In this chapters, Zhu and Proctor discuss the evaluation of web usability. Defining web usability as "concerned with how easy or difficult a Web site or Web-based software is to learn and use" (p. 321), the authors start with a discussion on the analyses of some of the important aspects of a website: the purpose, the target audience, and the core user tasks. The major section of the chapter is focused on a survey on the methods of web usability evaluation, including usability inspections (heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough), usability testing, prototyping (paper prototyping and interactive prototyping), field methods/observation (ethnographic methods, field trials, diary studies), interviews, focus groups and questionnaires, and web-based methods (automated sessions, web logs, and opinion polls). The authors then offer a discussion on reliability and validity issues, and issues concerning the ethics of working with participants.
This is a great succinct survey of methods available for web usability studies. The methods discussed in the chapter cover both empirical and non-empirical (heuristic) methods, both qualitative and quantitative methods, and lab testing, fieldwork, and textual analysis. The section on rigor and ethics is also very important and useful when researchers apply these methods.
Showing posts with label goal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goal. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
BIB_09: Strybel, T. Z. (2005). Task analysis for the design of Web applications. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 385-407). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
In this chapter, Strybel surveys methods of task analysis in human factors and their application in designing web-based applications. The author first offers a brief history of task analysis since the early 20th century. He then discusses the characteristics of task analysis and emphasis on a goal-oriented approach. Strybel summarizes the sources of data utilized in task analysis to include task documents, direct observation (think aloud protocol & user comments), structured interviews, surveys, performance logs, and discusses the application of task analysis in personnel selection and training, system function identification and allocation, interface design, measurement of mental workload, testing and evaluation of system design, and user performance modeling. Strybel continues to discuss about the criticism of task analysis from practitioners and behavioral scientists. For some practitioners, formal task analysis methods are not cost effective. On the other hand, behavioral scientists are concerned about the validity of these methods. Strybel then provides a detailed discussion about the task analysis methods that are suitable for web application design, such as hierarchical task analysis (HTA), critical incident technique (CIT), a cognitive task analysis method GOMS, and other methods such as timeline analysis, link analysis, position analysis questionnaire abilities requirements analysis, and sequence and flow description. In conclusion, Strybel recommends that task analysis can yield greatest benefits when applied early in the design process. He also recommends to start task analysis with a flexible, breadth-first method, prioritize user goals, choose appropriate methods for user groups being targeted for additional analyses, and carefully document the process and outcomes.
The chapter provide a good survey of task analysis methods in the field of human factor. This survey is good for technical communicators who are interested in web design and usability to have some understanding of a closely related field. Some of the overall perspectives in the chapter are insightful. For instance, Strybel makes the distinction between a "system-centered" approach and an "object-oriented" approach in terms of their assumptions about users' goals: "In the system-centered approach, the user's task goals are assumed to be compatible with system goals. In object-oriented design, the users' goals may be different from those of a larger system. Regardless, the assumption of goal-oriented behavior implies that an understanding of the users' goals, tasks, knowledge requirements, and performance constraints are necessary to predict and improve task performance" ( p. 387). Also, the sources of data are useful for technical communicators in data collection. However, to apply the methods discussed in this chapter in the field of technical communication, careful adapting work has to be done.
The chapter provide a good survey of task analysis methods in the field of human factor. This survey is good for technical communicators who are interested in web design and usability to have some understanding of a closely related field. Some of the overall perspectives in the chapter are insightful. For instance, Strybel makes the distinction between a "system-centered" approach and an "object-oriented" approach in terms of their assumptions about users' goals: "In the system-centered approach, the user's task goals are assumed to be compatible with system goals. In object-oriented design, the users' goals may be different from those of a larger system. Regardless, the assumption of goal-oriented behavior implies that an understanding of the users' goals, tasks, knowledge requirements, and performance constraints are necessary to predict and improve task performance" ( p. 387). Also, the sources of data are useful for technical communicators in data collection. However, to apply the methods discussed in this chapter in the field of technical communication, careful adapting work has to be done.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
RR_05: Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
Offering valuable insights in usable software-based products design, Cooper's book is foremost a rhetorical piece that advocates in the IT industry for a process of software-development that starts with interaction design preceding programming. On achieving this purpose, Cooper pushes for the methods for interaction design such as persona and goal-directed design. Although there are a few points I do not completely agree on, I found Cooper's work convincing and a useful resource for my project on cultural usability and Web 2.0.
