BIB_09: Zhu, W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Evaluating Web usability. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 321-337). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

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.

BIB_08: Volk, F., & Wang, H. (2005). Understanding users: Some qualitative and quantitative methods. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 303-320). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

In this book chapter, Volk & Wang discuss four commonly used qualitative methods for what they call "requirements-gathering activities based on user characteristics, goals, and tasks" in technology design: focus groups, interviews, surveys, and contextual observations (p. 303), to provide a practical approach to user research in the early stage of the product development. The authors stress the importance of setting research goals, and categorize these goals according to the information of different aspects in the user's interaction with technology: tasks, users, environments, satisfaction, delights, and artifacts (TUESDAy). The authors then offer detailed discussions on important issues entailed in research using each of the four methods, including what research goals can these methods help to achieve, types of each method, their design, execution and data analysis, and finally, deliverables. The author conclude the chapter iterating the importance of user research in UCD.

This chapter is published in a human factor handbook, but the methods it discuss can be applied to technical communication research. In fact, these qualitative methods are very widely used in our field, and this is a practical guide to using these methods specifically to understand users. Since qualitative methods are especially useful to collect contextual data, these methods are particularly useful for projects that look at the cultural factors and usability.

BIB_07: Massanari, A. L. (2010). Designing for imaginary friends: Information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media & Society, 12(3), 401-416.

In this article, Massanari interrogates the notion of "user" in HCI and UCD discourse and three tropes commonly used: the "stupid user," the "user as victim," and the "user as co-creator" (p. 404). He associates the three tropes of the "user" with three approaches to design; the "stupid user" is an assumption of system-centered design, the "user as victim" is associated with user-centered design, and the "user as co-creator" is associated with participatory and activity-centered design. In response to the idea and practice of using personas to understand users, Massanari argues that personas are hegemonic and often reductive in nature. He also points out other researchers' work that indicates that personas cannot always effectively solve the problems of "the elastic user," "self-referential design," and "design edge cases" in the design process in practice (p. 409). In addition, the perceived non-scientific nature of personas in an organization makes it difficult to convince everyone to take them seriously. However, Massanari seems to agree that personas can serve as effective communication tools. Drawing on cultural rhetorical theory, specifically, the Marxian concept of "interpolation" and postmodern idea of "simulation," Massanari argues that personas interpolate the users into what the designers want them to be, and since the personas are simulacra of the real users, they tend to blur the distinction and create an illusion for the designers that they are designing for the real users but actually they are designing for their simulacra. In the conclusion, Massanari points out that the advance of technology and its increasing integration in our life "will likely require new approaches to user research" p. 412).

Massanari's view on personas is challenges the practice increasingly accepted and employed in the IA and technology design industry, partly as established experts such as Alan Cooper's promotion. Using personas in the design process is almost inevitably hegemonic and reductive, yet it is well received in the industry as Cooper indicates in the foreword on his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. There certainly connects to what Coppola (2005) has pointed out "a universal drive for utility [that] underlies technical communication research" (p. 263) and beyond. Massanari has briefly touched the topic of Web 2.0 technology in this article, but has not further elaborated on the idea. Nevertheless, the insight this piece offers is still valuable in the context of Web 2.0.

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.