In this article, three of Patricia Sullivan's students reflect on the history and recent trend of usability research in technical communication in response to Sullivan's 1989 article "Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing." They argue that usability is not only a legitimate research area in technical communication but is enriched by the rhetorical perspective that technical communicators bring in. Interrogating recent literature on usability, the authors points out the limitations of understanding usability research as "science," and, following Sullivan, argue that rhetoric bridges the gap between the two cultures--science and culture--and emphasizes on application, which coincides with the nature of engineering.
The brief history of usability research in technical communication offered by the authors lays out concisely a background, which is useful in understanding usability as a research area in the field. The discussion of usability in the context of the debate of science, culture, and rhetoric provides a context for discussion of methodology in usability study projects. The authors' view that an aspect of usability is rhetoric supports the use of non-scientific methods in usability research. The section that discussion the difference between user-centered design and usability is interesting (UCD maintains boundaries between products and users, and usability breaks the boundaries more radically), although I do not completely agree with the authors.
Showing posts with label Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sullivan. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
RR_07: usability & participatory design
The readings this week present some of the fundamental issues in usability research and practice. The authors offer their different perspectives on the nature of usability research and methodologies developed from various intellectual traditions. While Gillan and Bias (2001) argue for a view of usability as a science, others challenge the “Big Science” approach (Coppola, 2005). Technical communicators who have a firm grip on rhetoric argue for a rhetorical approach to usability that contextualize research and practice in complex ways (Salvo, 2001; Johnson et. al., 2007; Skeen, 2009).
In these readings usability is often understood as a mode of research to understand users and their interaction with technology. As Michael Salvo (2001) has noted, usability is “a critical research practice as well as a design mechanism” (p. 280). According to P. Sullivan (1989), “[t]he subject matter of usability research can be usefully described as the studies of users learning to use and using various computer products, in the design and evaluation phases of development, for the purposes of learning more about how people use machines and of improving the machines and educational materials” (p. 256-57). In other words, usability is a mode of inquiry with the objective to understand users and their interaction with technology.
The understandings of usability as a mode of research among researchers are by no means without contradiction and contention. The divergence very often resides between the scientific and the non-scientific approaches to usability. According to Johnson et al. (2007), historically, usability has been considered a “scientific activity—an activity guided by strategic methods and often quantitative measurement systems—that attempts to create verifiable and replicable results” (p. 323). One example from the scientific camp is Gillan and Bias's (2001) notion of “usability science.” The authors state that a “new applied scientific discipline, usability science” has emerged to bridge “the conceptual area between the basic cognitive and behavioral sciences (primarily cognitive and perceptual psychology) and usability engineering” (p. 352).
However, Johnson et al. (2007) critique Gillan and Bias's “usability science” by pointing out that their confinement of usability to a few disciplines in psychology and engineering results in a “narrow range of inquiry” (p. 323). Johnson et al. argue that technical communicators' interest and work in usability studies have brought “something of a disruption of the dominance of usability as science” in the field of usability studies, and usability has thus also been recognized as “a rhetorical art” (p. 323). Gillan and Bias's notion of “usability science,” according to Johnson et al., only “seeks to sever communication between the art and their proposed science of usability” (p. 323). Based on their critique of Gillan and Bias's “usability science” and drawing on rhetorical traditions, Johnson et al. define usability in terms of rhetoric, paying close attention to context, and in so doing “seek to return this discussion of usability to the application and use of scientific findings rather than displacing science or emplacing science in application” (p. 327). In other words, to Johnson et al., the inquiry of usability must consist of both “scientific and replicable” and “nonscientific” research (p. 327).
Johnson et al.'s effort to break the boundaries between scientific and non-scientific natures of usability was expressed by Sullivan (1989), who has pointed out that the multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature of usability research. She argues that a broad understanding of usability research will include “the work of people who design systems, test them, develop educational materials, and study users” (p. 256). This view broadens the scope of usability research beyond cognitive and behavioral sciences and engineering to include the work of technical communicators.
