Thursday, December 19, 2019

The fact that we’re not as logical as a computer is not a bug but a feature. (Chris Anderson)

I had an interesting interaction with an IA the other day. Responding to some tree-test feedback that I shared, she wondered if we should “do the logical thing” or “just to defer to users even when they're being illogical.”

I answered with something along these lines … First, I asked her whose logic she was referring to. Based on the feedback, her logic (or the logic of the system) seemed to differ from the logic of the users. 

In particular, we had one menu that listed a bunch of things an investor might want to research and invest in – stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs … We also had another menu, called “Tools.” And, under that, was our ETF screener, a tool that allowed users to search for particular kinds of ETFs.  

The IA thought that, since the screener was a tool, it belonged in the Tools menu. My argument was that users seemed to think that this particular tool was a means to a larger end – i.e., they would use the tool to do their primary task, find an ETF to invest in. That the location under Tools generated a 0% success rate definitely helped my argument along as well.  ;^)

We also jousted about another menu item, “Fixed Income.” Now, that terms encompasses things like bonds, and annuities, and CDs, but it’s also something of an insider term – something the average investor might not be that familiar or comfortable with. 

Now, technically, she was right. The page actually included several types of fixed income investments. Bonds, though, made up 98% of what was offered. And bonds were what users were thinking of and looking for. So, my suggestion was to call it something that would resonate more with users – something along the lines of “Bonds & Fixed Income.” 

Needless to say, she pushed back with length issues, which I certainly respected. A little further research, though, showed that the page really only offered bonds and CDs. Our compromise, then, was exactly that – “Bonds & CDs.”

Now, you’d have thought that pushback like that might have come from someone more technical. I know I’ve had to fight that battle before with developers and with heavy-duty SMEs. Heck, though, everybody involved in UX probably needs to be reminded every once in awhile that users aren’t computers, and that their own quirky, very human version of logic is probably going to trump any others.

Here’s to computers! Here’s to humans! Vive la difference!




Chris was editor at WIRED, wrote The Long Tail & is currently the CEO at 3D Robotics

Monday, December 16, 2019

Usability testing is the killing field of cherished notions. (David Orr)

Wow! That’s kind of harsh. Maybe if we said “proving ground” instead.

Nah, this is way more descriptive. There are definitely times when there’s blood on the floor. 

Well, not really. But you know what I mean. It’s usually a matter of red faces, flared nostrils, big sighs, very tight smiles, killer glares … But it definitely does happen.

Face it, people fall in love with their stuff. It’s just the way human beings operate. (I don’t know, something about confirmation bias, backfire effect … You know, that sort of thing.)

And people tend to stay in love unless there’s something that happens that dissuades them otherwise. And that’s usually not a polite counter-argument in a meeting or a suggestion in an email. Sometimes, what it takes is a slap in the face. 

Hopefully, though, this won’t be coming as a total surprise. As a usability engineer with 30+ years of experience, I will definitely be giving you warning. In particular, I might speak up beforehand (if I get invited to the meetings). And, yes, when we actually start testing, we will definitely be covering what we’re seeing in debriefs (if you bother to watch the sessions, or stay afterwards).  And I’ll also be sending out those end-of-day and end-of-week topline reports as well (if you read them, that is). If, however, your first inkling that your baby may not be perfect is in the report-out, well yeah, it’s going to get a little messy. 

Recently, a designer joked before one of my report-outs that it was time for “Cliff to tear my design apart.” Now, that got me turning red a little. I helpfully pointed out that no, it was time to “get some feedback from our users.” 

Yeah, I know … It was a joke. It did give me a little perspective, though, on what it might be like to be on the other side of the bad news I sometimes have to deliver. Yup, usability is my “baby.” When someone doesn’t take it seriously, or when someone misinterprets it, I have a very similar emotional response. 

But, you know, it’s really not the same. I mean, I can make all sorts of arguments for the value of usability, and the value of usability data. On the other hand, if a usability test says that you’re baby’s ugly, there’s really not a lot you can come back with. I mean, if I’ve done my job properly, you’ve got the correct users, doing the correct tasks, on the correct system, and showing and telling you, bit by bit and piece by piece, exactly what the issues are.  

So, really, please ... just think of it as feedback.


David and I actually have a lot in common – English degrees; a mixed background in tech writing, instructional design & usability; about 30 years in the biz …