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:

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.

BIB_04: Farkas, D., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York: Longman.

Among literally hundreds of Web design books, Farka & Farka's book primarily targets an academic audience and as its title suggests, focuses on principle issues in Web design rather than detailed instructions. The book starts with a chapter that offers an overview of the Web and Web design -- theory, key concepts, genres, and history. The following two chapters are based on the process of Web development, from planning, designing and budgeting, to Web building. The authors also talk about how to put together a competitive team and the roles of each team members. Because of the multimedia nature of the Web, the authors devote a chapter specifically to content development, discussing what content format to choose and how to use them effectively. Then they move on to a discussion about the social implications and ethical concerns in Web design, which covers important issues such as accessibility, safety, and control of information. Chapter six to nine are devoted to information architecture and navigation, in which the authors talks about the theoretical foundation of information design on the Web -- hypermedia theory -- and some very practical strategies of designing information and navigation such as designing the navigational interface and effective links. The next two chapters focus on the how to develop content for Web sites. Specifically, the author cover both writing for the Web and graphic design. In the last chapter, the authors come back to the topic of information design, and discuss the organizational strategies other than the hierarchical organization, which is the most used organization on the Web.

Farka and Farka's textbook is a useful book for perhaps technical communication graduate students because of its firm grip on Web theory. They authors bring on the table some important issues a responsible designer must consider such as the ethics of design. However, if the audience wants to learn more practical strategies of Web design, this book might not the be best choice. Besides, published in 2002, the book is a bit following behind today's technologies. Apart from the text dominant black & white format without many visual examples, the most noticeable issue is that the authors regard Web sites primarily as documents, rather than platforms of user interaction (although they have mentioned briefly that some Web sites are "online computing environments"). This may be true ten years ago, but we have seen Web sites increasingly merging with applications in the past five years or so. Therefore, contemporary Web design must have new concerns that accommodate these new changes.

RR_04: Farkas, D., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York: Longman.

As the title of the book suggests, Farkas and Farkas are primarily concerned with the principles of Web design. This suggests that this book is a guiding overview of Web design, but at the same time, inevitably lacks the details and depth of any of the aspects of Web design it covers. The focus on principles also explains the theoretical priority of the book. Although the authors have devoted chapters to talk about the application of these principles in the process of Web development, they did not put as much effort into providing examples to show the audience how to do it. As to the theory, the authors cover fairly extensively the issues and consideration concerning Web design at their time. However, an eight-year old book on the Web is inevitable outdated, not in the sense that what the authors discuss is irrelevant to today's technological and social context, but that these principles are no long adequate for successful Web design today. New understanding of the Web and design principles are needed to accommodate the new technological and social changes.

The authors rely on hypermedia theory to understand the Web. However, hypermedia theory, which perceive the Web as a network of nods and links, is no longer adequate in understanding today's Web, or Web 2.0 so to speak. Instead of linked nods, the Web perhaps should be understood today more accurately as databases and the user interfaces (which are not just the screen, but everything involved in user's interaction with the databases). What I mean by database is different from, say, Manovich's notion of database. In The Language of New Media, Manovich argues that the “key form of expression” of new media is database as opposed to the traditionally dominant narrative (p. 194). He argues that:

Many new media objects do not tell stories; they don't have beginning or end; in fact, they don't have any development, thematically, formally or otherwise which would organize their elements into a sequence. Instead, they are collections of individual items, where every item has the same significance as any other. (p. 194)

In this sense, Manovich's (2001) understanding of database agrees with Farkas and Farkas' hypermedia theory, which regards the Web as a network of linked nods that (1) is structured (and often in hierarchical structure) and (2) allows users to navigate from one nod to another with certain freedom (which means a void of “master” or “authoritative” narrative). Manovich's database consists of linked “objects” and Farkas and Farkas's Web consists of linked “nods.” Although an “object” can be any element of information in all kinds of forms, and a “nod” is “a substantial chunk of digital content" (which often but not necessarily is a Web page) (Farkas & Farkas, 2002, p. 126), Manovich and Farkas and Farkas use these concepts and the collection of them (database and the Web) respectively to emphasize the non-linear and variable nature that is a break from the more traditional media such as print and film. In other words, hypermedia theory and Monovich's new media theory both emphasize on the freedom on the part of the audience (the user) to construct her/his narrative.