The tension between the scientific and the broader understanding of usability as research can be seen as part of the tension between the Big Science and the bricolage in technical and professional communication (Coppola, 2005). In response to the prevailing presence of Big Science in the field, Coppola emphasizes the importance of importance of the attention to context and individual experience in research, an approach in line with bricolage in Lévi-Strauss's term. Coppola points out a certain bias in the field against bricolage approach in favor of the Big Science:
To Spinuzzi, a goal of participatory design is precisely to “preserve” the user's knowledge to illuminate the design of technology that can “fit into the existing web of tacit knowledge, workflow, and work tools, rather than doing away with them” (ibid). Here, Spinuzzi's approach can be seen as a bricoleur's approach in Coppola's terms for it contrasts the “rationalist studies that assume workers' tasks can be broken down into their components, formalized, and made more efficient” (ibid)—i.e., a Big Science approach. It is in this sense that Spinuzzi contends that participatory design takes a “constructive” paradigm, which “assumes that tacit knowledge cannot be completely formalized” as apposed to the “task-and-efficiency orientation typical in many user-centered design methods” including usability testing (ibid).
The readings in this section can serve very well to support a broader approach to research in web usability in addition to lab usability testing.
In these readings usability is often understood as a mode of research to understand users and their interaction with technology. As Michael Salvo (2001) has noted, usability is “a critical research practice as well as a design mechanism” (p. 280). According to P. Sullivan (1989), “[t]he subject matter of usability research can be usefully described as the studies of users learning to use and using various computer products, in the design and evaluation phases of development, for the purposes of learning more about how people use machines and of improving the machines and educational materials” (p. 256-57). In other words, usability is a mode of inquiry with the objective to understand users and their interaction with technology.
The understandings of usability as a mode of research among researchers are by no means without contradiction and contention. The divergence very often resides between the scientific and the non-scientific approaches to usability. According to Johnson et al. (2007), historically, usability has been considered a “scientific activity—an activity guided by strategic methods and often quantitative measurement systems—that attempts to create verifiable and replicable results” (p. 323). One example from the scientific camp is Gillan and Bias's (2001) notion of “usability science.” The authors state that a “new applied scientific discipline, usability science” has emerged to bridge “the conceptual area between the basic cognitive and behavioral sciences (primarily cognitive and perceptual psychology) and usability engineering” (p. 352).
However, Johnson et al. (2007) critique Gillan and Bias's “usability science” by pointing out that their confinement of usability to a few disciplines in psychology and engineering results in a “narrow range of inquiry” (p. 323). Johnson et al. argue that technical communicators' interest and work in usability studies have brought “something of a disruption of the dominance of usability as science” in the field of usability studies, and usability has thus also been recognized as “a rhetorical art” (p. 323). Gillan and Bias's notion of “usability science,” according to Johnson et al., only “seeks to sever communication between the art and their proposed science of usability” (p. 323). Based on their critique of Gillan and Bias's “usability science” and drawing on rhetorical traditions, Johnson et al. define usability in terms of rhetoric, paying close attention to context, and in so doing “seek to return this discussion of usability to the application and use of scientific findings rather than displacing science or emplacing science in application” (p. 327). In other words, to Johnson et al., the inquiry of usability must consist of both “scientific and replicable” and “nonscientific” research (p. 327).
Johnson et al.'s effort to break the boundaries between scientific and non-scientific natures of usability was expressed by Sullivan (1989), who has pointed out that the multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature of usability research. She argues that a broad understanding of usability research will include “the work of people who design systems, test them, develop educational materials, and study users” (p. 256). This view broadens the scope of usability research beyond cognitive and behavioral sciences and engineering to include the work of technical communicators.
The tension between the scientific and the broader understanding of usability as research can be seen as part of the tension between the Big Science and the bricolage in technical and professional communication (Coppola, 2005). In response to the prevailing presence of Big Science in the field, Coppola emphasizes the importance of importance of the attention to context and individual experience in research, an approach in line with bricolage in Lévi-Strauss's term. Coppola points out a certain bias in the field against bricolage approach in favor of the Big Science:
Big Science has become identified with funded research, the seemingly best way to create meaningful investigations of the physical world; bricolage has become associated with close reading, a lesser way to create meaningful interpretations of the human world. From the beginning, both were scientific, unafraid to shed myths in favor of methodological scrutiny. Both were unafraid to take things apart. Both endured. Only one, however, prevailed. (p. 262)The theme of bricolage is also present in Spinuzzi's (2005) discussion about participatory design as research. As C. Spinuzzi (2005) points out, “participatory design has its own highly articulated methodological orientation, methods, and techniques, just as does participatory action research, the approach on which it is based” and thus” (p. 163). He concludes therefore that “[p]articipotory design is research” (ibid). Historically, according to Spinuzzi, participatory design is associated with “action research,” an activity “alternating alternating between practical work to support changes (such as design activities) on one hand, and systematic data collection and analysis on the other hand,” and ethnographic methods (p. 164). Understanding participatory design as research is to recognize the user's knowledge, i.e., “tacit or craft knowledge” linked to metis, “cunning intelligence,” which has been invisible in many other research approaches (p. 166).
