructor side, they are labeled <strong><em>Scheduled Items</em></strong>. Part of the challenge of the new program version was to come up with a single label, to be used in both views, that best encompasses all three types of modules. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">"Common sense" -- always dangerous in this line of work -- told me that <strong><em>Assignments</em></strong> was the best choice (i.e., a task or duty created by one person for completion by another), but debate within development and stakeholder meetings was spirited. Ordinarily, this would be a perfect opportunity for a card sorting exercise -- instead, I was asked to sit in on several design feedback conference calls with customers and try to glean consensus, which was not productive. <strong><em>Assignments</em></strong> did not have strong support, nor did <strong><em>Scheduled Items</em></strong>. One participant lobbied hard for <strong><em>Activities</em></strong>, which made everyone on our end of the phone roll their eyes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">With no way of gauging accurate preference or consensus over the phone, I decided to create an online survey and solicit input from my non-professional contact list. After providing some basic context information, I posed the following question:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">In your opinion, which one of the following labels best describes the three types of modules outlined above?</span><br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Assignments </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Tasks </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Exercises </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Projects </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Activities </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Other (Please Specify):</span></li></ul><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">40 invitations to take the survey were sent out, with 20 people responding. The results: </span><br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Assignments - 2</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Tasks - 1</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Exercises - 2</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Projects - 6</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Activities - 7</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Other - 2</span></li></ul><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Needless to say, this was eye-opening on several fronts. Project stakeholders started gaining an appreciation for the actual science behind UCD, understanding that conversations taking place in a conference call does not make for a foundation for good design decision-making. </span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">For me personally, it was a huge and much-needed reality check. I am expected to be the in-house expert on such things, but when push comes to shove, the biases I bring to design can be just as potentially damaging as those of a "non-expert." Only by clearly defining and identifying the needs, challenges and preferences of <u>actual users</u> can information be effectively used by stakeholders to guide critical information design decisions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1162479932025554532006-11-02T06:51:00.000-08:002007-01-10T13:11:40.136-08:00"Is it safe . . .?"<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">I usually</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">don't dedicate much time attention to visual design, as it's not (nor has it ever been) my strongest suit, but I can't resist with this one . . .</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">A former colleague, <a href="http://www.davidcugnasca.com/">David Cugnasca</a>, is very heavy into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera">pinhole photography</a> and has been selected to participate in an international conference/photography</span> <span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">show later this year.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Here's the poster for the event, which immediately brought to mind Laurence Olivier wielding a dentist's pick as a tool of torture in 1976's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074860/">Marathon Man</a>:</span><br /><br /><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/pinhole.jpg" border="0" ALT="Poster for Camera Obscura:International Pinhole Photography Exposition" LONGDESC="The poster features hand-operated camera release mechanism leading to the center of a large bloodshot eyeball, giving the appearance of piercing it." /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1161573784499749182006-10-22T19:39:00.000-07:002007-01-10T13:12:27.088-08:00Get a load of this<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">It's been a while since I hit on something fun, so here's one for the files . . .</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">While on the Online Store website for a highly recognizable brand name, I noticed the following box:<br /><br /><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/PolOnlineStore.gif" border="0" ALT="Online Store's list of resources" LONGDESC="A list of resources includes a link to a Site User Guide." /></span><br /><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">I assumed that <em>Site User Guide</em> would be a link to an online help environment, a series of tool tips or FAQs, or -- at worst -- a Flash-animated tutorial on how to use the site to make online purchases. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Instead, <em>Site User Guide</em> actually links to a 38-page downloadable .pdf document, covering everything from how to login to what the site's privacy policy entails.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">My favorite part is found under the section "Navigating the Site":</span></p><em><blockquote><em><span style="font-family:verdana;"><strong>You will find site navigation simple and intuitive.</strong> To move from field to field, use either the Tab key or point and click with your mouse. To go to different site features, point and click on the menu item. To return to a previously viewed screen, press the “back” button on the browser toolbar.</span></em></blockquote></em><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">This company's bread and butter is consumer electronics, so I can understand the probable emphasis on printable user guides within the corporate culture. </span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">But I n</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">ever thought I'd see the day when a "simple and intuitive" website would require a set of printed instructions.</span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1158845251362466062006-09-21T06:26:00.000-07:002006-12-12T06:57:59.340-08:00Here's the pitch . . . and it's a bit outside<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Career counselors and placement services emphasize the importance of the "elevator pitch" -- the 30-second introduction of who you are and what you do for a living that is used in networking and interview situations.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">I have never been able to perfect this concept, even when I held positions that people seemed to grasp right off the bat (video producer, web producer, editor). It's become even more challenging since I entered the field of "Human Factors in Information Design." It takes me more than 30 seconds to inadequately "pitch" the concept of Human Factors, and another 30 to "pitch" Information Design (again inadequately).