In this article, David Dick tells us that "employees are not representative of actual users," encouraging us to let our audience dictate how we present information, rather than us--the soon-to-be-experts.
Carol M. Barnum's "What's in a Number?" examines the Magic Number 5 as applied to usability testing, and her observation that in both of the web studies she analyzed, "the user profile was not clearly defined, resulting in users with, perhaps, widely varying levels of experience."
So I'm left wondering how our class usability testing is going to work out, especially considering we all come from such different backgrounds and have different interests. Are the 5 E's of Usability standards that everyone will be able to pick up on, or do we need to tailor everything specifically to our audience?
This issue came up in both the proposal process and in the card-sorting exercise. I'm designing a band website and thought of using "Merch" as a label for a potential online store. In the rock and roll nomenclature, "Merch" is short for merchandise: stickers, buttons, t-shirts, etc. And when crafting this website, labeling it as a "Store" risks sounding corporate and out of the loop. I realize this is more of a labeling issue, but it applies to the overall usability of the site.
And so I'm left with "usability" acting as this catch-all phrase like "information architecture" -- essentially: "how easy is it to find stuff?" I realize this sets me at odds with Quesenbery and her 4-part meaning of usability . . .
I'm sorry to go on about this, but the more I read about usability/IA, the less likely I am to want to push the envelope and innovate. Anyone else feel this way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hey John, Yes, I feel the same. I was going to change a "label" in the Reavis newsletter online from "Alumni Doings" to "Alumni Up-Tos," or something else. I was trying to devise something catchy, but I figured I'd better stick with tradition here, because people--not only the alumni, but also the department--are surely used to certain expectations. I don't know, however; I'd tend to go with "Merch" if I were you. Thanks for the great links!
Hey John,
I can completely relate as I am doing a band website as well. I'm constantly trying to balance between the catchy and creative and language that is universally accessible; often, the two seem almost mutually exclusive. I find I am erring on the side of caution, often at the expense of creativity. Some of this may be due to the artificial audience (our class) which we are addressing. That isn't meant as a slight to our classmates or professors, but I'm sure we don't worry about all of the technical and professional writers out there that are potential real-world users, and nor do the bands we represent!
John B.,
You brought up some good questions.
I would go with "Merch" because of your true intended audience. That way, when we do usability testing of our sites in class, you can get feedback on your choice. You may get a perspective that you had never considered which may cause you to tweak it a bit. On the other hand, you may have good reasons (as you shared here) for keeping the label, and you'll be able to make your point during your final project presentation.
Looking forward to seeing your site!
I agree, usability testing by potential users can really help you make sure your creative ideas work like Merch would. Since we've all got target audiences maybe we should let our classmate testors know who they should be as an audience.
I'd say to see if there is any imagery that you can pair with your innovative labels that make them clearer to the audience. If somewhere in the logo for Merch, you incorporated something that made it clear you were talking about merchandise-- like if it looked like it were a bumpersticker, or a button, etc.-- or maybe if it just had some of that stuff in with the letters. Does that make any sense? I think that goes the same for any labeling-- don't discount the power of visual rhetoric. (cue the evil laughter!)
Post a Comment