Compete on Usability

Squeezing the User Experience

Over the weekend, I picked Bill Buxton's Sketching the User Experience off a shelf in the bookstore. As soon as I saw the pictures of orange juicers, I had to buy it. You see, to feed his morning fresh-squeezed juice habit, Buxton transitioned from a noisy electric juicer, to a functional manual juicer (left above), and finally to the epitome of fruit squeezing, an OrangeX manual juicer (right below).

Why he found the OrangeX juicer  such a pleasure to use, after declaring "usability has nothing to do with their differences," is really what design is all about to him.  Buxton, a Microsoft researcher, goes beyond ruminating on his experiences to interview the OrangeX designers.  He includes prototypes and sketches to show how the OrangeX's levered cam action smoothly produces more power at the end of the stroke, when the user needs it most. The reader is treated to similar looks at the design process of automobiles, film production, the iPod, and Trek mountain bikes.

For all its great examples and thoughtful commentary, I found a number of rough spots in Sketching the User Experience.  The body type is very small -- a strange choice for a book relating to usability. Some of his most provocative contentions are poorly sourced: I want more than a chart of Adobe's product releases before I'm willing to accept that software companies "are hopeless at the task" of developing new products after their first. Finally, Buxton expresses a suspicion of usability, treating it as the ill-favored stepchild of good design.  In my mind the two diciplines are natural allies, not binary choices as Buxton seems to believe.

Still, Sketching the User Experience is definitely worth your time. It's an excellent library choice, and possibly a good purchase, if you're as enchanted as I am by levered cam action. Some related movie clips are available on the book's website.

Why it's so difficult to provide examples of good usability

It's sometimes embarrassing not to have an immediate, good answer to a completely predictable question. What's an example of a website or product with good usability?

The classic response to many questions about usability, including this one, is "it depends." To illustrate the point, consider the pictured hands-free bathroom sink faucet. (Credit to Donald Norman's Design of Everyday Things for this example.) You may find this appliance in public buildings, and in that setting it does its job well.  It's quick and easy for hand-washers to use, and its design saves water. Since there are no controls to touch with soapy hands, the design also minimizes the need for cleaning.

However, just try brushing your teeth with one, and you'll see why you wouldn't want this faucet at home. Holding your toothbrush under the faucet doesn't always turn the water on. Not only is the on-off control optimized for washing one's hands, so is the water temperature and rate of flow. Neither can be changed. As a result, this faucet is highly usable for washing your hands but poor at other tasks, such as washing dishes or getting a cool drink of water.

So "it depends" is a perfectly valid response to the example question. It even can lead to a teachable moment, an opportunity to show people how usability depends on knowing the needs of your audience. Nevertheless, I find this answer embarrassing because it smacks of hypocrisy. It's much easier to pick on a design than it is to create or improve on one. This critic problem is true in many fields, of course.

 

Okay, then what's the solution?

Usability practitioners invest much study, time, and effort in clearly, conclusively documenting usability problems. So it can be a little shocking to deliver a carefully researched report, steel yourself for argument or denial, but instead hear the impatient response, "Okay, then, what's the solution?"

In business, you should not raise problems without a solution. Even specialized usability test engineers are likely to be asked their opinion on fixes.  At this point, however, you're stepping out of strict usability and into the creative sphere, a space you share with designers, developers, and product, among others.

Recommending a solution to usability issues is easier with training in cognitive psychology, human factors, or human-computer interaction.  With the right background, you can identify exactly what part of your audience's needs is not being met.  It's also necessary to be creative, a process not ideally suited to businesses run by the cliche, "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it." Some organizations quantify their usability tests as much as possible, but you can't always quantify possible solutions.

The old business process is changing, however. Businesses are waking up to the unique value of creative ideas and they are helping creative flow happen.  Finally, sometimes you just need to get lucky, which itself is also a process often dependent on consciously creating fortunate circumstances.

 

"Sufficient" color contrast

One of the best ways to contribute to a discussion about color in design is to establish and refer to some objective standards on color contrast. If you're confronted by light gray text on a dark gray background, don't have just another opinion.  Instead, agree on what color contrast is sufficient, and then enforce it if necessary.

If you're working on the web, the W3C suggests a formula for "sufficient" color contrast.  You can turn to a couple of online tools to avoid doing the math.

This tool complies with the W3C standards:
http://etre.com/tools/colourcheck/

The popular HP color checking tool is less strict on color difference:
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/accessibility/webaccessibility/color_tool.html

In the image below, the color contrast is less than what the W3C requires, but enough for HP.  My eyes find it a bit difficult to read, but your display and eyesight might differ.

Note that these tools show contrast levels sufficient only for people with normal vision.  If your audience includes a high proportion of people with vision deficiencies, insist on greater contrast.

Diminishing your credibility, one post at a time

Last week I mentioned my blog on a usability practitioner's email list.  Though no one criticized my blog directly, I was surprised to receive a number responses hostile to usability blogs in general.

The criticism of blogs on the email list boiled down to three main points:

1. Blogs contribute to information overload. The scenario raised in the email list was Google searches where certain blog results, with little relevant information, crowd out higher quality, research-based information.

In response I'd say this is a potential problem in any domain.  Over time, as fields become more popular and specialized, searches have to be more precise to yield the desired results. Google Scholar exists to solve this problem. (Later, one person noted that appending "-blog" to a Google search excludes blog entries from search results.)

I can't imagine an oncologist, for instance, suggesting that blogs about cancer are making it too difficult to find cancer research. It doesn't seem reasonable to hold usability blogs to a higher standard than in other disciplines. Specialized tools, or search terms, are required to find specialized information

2. Usability blogs are an echo chamber: bloggers just repeat the same points. It depends on the blog. Refer to the blogging spectrum diagram on the left. Some believe all blogs are in the top section of "linkdumps."

My blog postings fall in the middle of the spectrum, or closer to the bottom on a good day. I try to add value, and not post solely on current topics without adding my own spin.

3.  Also related to the spectrum was a third objection: usability practitioners ought to be disseminating empirical evidence, rather than commentary on topics. When not backed up by research, opinions can be harmful, giving a false impression that user experience is driven by pundits rather than objective research.

As the spectrum shows, original research is only one possible blog role.  Blogs are also for discussion, interpretation, commenting and criticizing. 

To my mind, this comment points to an insecurity in usability practitioners' minds. If we only allow ourselves to post online content that is original and backed up by research, user experience will be a poverty-stricken field indeed.  I'm very interested in the thoughts, opinions, and anecdotes of usability professionals.