[Sigia-l] Usability testing into the dustbin?

[Derek R]

Via Ziya:
>>| http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article1058.asp

>| Usability testing now appears to be a highly variable 
>| art in which the results depend on who is testing what
>| by which protocol with which particular subjects

It wouldn't hurt Larry et al to acknowledge the science of
ethnomethodology which has always known this and continues research into
this area even today. The empirical study of method is always the best
method when engaged in the search for the truth.


>| Usability testing is so entrenched in the canon
>| of usability practice that no amount of counter-
>| evidence will shake the faith of its true believers

We see this so often, in IA, everywhere, how groups of people get
together and incessantly refer to one another to build-up a Babel tower
whose main tenant is that of confusion (surprise!). The 'true believer'
has no eyes with which to see -- they only know what they are peddling.

Often it seems catastrophe or sudden collapse is the only thing which
can thrust these individual's experiences back into reality (think
Internet bubble), since unexpected dislocations are the only things with
power enough to shake a sense-of-self. Indeed, it takes a rough hand to
make a tender chicken.

Again, ethnomethodology is way-ahead-of-the-game here (see Garfinkel's
famous 'breaching experiments').


>| An unbiased reading of the research results would
>| suggest that no amount of testing is enough, a 
>| conclusion already well-established a quarter century
>| ago within the software quality movement

Ad Astra per Aspera. 


>| The next logical step is to question
>| the very role of usability testing

Indeed. If one is evenly derived -- the result of 'robust and
disciplined design process' (refer to 'Ad Astra per Aspera' above and
elsewhere) -- then one does not arrive in an unknown territory, but
rather a place where riddle cannot exist (achievement). The condition we
know as 'orientation' or 'confidence' is what it means to be
evenly-derived.

The melding of what we know as 'usability testing' with 'design process'
(Matt 5:37) is the answer we are looking for. This approach avoids the
promiscuous tendency of designers to get ahead of themselves (playing
smart and not being clever), but instead, through fine and luminous
distinction (validation), undertakes the pledge of *arduous* work and
watchful good sense.

This, again, is the difference between 'knowing the path' and 'walking
the path,' the former being the one which discontinues all *burdensome
activities* constraining the design process.

	 
As a side-note, it is a credit to the Sigia-L list that we have Ziya to
keep us stocked-full of interesting and relevant articles with which to
debate, learn from, and puzzle over. If only we could get many more
Ziya's this list would be a very busy place indeed, and one would loath
to be absent for fear of missing the next useful tidbit and carefully
constructed insight. Thanks Ziya!