Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FUBU

Expand Messages
  • klancaster1957
    ... user ... the ... I have to relate a quick story here. I do QA/usability on a large project and also have an extensive background in development. I was
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 15, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Desilets, Alain" <alain.desilets@...> wrote:

      >
      > Of course, a pitfall is that the developpers might not realise that
      > these Other users are not like them... That's the "you are not the user
      > (although you may be like them in many respects)" mentra. But I would
      > think that this second mentra comes easily once you have assimilated the
      > first one.
      > ----

      I have to relate a quick story here. I do QA/usability on a large project and also have an extensive background in development. I was talking to one of the developers about an error handling web page that they were using when severe (fatal) errors occurred. It had a somewhat understandable message, followed by the file name where the error occured, the name of the Java class that was the problem, and some trace statements. The conversation went something like the following:

      Me:  "The system already knows where the error occured and can alert the support or development staff to the problem via email."

      Developer: "We need this message for the end users."

      Me: "The end users? They are not going to understand this message, are they?"

      Developer: "Yes they are. I said its for the end users - the developers!"

      Me: "Sigh"

      BTW, the scheme here was that the real end users, policemen in this case, would call support and read the exception data to the support person, who would write it down and email it to the developer.

      Keith

    • Dave Churchville
      ... for ... pretty much ... without a ... Yes, I agree with this. One thing I ve been contemplating is that maybe it isn t as much a culture shift to get from
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Jared M. Spool" <jspool@...>
        wrote:
        > Yet, the FUBU mentality really ferments a mindset that makes it hard to
        > step back and say, "Maybe we don't really know what makes sense here
        for
        > the real users."
        >
        >
        > Both the DEC and Symbolics folks I worked with created some really
        > innovative stuff. Stuff that was way ahead of what we still have today.
        > But, it was packaged in such a complex environment that it was
        pretty much
        > doomed to fail from the start.
        >
        > I don't think you can transition from FUBU to a FOBU environment
        without a
        > major culture shift. (And probably an execution or two.)

        Yes, I agree with this.

        One thing I've been contemplating is that maybe it isn't as much a
        culture shift to get from FUBU to FOBU (are we really using these
        acronyms?) as much as the presence or absence of "emotional intelligence".

        In other words, in my experience, it takes a certain kind of person to
        really empathize and therefore effective role-play what "The Users"
        are like and what they need.

        You can *intend* to empathize all day long and still not get there. I
        think it's part training, but also part brain-wiring.

        There are developers who understand "users", not just because of FUBU,
        but because they have that empathy wiring. Move them to another
        field, and they'll figure out how to ask the right questions to
        understand those users. The majority I've worked with, unfortunately,
        aren't that way.

        Bill Clinton might have been an excellent UX professional (I feel your
        pain).

        --Dave

        Dave Churchville
        http://www.extremeplanner.com
      • Desilets, Alain
        There are developers who understand users , not just because of FUBU, but because they have that empathy wiring. Move them to another field, and they ll
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          There are developers who understand "users", not just because of FUBU,
          but because they have that empathy wiring. Move them to another field,
          and they'll figure out how to ask the right questions to understand
          those users. The majority I've worked with, unfortunately, aren't that
          way.

          -- Alain:
          I think the reason why many developpers behave AS THOUGH they are
          incapable of empathising with the user, is that they are NEVER EXPOSED
          to them, and are given no information about them. How can you empathise
          with someone you have never met and of whom you know nothing?

          If I ask you to "empathise with Joe", will you be able to do it? Of
          course not! How about if I tell you that he just lost his wife in a car
          accident? It probably helps right? How about if I tell you that he has
          five kids under 10 to care for single handedly? I'm sure you feel the
          pain by now. How about if you meet Joe Bloe in person and hear his story
          directly from him? At that point, you will probably feel an urge to help
          him if you can.

          Most of the programmers I meet that work in an agile environment where
          they are directly exposed to the end user and the customer are pretty
          good at empathising with them and understanding user needs. So I think
          the reason why so many programmers behave differently is due to the
          environment they work in, not to an inherent inability to empathise.
          ----
        • Dave Churchville
          ... Well, I agree that the environment is a necessary condition, but I don t think it s sufficient. Again, this may be limited to my own experience, but having
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 16, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Desilets, Alain"
            <alain.desilets@...> wrote:
            > Most of the programmers I meet that work in an agile environment where
            > they are directly exposed to the end user and the customer are pretty
            > good at empathising with them and understanding user needs. So I think
            > the reason why so many programmers behave differently is due to the
            > environment they work in, not to an inherent inability to empathise.


            Well, I agree that the environment is a necessary condition, but I
            don't think it's sufficient. Again, this may be limited to my own
            experience, but having worked with many different types of developers
            in varied environments over 15 years or so, my perspective is that
            there's more to it than just default empathy. (Note: I am a developer
            myself, and notwithstanding some bright moments, I have suffered from
            this problem as well).

            In fact, what has happened is that many people *believe* they are
            empathizing, and they certainly do want to help the user - it's that
            for some reason they are unable to truly see the goals of the user.

            In other words, to take your example of Joe who has 10 kids, I might
            empathize with that, and say, I really want to help Joe, let's build
            an automatic diaper changer.

            In reality, Joe's main goal is to have some alone time once in a
            while, so he'd really like a babysitter.

            So empathy and understanding may not be equivalent here. I don't know
            how else to explain this, it's just my experience. Sounds like you've
            had more luck.