</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">friends and relatives continually ask, "So tell me again what it is you do?" My uncle Tom seemed to grasp the concept to a certain degree when he said, "So what you mean is you got a master's in 'user-friendly,' right?" From the layperson's view, he's not far off, but of course it's more than that.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">So until I can an adequate "pitch" down (and for anyone who's stumbled here wondering what the hell I'm talking about), I'll analogize, courtesy of Hollywood . . . </span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Anyone who's seen <em>Big</em> (1988), starring Tom Hanks, probably remembers the "I don't get it" scene -- Hanks is a 13-year old who's made a wish to be "big" and wakes up the next day in the body of a 30-year old. Through a series of misadventures, he is named Vice-President of Product Development at a major toy company. A couple of rival execs are in a conference room, pitching their concept for a bulky robot toy to the company owner, using every bit of marketing and analytical data they can get to justify its development. Hanks tries playing with it with no success, then raises his hand and says, </span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">"I don't get it . . . this is a building that turns into a robot, right? . . .<br />well what's fun about that?"</span></blockquote><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The rival hands him a graph showing increased demand and market share for robot toys, to which Hanks replies, "I still don't get it." (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9fkFM_-UO8">Here's a link to a clip of the scene</a> -- you'll come across the scene about halfway through the clip.)<br /><br />In reality, it's the rival execs that don't get it. All of their data may have supported the toy's concept, but they never consulted the users -- the kids that would be playing with it -- to see if <em>they</em> "got it."</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The online revolution is still a recent development, and web sites and software have a notorious history of being designed by committee. Tech developers, marketing people, graphic designers, support staff, and upper management all have a vision for what would make for a good and useful product, and the result is often an attempt to satisfy all of these stakeholder groups. What gets ignored is contact with the user -- making sure that the design does not get in the way of being able to do the work people need to do, and uncovering all potential issues early in the design process so that money and resources are not wasted further down the product development line.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">So that's what we're charged with -- being a "user advocate," if you will, who uses research and testing techniques to (a) mitigate early design and development costs for computer-based information products, and (b) help ensure a satisfactory user experience.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Not quite the Jonathan Papelbon fastball I'd like, but at this point I'll settle for not having <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Blass">Steve Blass disease</a>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1158845177513824292006-09-21T06:23:00.000-07:002006-11-11T11:02:41.243-08:00Brain lock<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Let us pause for a second and leave the world of information design to look at a more mechanical situation, and how violating an accepted mental model causes problems in how a system is used ...<br /><br />Donald Norman's seminal book </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-Norman/dp/0465067107/"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The Design of Everyday Things</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"> devotes a significant amount of time to the design of doors and locks -- and, it turns out, for good reason. It's amazing how so seemingly simple an item of everyday life can be made complicated by non-intuitive design. (The design of my car's power lock system provided enough fodder for a 12-page paper.)<br /><br />By virtue of our proximity to the local airport, my wife and I recently were awarded a substantial amount of sound-proofing work on our home, including specially designed outer doors. The doors themselves are fantastic, from a sound-proofing and insulation standpoint. However, almost immediately, our downstairs tenant started complaining that the locks were "sticking" and were extremely difficult to open from the outside (she almost broke two keys trying to do so).<br /><br />The inside knobs look like this:<br /><br /></span><br /><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/doorlock.gif" border="0" /><br />Nothing too complicated here -- based on my life's experience, you rotate the small switch in the center of the inner knob clockwise to keep the outer knob from turning (thereby locking the door), thus requiring a key to unlock it. Turning the switch back counterclockwise allows the outer knob to turn, allowing entry without a key.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Or so I thought.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Turns out, our locks come from a new series design. Locking the door as described above is accomplished by <em>pressing and depressing</em> the switch in the center. Turning it clockwise and counterclockwise activates a new "pickproof" feature that keeps the door from being opened <em>even if a key is used</em>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The worker who was called to the house explained the operation of the locks to my wife and tenant, then commented that most elderly customers are having so much trouble using the new locks that they're asking to have the old locks reinstalled, an expense incurred by the management of the soundproofing program.<br /><br />How's that for wasted time and money?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:85%;"></span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1157309806234469512006-09-03T11:47:00.000-07:002006-11-11T11:02:40.914-08:00Gone fishing -- Back soon<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Taking a much needed break until the week of September 12.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">Until then -- if you want to see something supremely cool, check out <a href="http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=j_han">Jeff Han's presentation</a> in Feb 06, in which he demonstrates his intuitive, "interface-free," <a href="http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/">touch-driven computer screen</a>, which can be manipulated intuitively with the fingertips, and responds to varying levels of pressure.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;"></span>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1156565661914959662006-08-25T20:23:00.000-07:002006-12-12T06:59:12.111-08:00Worth a thousand words? Part 2<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"></span><a href="http://pwdoncaster.blogspot.com/2006/08/worth-thousand-words.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Worth a thousand words?