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

Re: The simplest thing that could possibly be re-invented?

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Patton
    ... I can only agree with what s been posted so far. If there isn t a financial reason for changing the software, it s going to be a hard sell. I m hearing
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Seiden"
      <joshseiden@y...> wrote:
      >
      >> Jeff Grover wrote:
      >>
      >> ... a great deal of the usability input we get whether
      >> "evolutionary" or "revolutionary" originates from or is
      >> relative to products competing with ours or performing
      >> similar functions in some other market space.

      > The potential upside is not "innovation" for its own
      > sake, but rather a solution that better fits the
      > *specific* problem you are trying to solve.

      I can only agree with what's been posted so far. If there isn't a
      financial reason for changing the software, it's going to be a hard
      sell.

      I'm hearing that you believe a usability person might come up with
      better solutions than the "us-too" choices you see being made. No
      offense to the usability people and designers on the list - but what
      they're doing isn't so innovative - not usually. It's exactly what
      Josh has said in his post: it's correctly identifying the goals of
      the user and determining the simplest way to address those goals.
      It's just remarkable how often people don't choose to identify the
      goals of the user.

      Ok - it's really not quite that simple. You sorta need to know
      something about that user and the context of use as well. A little
      experience with a few proven approaches doesn't hurt either. But
      knowing just a little about user, goals, and context of use can go a
      long way at disqualifying "us-too" solutions. The idea isn't to
      disqualify them because they're not innovative - but to disqualify
      them because they're inapropriate... inapropriate for the goals of
      the user, their experience level and the context of use.

      Start with identifying goals first. Ask what the user's goals are
      until you get a good answer. Try the "popping the why stack"
      or "poking with the why-stick" technique. If you really know the
      goal of the feature, you often find the simplest appropriate solution
      is also the cheapest to build.

      Finally, consider trying to make a case for low cost usability
      testing. By that I mean recording users actually trying to use the
      software - using software that records the screen and the face of the
      user running it. There are inexpensive tools that could connect to a
      laptop and be set up quickly - say on a routine customer site visit.
      I've heard from several people that replays of people struggling to
      use software have at least as much political value as value in
      identifying usability problems.

      I understand that if designers aren't part of your current
      development approach, it's going to be hard to explain to folks what
      there unknown unknowns are. And, I suspect others might have
      diagnosed part of the issue correctly? Do you currently suffer from
      lack of competition and large market share? Those are terrible
      burdens on usability. ;-)

      Thanks Jeff G. for posting!

      -Jeff
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.