[Sigia-l] Re: Findability

[Eric Scheid]

On 23/1/03 3:37 AM, "Ken Bryson" <kbryson at aw.sgi.com> wrote:
> If findability is based on presenting the most important information (or
> most relevant, or most often sought, etc.) then there will always be an
> assumption on the part of the designer, and potentially important
> information will always be lost.

Not as big an assumption as may be assumed. We now have a toolbox of UCD
techniques to shift the decision of what is important onto the users of that
information. It's no longer necessary for a designer to presume what is more
important, not entirely.

Of course, even if we put the question squarely in the lap of the users,
assumptions will then be made by them, and potentially important information
can very easily be overlooked. The average user's appreciation of how
statistics work, the difference between correlation and causation, the
allure of the flashy and dramatic ... all can lead to users selecting a
subset of information on which any decision or understanding will be fatally
flawed.

This is not an argument that users should be shielded or coddled, but
instead that they should be educated or informed, and to do so means
providing additional information or prioritising the information available.

On the flip side though: most websites (et al) are not simply a matter of a
mass of information which is being accessed by users. If a user does have
their own private stash of information, and they want to arrange it in a
manner which suits them, then there would be very few that would object, no
matter how idiosyncratic that structuring may be. On the contrary, if some
outsider were to butt in and dictate the structure then objections would fly
thick and fast. 

More often though the information is being provided by a business concern,
with business minded issues to contend with. It is their content they are
structuring, in a manner that suits them, despite any number of outsiders
butting in and trying to dictate how to structure it. It is they who are
spending the money to make the site. Naturally they then have a right to
have a say in how that information is accessed, how it is structured, which
elements are made prominent, which are not, and so on.

Commonly this does evidence itself in the form of marketing, but it can also
be shaped by legal requirements. When I want to access financial information
I don't want to read through a lengthy and tedious disclaimer. Every use of
a trademark needs annotation, lest the legal right to same is lost. Certain
content requires warnings and adult check blocks in front of it, even though
there would be very few users that actually want to seek out just that
content (the warnings, that is). Most users would see it as an impediment to
what they consider important.

As laudable as putting users first is, advocates need to remember that users
exist within a society, and have obligations which may go contrary to their
own selfish immediate desires (overstating it a bit there, sorry ;-). It is
true that for a long time the users have been put last, but it would be an
ironic disservice to those same users if the pendulum were to swing too far
in their favour now.

Balance is what is called for: balance the needs, requirements, and
constraints of the different forces involved, users, community, society,
sponsors, etc.

(yikes, this went longer than expected)

e.