First of all, Cooper's notion of interaction design is a useful concept worthy of our attention. Cooper distinguishes interaction design from interface design and prefers the former “because 'interface' suggests that you have code over here, people over there, and an interface in between that passes messages between them. It implies that only the interface is answerable to the users' needs” (p. 26). He goes on to argue about interface design that “[l]ike putting an Armani suit on Attila the Hun, interface design only tells how to dress up an existing behavior” (ibid). For an interaction designer, according to Cooper, the design of a product does not only involve interface design, but also behavioral design and conceptual design. He explains that “[b]ehavioral design tells how the elements of the software should act and communicate” (ibid). However, “[i]nteraction designers also work from the outside in, starting from the goals the user is trying to achieve, with an eye toward the broader goals of the business, the capabilities of the technology and the component tasks” (ibid). Thus it is important to include conceptual design, “which considers what is valuable for the users in the first place” (ibid), in the design process (ibid). Cooper argues that the order to the design process should start from conceptual design, then move on to behavioral design, and finally interface design (ibid).
Cooper's view on the interface is very narrow, which is limited to page layout or graphic design, something that “dresses up” the more crucial behaviors of application. Intentionally or unintentionally, Cooper trivializes interface design just as the way he trivializes the “aesthetic” element of design (p. 149).
There are a couple of prejudices and misconceptions involved in his views. First of all, the prejudice against “aesthetic” design that is subject to “subjective” judgment. Judgment of aesthetics is subjective to a certain extent, but that does not mean that such judgment is invalid or groundless. It is also dismissive and a bit pompous for Cooper to assume that design before the digital age only involved aesthetics but had nothing to do with “cognitive friction,” or “the resistance encountered by a human intellect when it engages with a complex system of rules that change as the problem changes” (p. 19). Think of architecture or industrial design, and Cooper's assumption is just a misconception that reinforces the misunderstanding of design as visual design that he himself opposes.
More importantly, to equal interface design as visual design with the only purpose for aesthetics is another misconception of Cooper's argument. The interface is often expressed visually, but it is more than just the “look” of the more heavy lifting code. Norman's (2002) notion of the “system image,” or the “physical structure” of the system (p. 16), can be used to understand the interface. According to Norman, the system image bridges the gap between what the designer designs (the design model) and what the user thinks how the system work (the user's model). Interface, as the physical thing where the interaction between the user and the machine happens is where the system image is materialized to the user. Therefore, interface design does not only involve the page layout, graphic design, or the looks of a system, but how the system is translated and presented to the user. If Cooper's concept of “cognitive friction” is useful at at all, we have to recognize that, contrary to what he claims, the interface is precisely where the cognitive friction occurs for the interface is the site where the human and the machine meet.
Despite these problematic claims, Cooper's insight is valuable in many ways. To be fair, his emphasis on the interaction over visual design (not interface design) seems to fit today's Web development better because of the increasing merging of Web sites and Web-based applications. More importantly, his work points out the problem with software-development processes many companies in the industry employ, and that is programming without interaction design. The product that often results from this process is what he calls a “dancing bear” which does not work well, but because the user does not have any other choices and has to get the job done, she/he has to tolerate the hard-to-use product. In this sense, Cooper is a champion advocate on behalf of the users. The process he advocates compared to the processes that do not work is illustrated as below (pp. 204-205):
From the illustrations, we can tell the Cooper would not agree with usability advocates such as Nielsen that user testing is the only way for good product design. Cooper points out some of the problems with user testing. First of all, he argues that “[t]he main reason why empirical user testing has been widely accepted in the high-tech business is that it fits easily into the existing sequence” (p. 204). That means that user testing actually reinforces the old process of software-development. One of the biggest challenges with user testing is that “[m]ost user testing depends on having a working program to test with, so necessarily it must wait until the program is up and running. This places user testing in the sequence conveniently in parallel to bug testing” (p. 204). This creates a problem, for “[n]o matter who does the designing, regardless of the method she might apply, the effect of design will be negligible if the coding is underway. A fundamental premise of bringing design to the software-development process is that it must occur before the programming begins” (p. 204).
