[Sigia-l] Testing your own sites

[Andrew Boyd]

On 2/6/07, Michael Albers <malbers at memphis.edu> wrote:
> Enter the academic use of the usability lab, doing formal studies
> with statistical significance on the various design features and
> methods to build the fundamental ideas for moving design
> forward.  This can help determine if it was project A or B that was
> the fluke.  The focus is not getting a single project out the door;
> it's figuring out what will work to improve out best practices (I
> know, dangerous phrase) and test out new ideas.  We hear that people
> don't like stories of "what worked for me" as evidence as best
> practice since there are always so many other factors.  Those other
> factors are always going to be there and will always be a real pain,
> but at least with formal testing of the fundamental concepts you use
> for creating the design, you can feel more confident that the big
> issues will arise from those other factors and not from the design itself.

Mike,

we do "what worked for me" because it is the path of least resistance
when we are too busy, too tired, too weary of fighting the good fight
- sometimes we justify it by invoking the Holy Grail of best practice
- but here, amongst ourselves, just we practitioners alone - please
let us not in any way pretend that this is a good thing :) I am not
saying that you are advocating a hollow best practice gloss on a
rotten solution, but there are those about that do.

That said, "what worked for me" can be a good thing if it does
coincide with those other factors (for example, "what is the best
solution for the end users", "what is the best solution within the
client budget", and "what is the best solution for the client
organisation", which are not always the same thing when working within
Government). It would be interesting to study how often these do
coincide - how often an IA/Designer/etc delivers the minimal
brainpower solution that is serendipitously also the optimum.

Best regards, Andrew