Re: Usability Policies - Think Bigger!

On 2 Apr 2004, at 10:10, Gilbert Cockton wrote:

> What is needed for all product development, whether commercial,
> public, social, communal or otherwise, is a clear statement of
> intended product value that can be used to systematically derive
> targets for quality in use and fit to context.

Yes. But then you go on to say...

> This implies that measures will be made and analyses of fit will be
> carried out.

No! It doesn't imply any such thing.

Here's what happens (and I apologise in advance for the cheeky tone of
what follows, Gilbert. I'm not poking fun at you, but at people in
general - and you have to laugh about this, or else you'd cry)...

Someone has an idea for a new / improved product.

They tell an important person how it will make life great (Gilbert -
that's your quality in use statement, right there).

The important person gives them the resources to let them build it. As
they are building it, problems arise. People become impatient. Pressure
mounts. More resources are required. 'When are you going to finish?'
asks the important person. Suddenly, delivery becomes the goal.

The people building the product don't want the important person to
think they're wasting his/her resources. They cut corners in order to
get something delivered. They finish the product - under spec and under
performing but they have something to show the important person.

'Was the project a success?' asks the important person. 'Oh, yes,'
everyone replies. 'As you can see, we've delivered the product.'

Now at this point, Gilbert tells us that measures will be made and
analysis of fit will be carried out (this was 'implied' by the original
statement of product value). But that's not what happens.

What happens is this:

The important person is dubious. But he's let the people building the
product have more time and money than they asked for. If he turns
around and says 'it's crap' then he'll look like a fool. So he just
nods.

The people managing the people building the product know that it's
crap. But they keep quiet, because they've spent all this money and
they don't want the important person to get angry.

The people building the product know that it's crap. But they only tell
each other this (not their managers or the important person) because
they know they'll suffer if they make life difficult.

Then someone comes along and says 'Hey, let's measure it, to see how it
performs'.

'Nice idea. Now p*ss off!' comes the reply from all quarters.

--

That's the real reason usability people get a bad name - because they
show everyone else up, and look so bloody smug about it!

And it's the reason why usability only works if it's embedded in the
culture of project teams and organisations (everyone's responsible).

So, you do need a policy. The policy says:

  'Everyone must be involved in testing. They must test early, test
often, test comparable alternative products, test using [these]
techniques, measure [aspects which drive value] when they test' and
track changes to these measures over the project duration.'

Oh, another reason usability people get a bad name is that insistence
in measuring performance. A lot of stakeholders would rather we used
other criteria (like project cost, beauty, stakeholder buy-in,...).

Anyway, Gilbert, I totally agree with you about focus on aspects which
drive value. It's just hard to get people to maintain that focus in the
face of difficulties. Clear policy, intelligent doctrine, strong
culture, focused leadership - that's what's determines what gets done
and how.

Giles

Giles Colborne
Director

cxpartners
[email protected]
T +44 (0) 1225 443721
M +44 (0) 7850 590966

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): [email protected]
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:[email protected])
    --------------------------------------------------------------