However, neither hypermedia theory nor new media theory can adequately account for the Web today. For instance, emphasis on the freedom of the user/audience in both theories regards only to reception of information. Farkas and Farkas analogize a Web site as a “lecturer” and the user as “the sole member of the audience” (p. 132). The user's power over the system primarily comes from her/his choice or preference of what information to receive. This view is based on their view that “ most websites are first and foremost information environments rather than environments for online computing” (p. 133). In other words, Farkas and Farkas's understanding of Web sites still stays at the document metaphor stage. This view implies a rather static understanding of the Web as hyper linked information environment.

Interestingly, Farkas and Farkas's views on the user and the Web are more or less shared by Manovich as he writes that databases “appear as collections of items on which the user can perform various operations: view, navigate, search” (p. 194). Not surprisingly, Manovich marvels this power of user compared to the audience of earlier media: “The user experience of such computerized collections is therefore quite distinct from reading a narrative or watching a film or navigating an architectural site” (p. 194). These views, however, do not account for the user's more active role in Web reality today. The authors may be able to explain how the user's ability to search for information affects the reality she/he is presented via the Web or new media (two different concepts; I'm not meshing them together as one). However, their theories cannot explain how individual user's search behavior affect the information she/he receive in the future or how users' search record/data affect how information is structured on the Web and, further, what the Web is becoming.

One characteristic of the Web today that authors in the early 2000's like Farkas and Farkas or Manovich were not able to clearly see (because of the technological and social constraint at the time) is the radical separation of the structure/system and the content/data. To Farkas and Farkas, for instance, a nod is both data and part of the system. However, the contemporary Web, or Web 2.0 does not work like that. Web sites are built increasingly using database and Web-based applications based on technologies such as JavaScript/Ajax. The understanding of the Web functioning as databases (not in Manovich's sense) and interfaces (which including Web-based applications that enable users to interact with the databases), however, recognize this separation, and thus provide a better lens to understanding how the Web operates today, which will serve as a basis for principles of Web design.

To be fair, Farkas and Farkas have dedicated one chapter to Web sites as online computing environments, which is more relevant to today's Web 2.0. However, the discussion is very general—no more than a few “guidelines.” Also, some of their recommendations, such as refraining from plug-in programs, should be rethought given the new technological development and users' increasing comfort level with technologies.

One point Farkas Farkas have made may deserve more attention in today's highly automated Web environment. That is their concern about power and information. They warn the readers when they talk about the “adaptive” systems such as the customized home page Yahoo's provide:

Although there is great potential in adaptive linking, it is not easy for adaptive systems to draw correct inferences about human behavior and information needs. [...] Finally, citizens must be vigilant about allowing governments, corporations, and other organizations to manage and filter the information we get over the Web. (p. 214)

Perhaps even more dangerous than the monopolization of traditional media, the monopolization of the Web—a few corporations such as Google and Facebook—means the concentration of power of control over not only information to be disseminated but also of the data collected automatically about every Internet user. If Foucault is right in saying that the control of personal information is a means to control the population, then we are indeed entering a time when possibility of control is, although invisible, evermore pervasive.


References

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

BIB_03: Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things (1st Basic paperback. ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Informed by psychology and industrial design, Norman's book explains the user's psychology when she/he uses everyday things from tea kettles to computers, and proposes user-centered design guidelines that can improve the product's usability and enhance user experience. Norman starts the book with an analysis of the psychology of everyday actions, and proposes a analytical model the "Seven Stages of Action" to explain how people do things. He points out that problems of use (usability issues) rise when the gulfs of execution and evaluation occur. Norman further explains how people learn about the world and how memory works. Based on these understandings, Norman uses the notion of "conceptual model" and related dimensions of "affordance," "mapping" and "constraint" to argue for a usability guideline that focuses on designing the correct conceptual model and attends to visibility. In the section that follows, Norman discusses the reasons for errors and how sensible design can reduce errors. Norman wraps the book up with a summary of the guidelines for good design.

