Usability Driven Off Track by Jakob Nielsen
Its interesting to think, as I did the other day when putting together a short introduction to usability for the IMRG, how different perspectives on an idea can drive it away from its initial trajectory and lose its richness.
The first concepts of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) from many years ago (yes, pre-internet) was very broad. It encompassed a rich picture of all user experiences and all aspects of people interacting with computers.
Hawdale Associates current concept is again a broad, rich and business focussed Customer Journey view, and inclusive of usability.
But between these, and still very prevalent, exists a concept of usability that I think of as nitpicking, guidelines based, opinionated, fiddly and big brother. We lost the richness of HCI. How did it come to this?
How? Bloody Jakob Nielsen that how.
Lets think back to my formative years and my favourite reads. First out of the bag, the Don himself.
Don Norman wrote ‘User-Centred System Design’ in 1984 when the term usability did not exist, but issues were perceived as being about the understanding of systems, the communication of instructions and how it might be better if psychologists designed the interface.
This was a heavyweight principled user view. The stuff that Norman was writing about was based on Participatory Design originally out of Scandinavia in the 70’s. Hard socialist stuff. Users partipate in design, design is good, work is fun. Big user focus, all centred around the user.
Around the same time, Brenda Laurel’s ‘Computers as Theatre’ invented the term ‘User Experience’ and stressed narrative, context and psychological flow. And this is when software was NOT the web! A golden era was being unveiled about how it would be when the user interface was transparent and precisely revealed the system model.
But the book that made a practical difference was Jakob Neilsen’s ‘Usability Engineering’ in 1993 which established the term ‘usability’ and put it in the mainstream. We all read the book, gasped at the risky guerilla tactics and realised that if we did HCI in this way then people would listen to us (as they didn’t before this, however worthy we were!). And, consequently, we all made sites and software on hell of a lot better and easier to use. So whatever we think of him, Nielsen made a big splash, that cannot be denied.
But alongside all of that, the major HCI / Computers as Theatre plot line about communication, flow, narrative, psychology and customer centricity heralded by Norman and Laurel got lost in Nielsen’s gray view of the world, and designers were set against usability engineers rather than working together.
Finally, I got fed up of being tarred by Nielsens 1001 guidelines brush, he’s a ‘distinguished engineer’, I’m a psychologist doing HCI.
Customer Journey gets us back to Norman and Laurel (and Pine and Gilmore, and Godin) to deliver good customer journey for both users and businesses.
Let’s get back and centre on the customer and finally leave Nielsens one-size-fits-all 1001 guidelines behind.
Interesting post, and one which coincides with my own views on the subject. I’m saddened when I meet designers and clients that have a really dim view of usability, but can completely understand why they’ve come to this standpoint. I’ve worked with some woefully dull, uncreative usability specialists in my time, and depending on the hierarchy within the organisation, they can really choke the life out of a project. However, I’ve also worked with some fantastic, progressive, creative usability specialists, whose work has magnified my design work, and helped make it more effective.
You simply cannot just have a checklist and turn down any approach which doesn’t meet with every point on it. Context is everything. Good usability specialists understand this.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by UXTweets: Usability Driven Off Track by Jakob Nielsen: http://bit.ly/77uYFk...
I have a feeling that usability is obsessively behavioral. It’s a natural turn when we are talking about business. Just look at how ethnography-inspired research takes a lot of time. Actually, cognitive research takes time. It’s not just “observe & document” approach.
It’s interesting to note that in some Nielsen’s articles he points that his methodology is mostly influenced by the same Norman you point in your gold age adagio. So, Norman changed his mind? Probably. 20-years difference there. It’s possible that his previous research did not held itself. It happens. You can just throw out 20 years of research if the data don’t move ahead. You can always start again.
Also, I read in one of Norman’s article that he likes to move from subject to subject in a range of 5 to 10 years.
In my approach to usability, my focus is on user research and iteration: doesn’t matter if I will use contextual inquiry, in-depth interviews, heuristics analyses. My focus is on providing my clients with data that helps him understanding their user (and also their business) needs. The core of the usability: user needs. Just simple.
I guess your angry, just like mine in 2 years ago, is about how people approach usability from a theory point of view. People that do not notice that usability is about testing will just hush to guidelines and says “that is usability. Nielsen said”. But he also said that you need to do you own tests.
I am not in defense of Nielsen. I am in defense of better understanding of the surroundings (research).
ps: I will retweet your post.