Cooper argues that testing before programming, or what he calls the “pre-facto user testing” is “similar to the pure research that one would expect to find in a university setting” (p. 206). He uses an example of his colleague who tested the effectiveness of the status bar in the interface of a program. He argues that although the test result—users don't pay much attention to the status bar—is valuable, it does not “shed much insight on the underlying problems” (p. 206). Here again, the biggest challenge with pre-fecto user testing and testing or testing during the development of the product is that the product that gets tested is not yet built or completed, and thus any simulacrum (“either a quickly written prototype program or a 'puppet-show' made from paper cutouts or some equivalent, low-tech material” (p. 206)) used in the testing will result in inaccurate testing results.
Although he points out these problems with usability testing, Cooper does not completely dismiss its value. He agrees that “[t]houghtful user testing can uncover a designer's incorrect assumptions. Exposing your design work to users and then redesigning iteratively is always better than not doing so. Some new technologies […] are so untried that the insight provided by basic user testing can be of great value” (p. 207).
That said, usability testing to Cooper perhaps has more rhetorical value than engineering value:
Perhaps the most important and useful insight Cooper offers in his book is the idea of “goal-directed design” (p. 151). Unlike many others' work on usability (such as Nielsen or Barnum), Cooper distinguishes goals from tasks radically. He emphasizes that “[g]oals are not the same things as tasks. A goals is an end condition, whereas a task is an intermediate process needed to achieve the goal.” (p. 150). He then goes on and notes that “[t]here is an easy way to tell the difference between tasks and goals. Tasks change as technology changes, but goals have the pleasant property of remaining very stable” (p. 150). This means that the consideration of tasks is more closely linked to the product (and especially the features of the product), whereas the consideration of goals must focus on the user. Cooper argues that “[d]esigning from tasks instead of goals is one of the main causes of frustrating and ineffective interaction” and “asking, 'What are the user's goals?' lets us see through the confusion and create more appropriate and satisfactory designs” (p. 151). The goal-directed design requires the designers to analyze the user's goals to solve problems, which often can result in “very different—and much better—solutions” (p. 151).
The goal-directed design shifts the focus from technologies to the user. Especially, the personal goals are considered by Cooper as the most important goals the designer has to consider when designing a product. We can sense this approach in Norman's (2002) work, but Cooper is really pushing this idea forward in his work. The approach of goal-directed design, when applied to user research, will require the researcher to look at the original goals of the user, and then think of the system on the basis of these goals. When applied to research in cultural usability, the approach requires the researcher to shift from asking what color scheme on a Web site is more appealing to users from a certain culture, to understanding what are the important things a user wants to achieve (e.g., to fulfill her/his responsibilities for her/his parents in Confucian cultures), given her/his specific cultural context.
First of all, Cooper's notion of interaction design is a useful concept worthy of our attention. Cooper distinguishes interaction design from interface design and prefers the former “because 'interface' suggests that you have code over here, people over there, and an interface in between that passes messages between them. It implies that only the interface is answerable to the users' needs” (p. 26). He goes on to argue about interface design that “[l]ike putting an Armani suit on Attila the Hun, interface design only tells how to dress up an existing behavior” (ibid). For an interaction designer, according to Cooper, the design of a product does not only involve interface design, but also behavioral design and conceptual design. He explains that “[b]ehavioral design tells how the elements of the software should act and communicate” (ibid). However, “[i]nteraction designers also work from the outside in, starting from the goals the user is trying to achieve, with an eye toward the broader goals of the business, the capabilities of the technology and the component tasks” (ibid). Thus it is important to include conceptual design, “which considers what is valuable for the users in the first place” (ibid), in the design process (ibid). Cooper argues that the order to the design process should start from conceptual design, then move on to behavioral design, and finally interface design (ibid).
