Usability Bulletin. Issue number 18

UPA MONTHLY - May 2008
| Sergey Spivak's author's training seminar “Effective site”, July 3-4 in Moscow
| Jared Spool: Site Design \ Comparative Analysis of Options \ Non-Intuitive Approach
| Internet for the blind?
| Usability Testing: What have we missed?


')
UPA MONTHLY - May 2008
Monthly Bulletin of the Usability Professionals Association:

• What motivates Facebook
• Usability for eco products
• The Cozy Suite - what should be a comfortable seat for the plane?
• UPA 2008 Conference (Baltimore, USA)
• Usability of society and the state at the UPA conference
• UPA Europe 2008 (Turin, Italy)
• User Friendly 2008 (Shenzhen, China)
• World Usability Day 2008 - Transport

Sergey Spivak's author's training seminar “Effective site”, July 3-4 in Moscow
Sergey Spivak, one of the best experts in the field of media planning on the Internet, the director of the Internet agency PRIOR.ru, will conduct an author's training seminar on July 3-4 in Moscow. One of the topics of the seminar: corporate website usability.

Jared Spool: Site Design \ Comparative Analysis of Options \ Non-Intuitive Approach
Jared M. Spoole, a famous theorist and usability practitioner, in his recent article describes a simplified testing process. At the same time, the resources involved were significantly less, and the quality of the project, according to Spool, was completely unaffected.

Internet for the blind?
On May 3, 2008, a new UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force. This means that accessibility standards that exist in developed countries should appear in RuNet. Domestic software developers for Western markets have already faced accessibility: the products they create must be accessible to people with disabilities. What is accessibility, why should it be achieved and how to do it?

Usability Testing: What have we missed?
Nilsen's postulate about the "magic number five" questioned. Jitt Lindgaard (Carlton University, Canada) and Jarini Chattratichart (Kingston University, England) published a paper that explains why the top five respondents do not always detect the “proper” 85% of errors - and, most importantly, how to fix things.