Norman's book is very readable with ample examples. Although these examples are quite old--the book first published in 1988--they still are able to illustrate the intended points well. Norman's insightful understanding of design makes his theory applicable to a wide range of products. Precisely because of the very basic and fundamental understanding of design and usability, Norman's frameworks and models are still useful in the new technological context we are in today. I found the framework of the seven stages of action, the conceptual model, and especially the dimensions of affordance, mapping, and constraint productive frameworks for my research on Web 2.0 and cultural usability.

RR_03: Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things (1st Basic paperback. ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Norman's book is perhaps one of the most widely cited books in usability and human-computer interaction literature. With a foot in psychology, Norman explains the user's cognitive process as she/he interacts with technology in daily life, which Norman use to informs a user-centered design approach to design things from tea kettles to computers that can be easily used by the user. One reason for this book's success is that Norman explains in an understandable layperson's language the complexity of the interaction between human beings and the world, and provides many important basic concepts, frameworks, and principles that can be used to lay down a theoretical foundation for UCD. I'll discuss a few of them that relate to cultural Web usability and design.

First of all, Norman uses a model called “seven stages of action” to explain how human beings interact with the physical world (p. 48):

1. Forming the goal
2. Forming the intention
3. Specifying an action
4. Executing the action
5. Perceiving the state of the world
6. Interpreting the state of the world
7. Evaluating the outcome

The Seven Stages of Action

The “seven stages of action” has several implications to design and usability. First of all, it implies a goal-oriented usability design, which is very different from the task-oriented approach. Norman points out the difference between goals and tasks, which is often neglected by programmers and usability experts, according to Alan Cooper. Norman explains the relationship between goals and intentions below:

Goals do not state precisely what to do—where and how to move, what to pick up. To lead to actions goals must be transformed into specific statements of what is to be done, statements that I call intentions. A goal is something to be achieved, often vaguely stated. An intention is a specific action taken to get to the goal. (p. 46)

Here what Norman calls “intention” is what Cooper, among others, would call “task.” Good design should not design for tasks, but goals. Only focusing on tasks, designers or usability experts may lose the sight of what goals the user wants to achieve through these tasks. However, very often usability studies focus on testing how well the IT product, be it an application or a Web site, can afford the user's successful completion of tasks, rather than understanding how well the product can help the user achieve her/his goals. (Further discussion on the categorization of goals and goal-oriented design will follow later in my response to Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum.) In Norman's “seven stages of action,” the goal is put in an initiating position that guides the execution and evaluation of the action. Based on this understanding, usability research should start from the goals, instead of from the tasks. The first question to ask should be “What does the user wants to accomplish to make her/his life better?” rather than “(How fast) can the user complete task X?”

The goal-oriented approach in Web design and usability studies will be very useful when it comes to look at Web sites in various cultures. This is because people who have different values may want/need different things in their lives, and thus have different goals to achieve when using the Web. Therefore, by only testing the performance on completing pre-selected tasks, researchers already have made assumptions about the users' goals, and thus may miss out important and rich data that will tell us more about the users and what they expect for the technologies to fit in their lives.

Another implication of Norman's “seven stages of action” to cultural usability is that throughout every stage, the user's cultural background and the cultural context of the action are necessarily factors that affect the outcomes—the user's perception of the world, her/his choice of action, and her/his evaluation of the action, etc. Recognizing the complexity that the cultural contexts contributes to user's interaction with the world through technologies is crucial to designing IT products that benefits the users in world where cultural diverse is increasingly valued.

In his book, Norman also uses the framework of conceptual model and system image to explain how human beings interact with a device and why the design of the interface is critical. Norman defines he conceptual model as a model formed mentally of a device to “simulate its operation” (p. 12). The conceptual model consists of the design model, “the conceptualization that the designer has in mind” (p. 189), and the user's model, the user's “mental model developed through interaction with the system” (p. 16) and to “explain the operation of the system” (p. 189). Norman argues that “[i]deally, the user's model and the design model are equivalent” (p. 190). In other words, the user's model needs to match the design model for the user to properly use the system. However, this is not always the case in practice when the user's model and the design model mismatch. The breakdown, according to Norman, often happens in the system image, which is the link between the user's model and the design model. Because “the user and designer communicate only through the system itself: its physical appearance, its operation, the way it responds, and the manuals and instructions that accompany it” (p. 190), the design of the physical appearance, i.e., the interface, is crucial to user's interaction with the system.

