[Sigia-l] Information Architecture and Usability Professions

[Lee Hsieh]

>At 08:28 PM 9/5/2006, Ziya Oz wrote:
>
> >Jared M. Spool:
> >
> > > You can't do this with post-design inspections and tests.
> >
> >You need to broadcast that to the vast majority of people in your business.
>
>It ain't *my business.* I'm a researcher running a think tank. I claim no
>ownership rights on this business.

I think in a previous post it was also alluded to that research can 
replace usability evaluations/testing thoughout the product lifecycle 
ad post-launch.  This is a dangerous line of think imo, and 
oversimplifies the situation at many companies.  Regardless of 
training and consistent methodology many researchers produce findings 
that are just as subjective as many usability test results.

For example an enterprise software company i worked with did research 
that was either misguided or totally dis-regarded prior to a 2yr 
development effort.   At the end of which time it was determined that 
the application did not comply with Sorbanne-Oxley.  This after 
untold millions were spent involving hundreds of team members.

Another example, a multinational financial company spent over 1yr on 
user research and another yr developing a hi-fidelity prototype that 
failed basic usability and disregarded best practices for similar 
industry type applications (eg, users read left-rght, tp-bottom, 
scrolling undesirable, etc)

So i agree, research is crucial and can inform the process but is 
only *1* datapoint, so to speak, in a process that includes many 
other datapoints to create the best possible user experience.

There is nothing like iterating early and often while gathering 
feedback along the way to mitigate costly usability issues.

<snip>
> >On a serious note, I would like the usability process move much closer to
> >the design process and get integrated, as opposed to remaining as a
> >postfactum testing/validation phenomenon, the way it *still* is today in the
> >main.
>
>That's changing. In our research we're seeing more and more evidence of
>that integration, with great results. I think it's going to become more
>mainstream, assuming the forces-that-be don't get in the way and try to
>hold it back.

I agree with this.  UCD folk will requre much more breadth and depth 
in order to remain competitive going forward.  The individual silos 
involving Research, Business Anlysis, Information Architure, Design, 
Testing are fast becoming commodities that can be easily 
outsourced.  None of which is rocket science but taken as a whole do 
requre individuals with a solid grasp of each area in order to 
'connect the dots' and bring tangible value to business stakeholders.



> >There was a time when businesses thought slapping a "skin" on a developers
> >take constituted application design. We had demonstrably disastrous results
> >and, I think, we passed that stage in general. I don't think we've outgrown
> >the usability=postfactum validation stage at all. I think you're being way
> >too optimistic that we have.
>
>I think you're not seeing what's happening on the advancing side of the
>front. To use the oft-overused Crossing The Chasm metaphors, the early
>adopters have long since moved past postfactum validation. Organizations
>like Yahoo, eBay, Fidelity, Lands' End, Autotrader, Shopzilla, Washington
>Mutual, Wachovia, NewCityMedia, Molecular, and many, many others are long
>past this and doing very cool things on the user experience front.

Interesting, do you see this producing tangible results...Looking at 
a few of the companies mentioned(internet, banking) i would say they 
have failed there customers miserably on the ucd front.

Lee


>It's happening. And it's happening more and more.
>
>Now if we can only stay out of our own way.
>
>Jared


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7 - Release Date: 8/29/2006