[Sigia-l] Can Usability get a CUE?

[Steven Pautz]

I really enjoyed this article -- to me, Jared's recommendations outline the
key attributes of the schism between classic/academic usability and modern
practice. From my rather inexperienced vantage point, all three of those
seem to have been part of regular, accepted practice for at least the past
5-10 years (but only for IA and IxD -- not classic UE). Is he downplaying
them (and labeling them "radical") in order to not offend the presumably
academic audience?
I think Jared's 3rd recommendation will receive the most resistance from the
classic/academic community. I wanted to study (and, ideally, improve)
'newer' techniques and processes in grad school, but was told to not pursue
such ideas because there was no 'foundation' in The Literature for
questioning the existing, classic ones. Related to that line of logic,
'newer' techniques (like personas and wireframes) were taught as being a
secondary part of the classic process -- and their purpose, use, and results
ended up being completely opposite of what I've seen from industry.

Until critical thinking is applied to the classic techniques, the
classic/academic community will only use newer techniques superficially, I
believe. The current environment is structured so that such critical
thinking -- specifically including the CUEs -- is taboo because it conflicts
with The Literature. Questioning The Literature requires data, but nobody
will accept (or run) data-collecting studies because such research isn't
based on The Literature, no matter how sound the logic surrounding it.

That's how things were/are at most of the 'classic'-minded places I've seen,
at least. Is this a general pattern? If so, is there any way to break it,
aside from turning an academic superauthority like Nielsen?

---------------------------
Steven Pautz