Conceptual model is a very important concept in Norman's work. In fact, he argues that the two fundamental “principles of design for understandability and usability” are “(1) provide a good conceptual model and (2) make things visible” (p. 13). At a closer look, the two principles of design for usability are closely related if not overlapping, for to provide a good conceptual model, the design has to offer an accurate system image, which relies on the visible physical structure of the device, and a system that sends feedback to the user constantly so that the users will know what's going on. The importance of the conceptual model and visibility leads us to a discussion about affordances, constraints, and mappings, three qualities of technologies expressed through the visible structure of the system that communicate to the user the “clues to how things work” (p. 12).

Affordance, constraints and mappings are three important concepts that can be used to evaluate usability of technologies. Affordance is “the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used” (p. 9). Constraints are forces that control the permissible choices of actions can be taken with a product. Norman classifies constraints into physical, semantic, cultural, and logical constraints (pp. 84-86). Finally, mapping describes the relationship between “the controls and their movements and the results in the world” (p. 23). Norman especially emphasizes on the importance of natural mapping in design, which means “taking advantage of physical analogies and cultural standards, leads to immediate understanding” (p. 23).

These concepts are especially important to understanding usability for Web 2.0, for which the traditional usability guidelines have become inadequate. They can serve as a useful framework to guide the exploration of new usability criteria and issues for Web 2.0. The framework can help us examine the interaction between the user and Web 2.0 from the more fundamental goal-oriented perspective, and allow us to go beyond the scope of the older version of the Web and look at the Web with a fresh eye. I'll give a simple example. One difference between Web 2.0 and the older version, let's just call it Web 1.0 for convenience, is that Web 2.0 connects Web sites, applications, and users in a remarkable more extensive way than Web 1.0. As Bill Wolff and his colleagues in their article “Rethinking Usability for Web 2.0 and Beyond” point out, this interconnectedness poses new usability problems. One of them is related to sharing: “Whose responsibility is it to ensure the usability and functionality of each share on each page?” This is a emergent usability issue that is not addressed in traditional Web usability research and guidelines. However, through the lens of constraints, we can speak of a usability that takes account and even takes advantage of this constraint for Web 2.0.

To summarize, I will argue that precisely because of the very fundamental nature of Norman's work, it will be very useful in the usability research in a new Web environment of today.

References

Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.

Wolff, W. I., Fitzpatrick, K., & Youssef, R. (2009). Rethinking usability for Web 2.0 and beyond. Currents in Electronic Literacy, (John Slatin Memorial Issue). Retrieved from http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2009WolffFitzpatrickYoussef

RR_02: Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web usability. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.

Nielsen and Loranger's book is perhaps one of the most well researched and comprehensive Web usability on the market. The information delivered in the book—both the discovery of users' behaviors and the guidelines for Web usability design—is very useful. For instance, the severity scores of the usability problems draw attention to the careful design for better search, findability (IA, category names, navigation, links), page design (readability, layout, graphics, amateur, scrolling), and information (content, product info, corporate info, prices) (p. 131). Despite that the book is both a market success and a useful reference for designers, there are a few issues with the book that need to be addressed.

Continuing the point of severity, I found the concept of “severity” not a very useful attribute because of its complexity. According to Nielsen, the severity of a usability problem is determined by its frequency, impact, and persistence (p. 125). The calculation of the severity score based on the scores of the three attributes (rated on a 10-point scale) is to “multiply the frequency rating by the impact rating, then multiply that number by the square root of the persistence rating and divide that by the square root of 10” (p. 123). Granted that factoring in three attributes and comes up with a single score of severity is a very attractive idea and is useful to a certain extent (such as to give an overall idea of what are the most severe areas of usability problems as the authors have done), I do not think this score can be of practical use when guiding the design, because the three attributes, frequency, impact, and persistence really describe different aspects of a problem and need to be considered holistically in a real situation when a designer or a usability specialist are trying do decide which problems are to be fixed under the specific financial, technological, and personnel conditions. In other words, in a real design situation, using a single value to determine what usability problems should be prioritized is problematic. In fact, the authors surely understand the messiness of the prioritizing usability problems in a practice. Nielsen and Loranger have pointed out that severity should not be the only factor when making the decision of what problems to fix: “when enough little irritations add up to a bad user experience, people are likely to leave and not return” (p. 132). However, they failed to offer a better method of application of their data. In fact, providing a discussion of how to consider and balance the treatment of problems based on the three attribute rather than simply meshing them together into one single attribute will be more helpful in a practical situation.

