[Sigia-l] Edward Tufte

[prady]

> Of course good designs mean you don't have to test.
> Unfortunately testing is the only way you know you have a good design...
- Jon Hanna

> I think its a matter of WHEN you test. We test before the design stage as
a
> part of our requirements gathering. Its been really vital for us to find
out
> what's already working in a design...
- Smith, Denise (Hewitt)

I completely agree.

What I feel is that we are doing post mortem to a great guy 'Edward Tufti'
with our own convenience. What is testing anyway? And what is Design? How do
you design? What is Usability? Why is Usability so narrowly defined in the
context of 'testing'. Offcource when I design, I iteratively test it, else
that is not design (?). I believe that Usability or Design is in the
process, not in testing the end product alone. Or say that testing
complements the efforts and promissses of Design. I am sure that Tufti is
not saying that 'he does what he feel' to deliver. Else that would be Art,
not design. He sure follows a process which guarantees the inherent promises
of Design.

I feel, Tufti must has made deliberate remark to hit upon 'egos' who wish to
take credits for all design efforts by bringing unnecessary attention to the
'testing'. I stand with Edward Tufti. I believe that he too believes that
Design encompasses 'testing' and it is not the 'testing' which should get
undue attention, rather the process which create a good design. And come to
think of it, in this process 'testing' is a support to the Design not vice
versa.

Prady

----- Original Message -----
From: "<denise.smith at idea.com>
To: "'Jon Hanna'" <jon at spin.ie>; <sigia-l at asis.org>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Sigia-l] Edward Tufte


> <snippity-snip Jon's response>
>
> > > The first was his overt trashing of user
> > > testing (he sd that good designs mean you don't
> > > HAVE to user test).
>
> Of course good designs mean you don't have to test.
> Unfortunately testing is the only way you know you have a good design...
>
> <end snip>
>
> I think its a matter of WHEN you test. We test before the design stage as
a
> part of our requirements gathering. Its been really vital for us to find
out
> what's already working in a design - not throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater, and all. Users often seem to resent redesigns, esp when the
site
> was already decent, so maintaining some familiarity can be a good thing
> (depending!!). In addition, we test to find out what user's needs ARENT
> being met - I have had some fabulous comments made during task-driven
> testing (like: "there's no search box on the whole site!" when it was only
> missing from the home page. There was a link marked search, but everyone
was
> looking for the text-input box!). Good stuff like that. Only way to really
> know is to test with real users.
>
> That being said, I agree with Krug that a LITTLE testing with a few users
is
> also better than none at all... and I know there wont always be budget or
> time for it. Heck, i designed an entire site for using only the "page
> headers" given to me in Excel, because I was not "allowed" to see the
> content (legal reasons due to a merger).
>
> Anyhow, I guess what I am saying is - any time I have tested before I
> actually finished my requirements gathering phase, I *know* I have built a
> much better design than I would have otherwise.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Denise
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
> ASIST IA 03 Summit: Making Connections
> http://www.asist-events.org/IASummit2003/
>
> Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l