            --Dave

            Dave Churchville
            http://www.extremeplanner.com
          • Desilets, Alain
            In fact, what has happened is that many people *believe* they are empathizing, and they certainly do want to help the user - it s that for some reason they are
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 16, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              In fact, what has happened is that many people *believe* they are
              empathizing, and they certainly do want to help the user - it's that for
              some reason they are unable to truly see the goals of the user.

              In other words, to take your example of Joe who has 10 kids, I might
              empathize with that, and say, I really want to help Joe, let's build an
              automatic diaper changer.

              -- Alain:
              In an XP Environment, Joe would tell the developper that what he really
              needs someone to babysit his kids while he takes some time off. So the
              developper would never end up building an automatic diaper changer. He
              might think that building an automatic diaper changer would be more fun
              than babysitting, but by agreeing to work on an XP team he has accepted
              the customer's bill of rights that says the customer gets to decide
              exactly what gets built.

              Maybe what you mean by "ability to empathise" you really mean "ability
              to see the forest for the tree and interpret what the customer/user says
              and come up with innovative designs that address their core needs". If
              so, I would agree that this is a skill that UI types of people are more
              likely to possess. But even there, that stereotype is not as strong as
              you might think. I know LOTS of UI types who CAN'T see the forest for
              the trees and who get bogged down in details like wording of dialogs,
              colors, positioning etc... (and those guys aren't all "developper turned
              UI-guy by accident" types). And I also know LOTS of developpers
              (especially in the agile world) who are very good at seeing the forest
              and coming up with the
              SimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyAddressTheUser'sCoreNeeds.
              ----
            • Dave Churchville
              ... Yes, that s exactly what I mean :-) But I wasn t making a statement that UI people are better at this than developers as a rule. Or that developers are
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 16, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Desilets, Alain"
                <alain.desilets@...> wrote:
                > Maybe what you mean by "ability to empathise" you really mean "ability
                > to see the forest for the tree and interpret what the customer/user says
                > and come up with innovative designs that address their core needs". If
                > so, I would agree that this is a skill that UI types of people are more
                > likely to possess.

                Yes, that's exactly what I mean :-)

                But I wasn't making a statement that "UI people" are better at this
                than developers as a rule. Or that developers are universally bad at it.

                Rather, I think this is a relatively rare skill, in any discipline.

                Granted, an agile team is less likely to *overbuild* something
                suboptimal, and with frequent iteration and feedback may come up with
                a good solution over time. Again, I'm mainly talking about user
                interfaces and interactions.

                For example, as a long time agile practitioner, I think I've gotten
                pretty good at "forest vision", and been able to come up with simple,
                effective designs to solve core user needs.

                But I'm still amazed when I run across someone who has a gift for this
                kind of thinking, and can come up with a variety of alternatives, each
                of which is easily as good as mine at solving the problem.

                Again, I just think that's rare. Doesn't mean my solutions aren't
                "good enough", but there's another level possible.

                --Dave

                Dave Churchville
                http://www.extremeplanner.com
              • Desilets, Alain
                But I wasn t making a statement that UI people are better at this than developers as a rule. Or that developers are universally bad at it. -- Alain: No
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 16, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  But I wasn't making a statement that "UI people" are better at this than
                  developers as a rule. Or that developers are universally bad at it.

                  -- Alain:
                  No worries. My buttons are pretty easy to push when it comes to
                  stereotypes about developpers.
                  ----
                • Jon Kern
                  ... able to ... I am not so sure... (except for the might part) I would surmise the reason FUBU is easy for technical products is because of the intense
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I think if you have written good FUBU software, you might be
                    able to
                    >write decent FOBU (For Others, By Us) software also, because you are

                    I am not so sure... (except for the "might" part)

                    I would surmise the reason FUBU is easy for technical products is because of the intense familiarity with
                        - the domain
                        - the user tasks
                        - the end user needs

                    Having worked with the brilliant TogetherSoft development team, the tool was FUBU in the early days and very well done.

                    As the feature list expanded to strange things like EJBs, the usability began to wane. The developers read the J2EE specs and technically did things correctly. But, since they had no idea what a J2EE developer needed -- though they expected they knew what was needed, this part of the tool fell short.
                    -- jon
                    
                    


                    Desilets, Alain said the following on 2/15/2006 3:54 PM:
                    So, what's my point?  I have none - at least no big point.  Just
                    these observations: developers often design good software for
                    developers: FUBU.  Other often design pretty good software for their
                    own use: FUBU.  Doing so can lead one to the false sense of belief
                    that design is easy - and you can do it for anyone, or anyone else
                    can do it for themselves: self-centered design.

                    comments invited, and thanks for listening/reading. 
                    [I really should get a blog and stop using this list as one.  ;-) ]

                    -- Alain:
                    I think if you have written good FUBU software, you might be able to
                    write decent FOBU (For Others, By Us) software also, because you are
                    already in the right frame of mind. In other words, you paid a lot of
                    attention to yourself as an end user, so you will probably pay
                    atttention to those Others as end users. In my view, once your whole
                    team has assimilated the "pay attention to the end user" mentra, you are
                    80% of the way there.

                    Of course, a pitfall is that the developpers might not realise that
                    these Other users are not like them... That's the "you are not the user
                    (although you may be like them in many respects)" mentra. But I would
                    think that this second mentra comes easily once you have assimilated the
                    first one.
                    ----
                  • Jon Kern
                    ...and I thought I did a good job... http://blogs.compuware.com/cs/blogs/jkern/archive/2006/02/23/mastering_a_skill.aspx -- jon
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 24, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.