Cooper's view on the interface is very narrow, which is limited to page layout or graphic design, something that “dresses up” the more crucial behaviors of application. Intentionally or unintentionally, Cooper trivializes interface design just as the way he trivializes the “aesthetic” element of design (p. 149).
There are a couple of prejudices and misconceptions involved in his views. First of all, the prejudice against “aesthetic” design that is subject to “subjective” judgment. Judgment of aesthetics is subjective to a certain extent, but that does not mean that such judgment is invalid or groundless. It is also dismissive and a bit pompous for Cooper to assume that design before the digital age only involved aesthetics but had nothing to do with “cognitive friction,” or “the resistance encountered by a human intellect when it engages with a complex system of rules that change as the problem changes” (p. 19). Think of architecture or industrial design, and Cooper's assumption is just a misconception that reinforces the misunderstanding of design as visual design that he himself opposes.
More importantly, to equal interface design as visual design with the only purpose for aesthetics is another misconception of Cooper's argument. The interface is often expressed visually, but it is more than just the “look” of the more heavy lifting code. Norman's (2002) notion of the “system image,” or the “physical structure” of the system (p. 16), can be used to understand the interface. According to Norman, the system image bridges the gap between what the designer designs (the design model) and what the user thinks how the system work (the user's model). Interface, as the physical thing where the interaction between the user and the machine happens is where the system image is materialized to the user. Therefore, interface design does not only involve the page layout, graphic design, or the looks of a system, but how the system is translated and presented to the user. If Cooper's concept of “cognitive friction” is useful at at all, we have to recognize that, contrary to what he claims, the interface is precisely where the cognitive friction occurs for the interface is the site where the human and the machine meet.
Despite these problematic claims, Cooper's insight is valuable in many ways. To be fair, his emphasis on the interaction over visual design (not interface design) seems to fit today's Web development better because of the increasing merging of Web sites and Web-based applications. More importantly, his work points out the problem with software-development processes many companies in the industry employ, and that is programming without interaction design. The product that often results from this process is what he calls a “dancing bear” which does not work well, but because the user does not have any other choices and has to get the job done, she/he has to tolerate the hard-to-use product. In this sense, Cooper is a champion advocate on behalf of the users. The process he advocates compared to the processes that do not work is illustrated as below (pp. 204-205):
From the illustrations, we can tell the Cooper would not agree with usability advocates such as Nielsen that user testing is the only way for good product design. Cooper points out some of the problems with user testing. First of all, he argues that “[t]he main reason why empirical user testing has been widely accepted in the high-tech business is that it fits easily into the existing sequence” (p. 204). That means that user testing actually reinforces the old process of software-development. One of the biggest challenges with user testing is that “[m]ost user testing depends on having a working program to test with, so necessarily it must wait until the program is up and running. This places user testing in the sequence conveniently in parallel to bug testing” (p. 204). This creates a problem, for “[n]o matter who does the designing, regardless of the method she might apply, the effect of design will be negligible if the coding is underway. A fundamental premise of bringing design to the software-development process is that it must occur before the programming begins” (p. 204).
Cooper argues that testing before programming, or what he calls the “pre-facto user testing” is “similar to the pure research that one would expect to find in a university setting” (p. 206). He uses an example of his colleague who tested the effectiveness of the status bar in the interface of a program. He argues that although the test result—users don't pay much attention to the status bar—is valuable, it does not “shed much insight on the underlying problems” (p. 206). Here again, the biggest challenge with pre-fecto user testing and testing or testing during the development of the product is that the product that gets tested is not yet built or completed, and thus any simulacrum (“either a quickly written prototype program or a 'puppet-show' made from paper cutouts or some equivalent, low-tech material” (p. 206)) used in the testing will result in inaccurate testing results.
Although he points out these problems with usability testing, Cooper does not completely dismiss its value. He agrees that “[t]houghtful user testing can uncover a designer's incorrect assumptions. Exposing your design work to users and then redesigning iteratively is always better than not doing so. Some new technologies […] are so untried that the insight provided by basic user testing can be of great value” (p. 207).