To Spinuzzi, a goal of participatory design is precisely to “preserve” the user's knowledge to illuminate the design of technology that can “fit into the existing web of tacit knowledge, workflow, and work tools, rather than doing away with them” (ibid). Here, Spinuzzi's approach can be seen as a bricoleur's approach in Coppola's terms for it contrasts the “rationalist studies that assume workers' tasks can be broken down into their components, formalized, and made more efficient” (ibid)—i.e., a Big Science approach. It is in this sense that Spinuzzi contends that participatory design takes a “constructive” paradigm, which “assumes that tacit knowledge cannot be completely formalized” as apposed to the “task-and-efficiency orientation typical in many user-centered design methods” including usability testing (ibid).
The readings in this section can serve very well to support a broader approach to research in web usability in addition to lab usability testing.
BIB_07: Sullivan, P. (1989). Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 32(4), 256-254.
Sullivan's influential article draws attention to the problem of the end-of-the-line problem solving approach in usability study in technical communication. Sullivan argues that technical communicators should broaden their understanding of usability from "usability study" to "usability research," which will enable them to utilize knowledge from other communities interested in usability. To do so, Sullivan "situates" usability in specific "places" and according to its structure. She points out three "filters" that affect usability research results: identities of the researchers, methods, and research questions. The a survey of these three areas, Sullivan argues that using usability testing as a product/document validation method at the end of development process is only one narrow way to look at usability research. Different groups of researchers, different models of research methods, different research questions shape usability research in different ways.
Sullivan's big argument in this article is that usability research is more than testing all-but-finished documents for validation, but include broader inquiries in various disciplines and from various perspectives. Her argument, however, is not specifically a call for iterative usability research throughout the development of the product as many hold today, although it certainly provide a theoretical ground for such an argument. The purpose of this article is to introduce practice and perspectives from other disciplines on usability to technical communicators so as to enrich our field. Although this article does not primarily aim to offer practical knowledge, parts of it are of practical use to researchers. For instance, the section on how to analyze the structure of the usability study, the survey of the methods, and categorization of research questions are all helpful in usability research method design for researchers.
Sullivan's big argument in this article is that usability research is more than testing all-but-finished documents for validation, but include broader inquiries in various disciplines and from various perspectives. Her argument, however, is not specifically a call for iterative usability research throughout the development of the product as many hold today, although it certainly provide a theoretical ground for such an argument. The purpose of this article is to introduce practice and perspectives from other disciplines on usability to technical communicators so as to enrich our field. Although this article does not primarily aim to offer practical knowledge, parts of it are of practical use to researchers. For instance, the section on how to analyze the structure of the usability study, the survey of the methods, and categorization of research questions are all helpful in usability research method design for researchers.
BIB_07: Coppola, N. W. (2005). Big science or bricolage: An alternative model for research in technical communication. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 48(3).
Coppola argues in this article for the continuation of the bricoleur approach in technical communication research that has been undervalued by researchers who are proponents of the Big Science approach. The article is in response to the prevailing call for "research" in technical communication, which favors the Gig Science research often associated with funded research. Drawing on Aristotelian philosophic tradition and invoking the idea of praxis, Coppola emphasizes the importance of the attention to context and individual experience in research, an approach in line with bricolage in Lévi-Strauss's term. Coppola advocates resistance to the assertion that not enough research has been done in tech comm, and call for the celebration of the a multi-methods tradition in technical communication research.
This is another article that deals with the debate between scientific and non-scientific methodologies in the field of technical communication. Coppola, like many from a rhetorical background such as Salvo, Johnson, and Sullivan, puts great value to the consideration of contexts and specificities. His is a piece that directly resist the impulse of valuing empirical/scientific research over bricolage.
This is another article that deals with the debate between scientific and non-scientific methodologies in the field of technical communication. Coppola, like many from a rhetorical background such as Salvo, Johnson, and Sullivan, puts great value to the consideration of contexts and specificities. His is a piece that directly resist the impulse of valuing empirical/scientific research over bricolage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)