Where do the usabilityists live?
That is the crux of the question regarding this forum. The question turned out to be so voluminous that it stopped being placed in the question of the QA section, and turned into (one more) journalistic article. One more - because there are already enough articles, they are read and speak well of them (but the benefits are not that). At the same time, for some reason it is impossible to reach the circle of usabilityists (after all, they must be on such and such a resource) so that what we are going to do here is organized - to get new knowledge and new solutions for web development.
(Perhaps the problem is that so many readers expect to get ready-made solutions, and not take part in the discussion?)
So, there is a development, a public one, aimed at solving a socially useful goal (where it is still to be discussed, if not in the society of direct professionals). There are examples of living examples. But for some reason it is impossible to reach the circle of usblists who deal with similar problems for several months. After all, they should be, at least a few for the whole Russian Internet and Russian-speaking foreign countries. A couple of times the question was raised in the comments, with illustrations ( 1 , 2 ), in the discussion thread of feature articles. Not once did the discussion go to a single person who could give a full assessment leading to new ideas. Any discussion (and last , including) comes down to an assessment of ālike it - dislike itā.
Especially impressive last . The concept is stated, the tool of work is given, look and participate. Results - the topic is confidently drowned in the minuses of the conservatives, for whom it is not intended, but there are almost no real specialists (I saw one comment in the commentary that he would do this). At the very beginning, from the first words it is written: "An article for web designers and usabilityists ...". Article for web designers and usabilityists. To protect yourself from consumers, it is necessary to hide ideas behind pseudo-scientific reasoning?
')
But let me, why the physicists, almost unnecessary for anyone, the hadron collider does not receive a lot of negative evaluations ādo not likeā, and usability schemes, over which you have to work, receive? Or am I really asking questions at all? Or do not put in the form of inaccessible science?
Speaking of science.
If you look at how other usabilityists and other public scientists are promoting themselves, for example, psychologists (or Louis Pasteur in microbiology in the 19th century), you can come to some interesting conclusions. Jacob Nielsen. He systematically promotes himself and his ideas, starting with raising layers of users who cannot but agree and invariably vote for the article āfor!ā. First - articles about the horrors of the ancient layout, then another and another, until the foundation is cleared for new constructions. Then careful promotion of other, but quite obvious ideas, with which the majority also cannot agree. We see a similar path in Lebedev. A long, long journey of self-assertion and demonstration of common sense.
Psychologists. To begin to talk about obvious things such as how to behave in society, you need to make science out of the subject. Introduce 20 thousand French (mostly) terms, refer to the works of the founders, show extraordinary erudition and a bright mind. Finally, they begin to believe, listen, finance and pay, inviting them to solve personal problems. Resonating on social issues finally gets its profit. A similar way of becoming a science can also be seen by astrologers, occultists, although this is āa littleā different.
So, we see that the normal way for you to be heard is to light up a science-like value in society, choosing often distant approaches for the siege of a fortress, and the goals may be completely different.
Our goals are quite practical. Practical usability and user experience is required to build better than it is, than we see in the mass of forums and here in particular. A normal scientific, research approach is required, and not a ālike-dislikeā vote. It does not require a ladder of journalistic articles from afar, like Jacob Nielsen. No science is required, so we do not do it. I offer working tools on CSS and JS, which can be touched and drawn conclusions, and in response, they say, "I like it - I don't like it." Moreover, the second - at least - twice as much, so an attempt to go on to discuss usability issues regularly, for the second time, is pushed down by a mass of users who are counting on a tasty piece of bread, and not a piece of metal that needs to be cut.
In other words, the discussion of working projects comes up against drowning them in the negative opinion of the majority. Therefore, the question posed in the headline arose - where do the usabilityists who can perceive and who work with these ideas and tools live? How to protect yourself from the flow of users? Chyadt and Chyadt? The answer is roughly outlined by the same reasoning, but I do not like this approach. Building a name for yourself is a long and unrelated process. I would like to get a working environment where working tools are discussed. āMake a candy, and we will evaluateā is also not a question. This should be a result that could be built by joint efforts. In addition, you must first know the interests of the group concerned. Interested users may simply not be, this is the law formulated by Ford when he was making the car.