That said, usability testing to Cooper perhaps has more rhetorical value than engineering value:
Arguably, the most valuable contribution of usability testing is made when programmers are forced to sit behind the one-way mirrors to view typical users struggling with their programs. The programmers shocked and incredulous, shouting sentiments like, “You are testing mental retards!” Usability testing is a useful whack on the side of the head of recalcitrant software engineers, showing them that there is indeed a problem. It can serve the same purpose for management, too. (p. 207)Considering that Cooper's mean concern in the book is how to persuade companies (and the personnel in the companies from the management to programmers) to embrace the development process that incorporate interaction design before programming, his view on user testing should not be thought as dismissive. However, I'm not sure if he does justice to the user testing method in usability studies.
Perhaps the most important and useful insight Cooper offers in his book is the idea of “goal-directed design” (p. 151). Unlike many others' work on usability (such as Nielsen or Barnum), Cooper distinguishes goals from tasks radically. He emphasizes that “[g]oals are not the same things as tasks. A goals is an end condition, whereas a task is an intermediate process needed to achieve the goal.” (p. 150). He then goes on and notes that “[t]here is an easy way to tell the difference between tasks and goals. Tasks change as technology changes, but goals have the pleasant property of remaining very stable” (p. 150). This means that the consideration of tasks is more closely linked to the product (and especially the features of the product), whereas the consideration of goals must focus on the user. Cooper argues that “[d]esigning from tasks instead of goals is one of the main causes of frustrating and ineffective interaction” and “asking, 'What are the user's goals?' lets us see through the confusion and create more appropriate and satisfactory designs” (p. 151). The goal-directed design requires the designers to analyze the user's goals to solve problems, which often can result in “very different—and much better—solutions” (p. 151).
The goal-directed design shifts the focus from technologies to the user. Especially, the personal goals are considered by Cooper as the most important goals the designer has to consider when designing a product. We can sense this approach in Norman's (2002) work, but Cooper is really pushing this idea forward in his work. The approach of goal-directed design, when applied to user research, will require the researcher to look at the original goals of the user, and then think of the system on the basis of these goals. When applied to research in cultural usability, the approach requires the researcher to shift from asking what color scheme on a Web site is more appealing to users from a certain culture, to understanding what are the important things a user wants to achieve (e.g., to fulfill her/his responsibilities for her/his parents in Confucian cultures), given her/his specific cultural context.
BIB_05: Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
In this book, Cooper analyzes the problems with the software-development processes employed by many companies in the industry that produce hard-to-use IT products for users. Based on his understanding of the current practices in the industry and their problems, he advocates for an innovation of process towards one that incorporates interaction design in the beginning of the development prior to programming. The methods of interaction design Cooper introduces in the book include using user personas, scenarios, and goal analysis to design for the user. He also talks about the importance of documentation and teamwork.
Cooper's work offers a lot of insight into the software-development process. His concept of interaction design emphasizes the user's goals when interacting with technologies. Although some of his arguments, such as that about interface design, are not quite convincing, and his intention of promoting interaction design is not without self-interest, his emphasis on the user's goals and the methods of persona and goal-directed design are very useful. Moreover, Cooper's book is quite persuasive and should be a good book especially for managers and programmers, for many problems identified by Cooper in software-development are not easy to be seen from those who focus only on marketing or technology.
Cooper's work offers a lot of insight into the software-development process. His concept of interaction design emphasizes the user's goals when interacting with technologies. Although some of his arguments, such as that about interface design, are not quite convincing, and his intention of promoting interaction design is not without self-interest, his emphasis on the user's goals and the methods of persona and goal-directed design are very useful. Moreover, Cooper's book is quite persuasive and should be a good book especially for managers and programmers, for many problems identified by Cooper in software-development are not easy to be seen from those who focus only on marketing or technology.
Monday, August 23, 2010
RR_01: Barnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research. New York: Longman.
Barnum's text book, although maybe a bit dated, is a great start for usability students. It is both a theory book that maps out the theory and key issues of usability research and user-centered design (UCD), and a how-to book that meticulously explains how to conduct usability testing and create documents for the testing. I'll discuss a few issues that interest me or relate to my dissertation project below.