Another issue with the book is related to cultural usability and Web localization. Although the authors claim that their research is based on testing with users from all over the world, the guidelines still fail to address possible cultural differences in Web usability design. In fact, the guidelines are more suitable for cultures of, using Hofstede's and Hall's cultural categories, high individualism, low power distance, high masculinity, and low-context, characteristics of the U.S. (see Singh & Pereira, 2005).

For instance, when analyzing a Web site with “high-severity usability problem,” the authors write, “The problem on this bank's "About Us" page is that it does not tell enough to establish trust and credibility. Yes, the bank says that it is a "home of traditional banking," but it doesn't back that up with facts such as when the bank was founded, how many branches it has, how solid it is, or any other specific information that would make you feel comfortable handing your money over to it” (p. 127). What the authors have pointed out is surely a usability problem. However, some would argue that this problem is considered more severe in the U.S., a masculine, highly individualist culture, and low-contextual, where statistics and facts are highly valued, than in more feminine, collective culture, and high-contextual, where community and family are valued more than hard numbers. The language on the Web site such as “take advantage of nearly 150 years of banking experience,” and “We're proud of our history of helping thousands of families and individuals to save money, buy homes, plan for a wedding or college education, prepare for retirement, and to make banking—and everyday life—easier and more convenient” is very appealing to an audience that values community and family. The images of seniors and a middle-aged couple are also appealing to a high-contextual culture. On the other hand, the problem with the lack of specific statistics might not be a huge problem in high-contextual cultures. In fact, according to Singh & Pereira, politeness and indirectness are highly valued in high-contextual cultures, and “the use of indirect words like 'perhaps,' 'probably,' and 'somewhat'” can emphasize the politeness on Web sites in these cultures (p. 145). Throughout the book, issues of cultural specificity have never been brought up, which is a disappointment.

This problem can be seen as part of an larger issue with this book, namely the logocentric tendency that noted by scholars concerned with the importance of context in usability. As Sun (2004) has pointed out in his dissertation Expending the Scope of Localization: “Nielsen’s view of usability attends to issues within a narrow scope: Contextual factors such as social and cultural aspects are detached from the use of product functionality. This view favors the system and defines usability as attributes measured by quantitative methods” (p. 37). This tendency can be seen throughout the book. For instance, the extensive use of statistics, and the emphasis on directness, efficiency, and simplicity. These characteristics are not necessarily bad things—quite on the contrary, they add much strength to the book—but not recognizing the complexity of contexts is a weakness in the book.

Along the same line, the book emphasizes on e-Commerce and business Web sites more than anything else. Although the authors also mention Web sites such as hospital and government Web sites, their emphasis on business makes usability seem limited to retaining users and “converting” them from users into consumers. At the Computer and Writing 2010 conference, researchers Michele Simmons (Miami University) and Meredith Zoetewey (University of South Florida) presented their research on usability of civic engagement. In their presentation, they pointed out the limitation of Nielsen's usability that is primarily for businesses, and argued that for civic Web sites, simple and fast information design could not meet the requirements of citizens who sought more complex, complete, and comprehensive information. They proposed that Nielsen's guidelines of usability should be revised for civic Web site. I completely agree with them, and want to add that this is also true with educational Web sites, where certain challenge for users/students should be part of the design.

The last point I want to make is that the book, although updated from its 1994 version, lacks a discussion on the usability in Web 2.0 environment that has been becoming the Web itself. The only place where the authors mentioned Web 2.0 is in the preface when they talk about the fact that their usability guidelines do not apply to teens' MySpace profile page design. I agree with them on this point, but there is more to Web sites and applications such as MySpace, RSS, Facebook, Wiki, Twitter, YouTube and many others which are called by some Web 2.0 Web sites/applications. I will discuss Web 2.0 with more depth in later posts. The point is, published in 2006, one would assume that this book would mention at least some aspects of the Web we have today, but it seems the Nielsen and Loranger still stay in the e-Commerce era.

References

Singh, N., & Pereira, A. (2005). The culturally customized Web site. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.