So where do the usabilityists live? Participation in the development of ideas for the tree forum usability is required.
(Perhaps the problem is that so many readers expect to get ready-made solutions, and not take part in the discussion?)
So, there is a development, a public one, aimed at solving a socially useful goal (where it is still to be discussed, if not in the society of direct professionals). There are examples of living examples. But for some reason it is impossible to reach the circle of usblists who deal with similar problems for several months. After all, they should be, at least a few for the whole Russian Internet and Russian-speaking foreign countries. A couple of times the question was raised in the comments, with illustrations ( 1 , 2 ), in the discussion thread of feature articles. Not once did the discussion go to a single person who could give a full assessment leading to new ideas. Any discussion (and last , including) comes down to an assessment of ālike it - dislike itā.
Especially impressive last . The concept is stated, the tool of work is given, look and participate. Results - the topic is confidently drowned in the minuses of the conservatives, for whom it is not intended, but there are almost no real specialists (I saw one comment in the commentary that he would do this). At the very beginning, from the first words it is written: "An article for web designers and usabilityists ...". Article for web designers and usabilityists. To protect yourself from consumers, it is necessary to hide ideas behind pseudo-scientific reasoning?
')
But let me, why the physicists, almost unnecessary for anyone, the hadron collider does not receive a lot of negative evaluations ādo not likeā, and usability schemes, over which you have to work, receive? Or am I really asking questions at all? Or do not put in the form of inaccessible science?
Speaking of science.
If you look at how other usabilityists and other public scientists are promoting themselves, for example, psychologists (or Louis Pasteur in microbiology in the 19th century), you can come to some interesting conclusions. Jacob Nielsen. He systematically promotes himself and his ideas, starting with raising layers of users who cannot but agree and invariably vote for the article āfor!ā. First - articles about the horrors of the ancient layout, then another and another, until the foundation is cleared for new constructions. Then careful promotion of other, but quite obvious ideas, with which the majority also cannot agree. We see a similar path in Lebedev. A long, long journey of self-assertion and demonstration of common sense.
Psychologists. To begin to talk about obvious things such as how to behave in society, you need to make science out of the subject. Introduce 20 thousand French (mostly) terms, refer to the works of the founders, show extraordinary erudition and a bright mind. Finally, they begin to believe, listen, finance and pay, inviting them to solve personal problems. Resonating on social issues finally gets its profit. A similar way of becoming a science can also be seen by astrologers, occultists, although this is āa littleā different.
So, we see that the normal way for you to be heard is to light up a science-like value in society, choosing often distant approaches for the siege of a fortress, and the goals may be completely different.
Our goals are quite practical. Practical usability and user experience is required to build better than it is, than we see in the mass of forums and here in particular. A normal scientific, research approach is required, and not a ālike-dislikeā vote. It does not require a ladder of journalistic articles from afar, like Jacob Nielsen. No science is required, so we do not do it. I offer working tools on CSS and JS, which can be touched and drawn conclusions, and in response, they say, "I like it - I don't like it." Moreover, the second - at least - twice as much, so an attempt to go on to discuss usability issues regularly, for the second time, is pushed down by a mass of users who are counting on a tasty piece of bread, and not a piece of metal that needs to be cut.
In other words, the discussion of working projects comes up against drowning them in the negative opinion of the majority. Therefore, the question posed in the headline arose - where do the usabilityists who can perceive and who work with these ideas and tools live? How to protect yourself from the flow of users? Chyadt and Chyadt? The answer is roughly outlined by the same reasoning, but I do not like this approach. Building a name for yourself is a long and unrelated process. I would like to get a working environment where working tools are discussed. āMake a candy, and we will evaluateā is also not a question. This should be a result that could be built by joint efforts. In addition, you must first know the interests of the group concerned. Interested users may simply not be, this is the law formulated by Ford when he was making the car.
So where do the usabilityists live? Participation in the development of ideas for the tree forum usability is required.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/131669/
All Articles