First of all, Barnum summarizes nicely the definition of usability and UCD. She draws on the definitions of usability by key sources/writers/researchers such as the Internationalization Organization for Standardization, Nielsen, and Dumas and Redish, all widely cited in usability studies literature, and points out that the focus of usability studies is the user. To make her point, she defines usability negatively, as not (p. 6):
Pointing out that “[t]hese terms reflect issues related to the product itself, not to the interaction of a person with the product” (p. 6), she draws attention to the distinction between product quality and usability. She further explains that usability has two requirements, “usefulness” and “satisfaction,” and contends that usability is determined by the user's perception of the quality of the product (p. 6-7). Two points are worth discussing here. First, her notion of usefulness is a key concept when we consider the split between task-oriented and goal-oriented usability studies. While task-oriented usability focuses on designing usable products, the goal-oriented usability focuses on designing useful products.
Although the terms “task” and “goal” are often used interchangeably by some authors, and the distinction between these two is not always clear in a lot of literature, this split can been seen among usability researchers and practitioners such as Nielsen, Cooper, and Krug. Barnum seems to agree with Cooper's view that we should design for the user's goals instead of tasks. When later on discussing task analysis, Barnum lists the goals of task analysis as (p. 88):
This list shows the distinction between goals and tasks. The goals are what users want to achieve in their life, such as succeeding a course. The tasks are more specific than goals. They are the means to goal, i.e., what the user needs to do to achieve her/his goals. In the example of the user's goal being succeeding a course, one of the tasks will be buying textbooks online. The users have multilevel goals, so the task of buying textbooks online are also means to achieve other goals such as saving money, and saving gas going to a bookstore and time browsing there. Understanding these goals, articulated most eloquently in Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, is essential in designing useful and usable products for the users. The goal-oriented approach is useful in cultural usability research for it can yield rich data about users due to its focus on their goals that are necessarily formed in their specific context of use.
Second, Barnum's argument of perception can be controversial. Although this book focuses on usability testing, Barnum's approach to usability research is inclusive in terms of methods. She talks about different methods in UCD in which the researcher or designer interact with users in different ways. These methods include focus group, prototyping, interviews, survey, etc. These methods are designed to get feedback from users. In other words, they are designed to obtain data about the user's perception of the product's usability. However, some hardliner usability testing proponents such as Nielsen and Krug will argue that using these “soft” methods, usability issues or usability breakdowns cannot be revealed accurately or adequately. They argue that empirical usability testing is the only way to know if a product works for the user. The tension between these two views is not surprising if we take the researchers' backgrounds into account. Barnum is a technical communication scholar who has a background in humanities (rhetoric). Nielsen and Krug both have engineering background on their resume. I will argue that methods that originated in humanities and those in sciences can help us obtain different data to understand the user and her/his interaction with technologies from different angles. Especially in today's complex technological environment where technologies are so profoundly entrenched on everyone's life, pure empirical methods may not be adequate to collect rich and nuance data about users.
The last thing I want to discuss about this book is its chapter on Web usability (chapter 9). To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with this chapter. Not only the material is dated (which however is understandable because of its subject matter), but it seems that the whole chapter is pretty much a rip off of Nielsen's work. Also, Barnum does not seem to have carefully thought through Web usability issues. For instance, when she talks about understanding the real users' needs, she summarizes the users' reasons to use the Web into three groups, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). The grouping is not only crude but also leaves out many other reasons (goals) for users to use the Web, such as entertainment, (personal, political...) expression, advocacy and mobilization, etc. These groups are so broad that I suspect that they are actually of any productive value. She may argue that reasons such as expression and advocacy can be grouped under interaction. If that's the case, I will argue that everything can be grouped under information, because ultimately the Web is information. Barnum here is a bit self-contradictory—as an advocate of designing for users' goals, and the individual needs of users, her crude grouping does seem a bit careless.
