Usability as opium for people
The word "Usability" stirs the minds. Here and there you can hear "non-usable", there are many recommendations on the topic of improving the usability of resources, many adherents of the usability cult, many young future usabilityists. The word is shrouded in veil of mystery . Mystical knowledge about how to do usability, they want to get more and more people. There are questions about how to sell usability, how to implement usability, how to use usability.
I have other questions. What is usability, how to touch it? What to measure usability? How to verify value judgments “usable and non-usable” in addition to testing the results for respondents? Where in the design process is the usability phase? Why the best of the books on usability I have read does not use this term and is called “Web Design”? Here I will try to answer them, at the same time turning everything upside down. Or vice versa.
Russian language is rich in concepts. Nevertheless, we carry terms from the English language, produce tracing paper, and then we suffer with it. For example, what is design? This development, design, design, drawing, modeling and even the development of the plan and sample products. The English-speaking population of the planet can only regret. But it is doubly sorry for those who ignore all this multitude of naming, using tracing paper “design” in Russian. With usability - the same terminological trap.
')
In an attempt to translate the term into Russian, a number of freaks were born, such as “usability” or “usability”. These terms are good in that they do not mean anything objective, are not measured in anything and therefore do not affect the halo of mystery around a fashionable term. While in the Russian language, such concepts as “operational suitability” and “ operational properties ” have long been firmly established.
Frustration and indignation will be my answer, no doubt. Where is the mystic, where is the magic? It's not about that at all, is it? Not true. Unlike usability, with the operational properties of the product can work both quantitatively and qualitatively. And, damn it, everyone understands what it is. It is enough to compare the results of the issue on the query “operational properties” and the query “usability” in order to understand the abyss of specifics separating these materials.
The biggest catch here is, of course, a commercial one. Mystical knowledge is expensive. Yes, the sensible majority does not use the services of psychics, but their services are still in demand, there is a market. So, the mystery of usability is who to sell. And work to improve performance properties must be confirmed by the result. Unlike the services of a psychic, who can be mistaken if the customer has bad karma. I can’t help here with anything, as a person related to selling my services, I make a moral choice in favor of technology, not charlatanry .
So what does development on the basis of operational properties mean? For me, it is obvious that usability in this sense is the ideology of the development process. This is not a stage that an external expert can take on, as well as quality-based development or knowledge-based development. At each stage of development, these are not even methods and practices, they are fixation for specific purposes.
1. At the requirements gathering stage, this means that we pay maximum attention to user expectations. Functional saturation of the application interests us less than the goals and objectives of the user, how to achieve them. Any idea about adding a function goes through the Procrustean bed of questions “for whom” and “why”. The necessary and sufficient list of functionality is determined only by the operational characteristics of the system. We push the customer with his ideas about useful ticks as far as we can, leaving behind him the definition of the target audience of the product and business objectives.
2. At the system design stage , we focus on user interaction with the system. It is known that a good tool has one button, but not a single perfect one. A good tool is not multifunctional. Swiss knives are bad as knives. But if you really need a Swiss knife, let's take care that the nail file does not fit with the machete. Even if this is unrealizable from the point of view of the designed architecture of the application, so much the worse for the architecture.
3. Working through the graphic design of the system, we limit the creative flight of artistic inspiration to the rigid framework of operational properties. Very tough framework. No designer of the appearance of the cars would ever think to create freely. Our designers are now hit too.
4. At the development stage , we stop all creative impulses of developers from the category "this tick asked here, and it was time to write - to spit." We take our hands off for "it was writing - a month, I made it easier in 5 minutes by adding a window." But in every way we encourage discussion of ideas from the category of “listen, it would be inconvenient for me, let's change everything here like this, I quickly, over the weekend.”
5. At the testing stage, along with functional, load and other tests, we conduct performance testing. We have metrics that the system must comply with in terms of user interaction, our test cases are based on user goals. Errors with the conclusion “this is not a bug, but a feature” remain errors and increase in priority. The tester receives the full right, and even the duty, to be "an idiot who does not understand how the system works."
And where is the place for usability? Who is he at all, in this situation? Doesn't it seem insufficient to give the product the necessary operational properties to attract an expert, whose work product is interface wiring? Refused, everyone in the team must be imbued with the spirit of usability , regardless of its functional role.
Demystification and desacralization of usability is only a matter of time. A short time. Very short time. If you're just going to be a “usability”, better not do it. Gain knowledge of how to do a specific job-oriented product performance. Please strive to be a good analyst, designer, programmer, tester or manager. Not usability. There is no such specialty, there is such a way of thinking and such an ideology of work. But a good person is not a profession.
