Re: Usability Policies - Think Bigger!

I've righlty been picked up in a posting that hasn't made it (yet?) to everyone on my apparently naive logic.

> > This implies that measures will be made and analyses of fit will  be carried out.
>
> No! It doesn't imply any such thing.

It does for HCI people, who are the audience on this list, so add (for us) after implies and it's
true.  Sloppy I know!

Alternatively, I should have written "This should imply", not "This implies"

I would argue that the need for analysis and measurement follows from an initial focus on value.  If you know what value is being delivered, then you should want to ensure that it will be, and that requires analysis and testing.  As for what gets analysed and tested, that depends on intended value.  Sadly for old style usability, performance and error measures may not be key to value, and other measures (which we're less good at right now) are needed.

It is conceivable that intended value may be compatible with poor quality in use and fit, simply because people make money out of systems with poor user experience, and users carry out good enough work with such systems.  Still, something will get measured at some point, even if it's only the bug count.

Our role is to be able to argue convincingly how and when poor quality in use and poor fit to context will destroy or seriously erode intended value, and better still, how great quality in use and snug fit to context enhance intended value,  Good design is a gift, in that a well designed product delights by providing unexpected capabilities and usage experiences.  This is where good HCI delivers the best value.

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