[Sigia-l] Usability Testing comments from Giga

[Richard_Dalton at Vanguard.com]

Listera wrote:
> ...IA is not a profession where every result can be reliably and 
predictably
> 'engineered' from a codified set of rules.

Currently, this is unarguable.

> I don't think that's even needed.
> In an incredibly fast moving platform of technology and development, we 
(try
> to) deliver efficient (and hopefully enjoyable) results.

To quote Yoda: "Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try".

More seriously - speaking from the experience of working for a large 
financial organization, costs need to be justified, we're not in a 
position to "try" to deliver things and "hope" that they're successful. We 
need to be as sure as possible (from measurable past experiences, proven 
techniques, data, etc) that we will be successful.

> Furthermore, I predict IA will never attain the 'scientific' status some
> hope to achieve. IA is just as much a craft as medicine has been and is
> today. As I provided earlier, we've come from days of autopsies being 
done
> by barbers to fantastic technological medical achievements. Medicine is 
one
> of the most highly regulated, licensed and tested professions around. 
And
> yet 50% of what doctors know today are invalid. So white lab coats are 
not
> enough and to the extent that they may obscure the forest for the trees 
they
> may even be detrimental in certain ways.

Are you arguing that Medicine is not a science?

I agree that IA will probably never get to the A + B = C point, however, I 
agree with Jared that we currently have a very low level of confidence in 
the predictability of our solutions (unlike the field of Medicine where a 
much higher percentage of actions and consequences are predictable). If we 
could even approach the 50% figure you mention above we'd be far more 
effective.

 - Richard Dalton

P.S.    Listera - i'm intrigued to know who you work for, because they 
would seem to have a very different view on the cost/benefit of IA!