TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> No, it's usability testing. All that a usability expert does in
> _conducting_ a usability test is collect a list of what you call
> "gripes"--both those reported by the test subject and those observed by
> the expert. If a particular comment appears sufficiently often, then
> it's a real problem, not just a gripe.
Geoff, this simply is incorrect. This is but a small subset of what a
usability expert *can* do, and when they do this type of thing, it's
to gain initial data from which to begin an investigation.
> The definition of usability is simple: "_I_ can use it effectively".
> Note that the "I" refers to the person intended to use the product. (If
> you're asking people who are unqualified to use the product, you're
> missing the point.) When that person can't use something effectively,
> it's less usable than it should be, and possibly even unusable.
No, you're wrong here Geoff. That may be YOUR definition, but that
certainly isn't the one that sound usability decisions stem from.
Qualified or unqualified, every person indeed has a preference. That's
all well and good, but it doesn't mean they're correct in their
preference or that it even needs to be addressed.
> Which is why my original message stated clearly that "If the way you
> work is ***broadly representative***, and you experience problems, then
> many other users will experience similar problems". Clearly, if you're
> the only one with a particular problem, then the problem is more likely
> to lie with you than the product. But not always---sometimes you're the
> power user who pushes the product until it breaks.
Who knows that they are broadly representative? How? That's a neat trick!
> Nobody ever said you could. What I said was "You don't have to be a
> usability expert! All you have to do is use the product." If the
> product is intended to be used by you, and it doesn't work well, then
> it's not usable from your perspective. If a significant number of
> others are similar to you, then it's a broadly based problem that needs
> to be fixed.
But as a technical writer, the product isn't intended to be used by
you, so if it doesn't work well, then is it still not usable?
> The interesting thing about usability analysis is that it's still a
> very immature field. Jakob Neilsen and others have repeatedly tested
> products (most recently, Web sites) based on the "best practices"
> usability heuristics espoused by recognized experts. The experts rarely
> agree on all the problems, and often disagree quite markedly, though
> there's usually considerable overlap in their judgments. The judgments,
> taken as a whole, do a good job of predicting the actual user's
> experience, but often miss key problems. This doesn't make the analysis
> useless; it just means that in the end, the only definitive judges of
> usability are the people who will use the product.
It's an immature *field* but a very mature *exercise*. And, the
definitive judges are not those who use the product, but those who see
benefit from the use of a usable product. This, in many cases, is
seldom the user.
> Note that I'm not saying that writers can be usability experts with no
> training or experience. What I am saying is that anyone who uses a
> product and pays attention will be able to detect things that simply
> don't work well. This requires no expertise whatsoever, any more than
> tripping over a poorly laid floor requires expertise.
And is no more or less useful than the griping that Andrew relates to.
> Which is why I emphasized that "simple claims won't be accepted until
> they recognize you as someone whose opinion is worth heeding". It's not
> about griping: it's about reporting something that you perceive as a
> problem, explaining clearly why it's a problem and what might be done
> to solve the problem, and justifying your case. If you can't justify
> your case, you won't win that particular battle. If all you do is
> complain, without justification or proposing a solution, you lose the
> respect necessary for them to listen to you.
Right. I don't think that there are a lot of tech writers who can do
this effectively, though. We see evidence of this behavior on this
very list daily.
ROBOHELP X5 - SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION!
RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward in Help authoring technology, featuring all new Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! View an online demo: http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