I have other questions. What is usability, how to touch it? What to measure usability? How to verify value judgments “usable and non-usable” in addition to testing the results for respondents? Where in the design process is the usability phase? Why the best of the books on usability I have read does not use this term and is called “Web Design”? Here I will try to answer them, at the same time turning everything upside down. Or vice versa.
About terminology
Russian language is rich in concepts. Nevertheless, we carry terms from the English language, produce tracing paper, and then we suffer with it. For example, what is design? This development, design, design, drawing, modeling and even the development of the plan and sample products. The English-speaking population of the planet can only regret. But it is doubly sorry for those who ignore all this multitude of naming, using tracing paper “design” in Russian. With usability - the same terminological trap.
')
In an attempt to translate the term into Russian, a number of freaks were born, such as “usability” or “usability”. These terms are good in that they do not mean anything objective, are not measured in anything and therefore do not affect the halo of mystery around a fashionable term. While in the Russian language, such concepts as “operational suitability” and “ operational properties ” have long been firmly established.
Frustration and indignation will be my answer, no doubt. Where is the mystic, where is the magic? It's not about that at all, is it? Not true. Unlike usability, with the operational properties of the product can work both quantitatively and qualitatively. And, damn it, everyone understands what it is. It is enough to compare the results of the issue on the query “operational properties” and the query “usability” in order to understand the abyss of specifics separating these materials.
The biggest catch here is, of course, a commercial one. Mystical knowledge is expensive. Yes, the sensible majority does not use the services of psychics, but their services are still in demand, there is a market. So, the mystery of usability is who to sell. And work to improve performance properties must be confirmed by the result. Unlike the services of a psychic, who can be mistaken if the customer has bad karma. I can’t help here with anything, as a person related to selling my services, I make a moral choice in favor of technology, not charlatanry .
The difference in approaches
So what does development on the basis of operational properties mean? For me, it is obvious that usability in this sense is the ideology of the development process. This is not a stage that an external expert can take on, as well as quality-based development or knowledge-based development. At each stage of development, these are not even methods and practices, they are fixation for specific purposes.
1. At the requirements gathering stage, this means that we pay maximum attention to user expectations. Functional saturation of the application interests us less than the goals and objectives of the user, how to achieve them. Any idea about adding a function goes through the Procrustean bed of questions “for whom” and “why”. The necessary and sufficient list of functionality is determined only by the operational characteristics of the system. We push the customer with his ideas about useful ticks as far as we can, leaving behind him the definition of the target audience of the product and business objectives.
2. At the system design stage , we focus on user interaction with the system. It is known that a good tool has one button, but not a single perfect one. A good tool is not multifunctional. Swiss knives are bad as knives. But if you really need a Swiss knife, let's take care that the nail file does not fit with the machete. Even if this is unrealizable from the point of view of the designed architecture of the application, so much the worse for the architecture.
3. Working through the graphic design of the system, we limit the creative flight of artistic inspiration to the rigid framework of operational properties. Very tough framework. No designer of the appearance of the cars would ever think to create freely. Our designers are now hit too.
4. At the development stage , we stop all creative impulses of developers from the category "this tick asked here, and it was time to write - to spit." We take our hands off for "it was writing - a month, I made it easier in 5 minutes by adding a window." But in every way we encourage discussion of ideas from the category of “listen, it would be inconvenient for me, let's change everything here like this, I quickly, over the weekend.”
5. At the testing stage, along with functional, load and other tests, we conduct performance testing. We have metrics that the system must comply with in terms of user interaction, our test cases are based on user goals. Errors with the conclusion “this is not a bug, but a feature” remain errors and increase in priority. The tester receives the full right, and even the duty, to be "an idiot who does not understand how the system works."
And where is the place for usability? Who is he at all, in this situation? Doesn't it seem insufficient to give the product the necessary operational properties to attract an expert, whose work product is interface wiring? Refused, everyone in the team must be imbued with the spirit of usability , regardless of its functional role.
Few conclusions
Demystification and desacralization of usability is only a matter of time. A short time. Very short time. If you're just going to be a “usability”, better not do it. Gain knowledge of how to do a specific job-oriented product performance. Please strive to be a good analyst, designer, programmer, tester or manager. Not usability. There is no such specialty, there is such a way of thinking and such an ideology of work. But a good person is not a profession.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/133049/
All Articles