</span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"> asked readers to look at the following series of icons (taken from an active interface in a web/software product) and describe what type of function the user would expect to access after clicking on each:<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/contentPlayer1.0.gif" border="0" /></span> <p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">In actuality, the icons (from left to right) are meant to be representative of a logical learning procedure, from reading about the particulars of a task (for example, "cut and paste text" in MS Word) to actually performing it in a training setting:</span></p><ol><li><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Prepare </strong>-- Information is presented on-screen as it would be in a study guide or text book. Students read an overview of the task, the various means of accomplishing it, and the advantages that the task provides.<br /></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Observe</strong> -- An animated video clip demonstrates step-by-step how to accomplish the task, with both an audio description (can be toggled on and off) and descriptive text in the event the sound is turned off or otherwise not available. The clip runs continuously from start to finish, though a VCR-type control can stop, revert to a previous step in the process, or skip to the next step.<br /></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Practice</strong> -- A self-paced version of the clip in "Observe," with accompanying call-out boxes that guide the user through each step of the process.<br /></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Apply</strong> -- The user is asked to actually perform the task based on commands generated by the system. The user is allowed a specific number of tries for each step, and the system provides feedback as to whether the steps have been performed successfully or unsuccessfully.<br /></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Exit</strong> -- Closes the content player window and ends the training session.</span></span></li></ol><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><p><br />I suspected that at least 3 of the icons had a huge gap between the image and the function it represents, and the responses I received provide confirmation:</p><ol><li><strong>Pencil (Prepare)</strong> -- All responders expected this icon to lead them to an environment where they would be able to "write," "edit" or "draw" -- <em>not</em> read information off of a page.<br /></li><li><strong>Eye (Observe)</strong> -- One responder wasn't sure whether this was in fact an eye at all, but all expected to be able to "view," "preview," or "read" something. Technically speaking, this could be interpreted as being a successful representation of the function, but I would submit that an eye is far too abstract -- i.e., <em>every</em> facet of the content <em>must</em> be viewed in order to be useful, so why would an eye make particular sense here?<br /></li><li><strong>Hand/pen (Practice)</strong> -- Half of the respondents said they expected to "write" or "edit"; the other half thought the image was too similar to the first one to be of any descriptive use, which is another way of saying that it does a poor job of communicating the concept of practicing something.<br /></li><li><strong>Mouse (Apply)</strong> -- All respondents said that the icon indicated an action related to the mouse, either "move mouse," "drag-move," or "click here." Because actually performing the task(s) requires heavy use of the mouse, I would argue that the image might make a fairly good representation of the function, but that alternatives should be explored.<br /></li><li><strong>X (Exit)</strong> -- As one might expect, all respondents correctly identified this icon as a "close" or "quit" function.</li></ol><p>Next time, my suggestions for changes -- though I would be greatly interested in (and grateful for) any suggestions or thoughts. As always, feel free to email me directly or send a comment using the link below.</p><p></span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28797534.post-1156128878148570232006-08-20T19:00:00.000-07:002006-12-12T06:59:44.060-08:00Worth a thousand words?<span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Not quite a month into the new position, and already I'm being thrust head first into a number of facets of HFID. Among the projects I've been called in for varying degrees of consult, design and/or recommendation:<br /><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Review and recommendation for an e-commerce environment</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Redesign of a content player</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Redesign of an LMS (learning management system)</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">"Usability test" (really a series of user design feedback sessions) of a sub-site</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Of these, the content player project provides my first opportunity for using the blog to hopefully gain some insight into an HF issue:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Most computer users are familiar with the many banks of icons featured in browsers and software applications, such as the following from Microsoft Word:</span></p><p><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/1600/wordBank1.0.gif"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/wordBank1.0.gif" border="0" /></span></a></p><p><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The power of good iconic representation is that it provides an instant visual cue for the functionality that it represents. Even someone not well-versed in Word should be able to determine that the second icon from the left represents <strong>Open a File,</strong> or that the second from the right represents <strong>Print</strong>. These are examples of icons with a good <em>semantic distance (</em>closeness between the image depicted in the icon and the function it is intended to represent).</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">The content player in question exists as part of an software package that helps instructors teach students how to use different software applications. By launching the player, students can view descriptions and demonstrations of tasks that aim to help them learn to use the application more easily.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Among its design features, the player has a bank of icons similar to that of MS Word. In offering design recommendations, I have to be able to provide some user-based rationale for either (a) keeping one or all of the icons as they are or (b) recommending alternatives. </span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">So I put it to you, the readers . . .</span></p><br /><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7575/3055/320/contentPlayer1.gif" border="0" /></span></p><p align="center"><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>What type of action does each of these icons represent?</strong> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Feel free to email me or post a comment directly to this blog entry. I'll reveal the answers in the next entry, as well as what readers have to say about them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">As always, my sincerest thanks in advance for your assistance.</span></p>Paul Doncasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09288642313568176714noreply@blogger.com0