First of all, Barnum summarizes nicely the definition of usability and UCD. She draws on the definitions of usability by key sources/writers/researchers such as the Internationalization Organization for Standardization, Nielsen, and Dumas and Redish, all widely cited in usability studies literature, and points out that the focus of usability studies is the user. To make her point, she defines usability negatively, as not (p. 6):
- Quality assurance
- Zero defects
- Utility of design features
- Intrinsic in products
Pointing out that “[t]hese terms reflect issues related to the product itself, not to the interaction of a person with the product” (p. 6), she draws attention to the distinction between product quality and usability. She further explains that usability has two requirements, “usefulness” and “satisfaction,” and contends that usability is determined by the user's perception of the quality of the product (p. 6-7). Two points are worth discussing here. First, her notion of usefulness is a key concept when we consider the split between task-oriented and goal-oriented usability studies. While task-oriented usability focuses on designing usable products, the goal-oriented usability focuses on designing useful products.
Although the terms “task” and “goal” are often used interchangeably by some authors, and the distinction between these two is not always clear in a lot of literature, this split can been seen among usability researchers and practitioners such as Nielsen, Cooper, and Krug. Barnum seems to agree with Cooper's view that we should design for the user's goals instead of tasks. When later on discussing task analysis, Barnum lists the goals of task analysis as (p. 88):
- What users' goals are, not just the tasks they perform
- What processes they us to achieve their goals
- What characteristics shape the way they perform tasks and achieve goals (different groups of users may have different characteristics and goals)
- What previous experience shapes users' approaches to tasks
- What is most important to users or what is most helpful to them in performing tasks
- What impact the environment has on their ability to perform tasks
This list shows the distinction between goals and tasks. The goals are what users want to achieve in their life, such as succeeding a course. The tasks are more specific than goals. They are the means to goal, i.e., what the user needs to do to achieve her/his goals. In the example of the user's goal being succeeding a course, one of the tasks will be buying textbooks online. The users have multilevel goals, so the task of buying textbooks online are also means to achieve other goals such as saving money, and saving gas going to a bookstore and time browsing there. Understanding these goals, articulated most eloquently in Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, is essential in designing useful and usable products for the users. The goal-oriented approach is useful in cultural usability research for it can yield rich data about users due to its focus on their goals that are necessarily formed in their specific context of use.
Second, Barnum's argument of perception can be controversial. Although this book focuses on usability testing, Barnum's approach to usability research is inclusive in terms of methods. She talks about different methods in UCD in which the researcher or designer interact with users in different ways. These methods include focus group, prototyping, interviews, survey, etc. These methods are designed to get feedback from users. In other words, they are designed to obtain data about the user's perception of the product's usability. However, some hardliner usability testing proponents such as Nielsen and Krug will argue that using these “soft” methods, usability issues or usability breakdowns cannot be revealed accurately or adequately. They argue that empirical usability testing is the only way to know if a product works for the user. The tension between these two views is not surprising if we take the researchers' backgrounds into account. Barnum is a technical communication scholar who has a background in humanities (rhetoric). Nielsen and Krug both have engineering background on their resume. I will argue that methods that originated in humanities and those in sciences can help us obtain different data to understand the user and her/his interaction with technologies from different angles. Especially in today's complex technological environment where technologies are so profoundly entrenched on everyone's life, pure empirical methods may not be adequate to collect rich and nuance data about users.
The last thing I want to discuss about this book is its chapter on Web usability (chapter 9). To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with this chapter. Not only the material is dated (which however is understandable because of its subject matter), but it seems that the whole chapter is pretty much a rip off of Nielsen's work. Also, Barnum does not seem to have carefully thought through Web usability issues. For instance, when she talks about understanding the real users' needs, she summarizes the users' reasons to use the Web into three groups, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). The grouping is not only crude but also leaves out many other reasons (goals) for users to use the Web, such as entertainment, (personal, political...) expression, advocacy and mobilization, etc. These groups are so broad that I suspect that they are actually of any productive value. She may argue that reasons such as expression and advocacy can be grouped under interaction. If that's the case, I will argue that everything can be grouped under information, because ultimately the Web is information. Barnum here is a bit self-contradictory—as an advocate of designing for users' goals, and the individual needs of users, her crude grouping does seem a bit careless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)