Steve Krug wrote a book in 2002 called "Don't Make Me Think - A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability". As the usability profession changes, I thought it would be interesting to consider its legacy. It was a rather clever book, and a rather clever title, and presented an impression of the usability profession as a bunch of good and wholesome people using cheap and cheerful methodologies make life better for internet users. All very worthy. The idea was that web sites shouldn't make us think. It just should be so easy it wouldn't tax as much as one brain cell.

I want to think! I have a brain! I want to use it! I want my brain cells taxed and my concepts challenged and threatened!

Although the Krug book helped members of the nascent usability profession get off the ground by popularising this easy idea, it didn't help usability PR in the medium term. Usability fossilised into being viewed as a conservative profession, seeking to criticise and dumb down design, and develop lengthy guidelines for others to follow. In fact, I believe that its legacy was:

• a neutered usability profession
• users patronised and held in contempt

In the case of usability professionals, I think Krug's book trivialised the profession, making it appear that anyone could be a usability expert. And this just ain't the case. The usability professional takes a big view of task and business requirement. There is more to being a usability professional than being able to decide between a drop down list and radio buttons! All members of the project team should report possible issues as they see them, but defer to the expert for decision. Krug suggests deference to common sense, and often common sense is not the right answer. Would a visual designer defer to common sense? If you asked them, they would think you were crazy!

But most harmful in hindsight was the and contempt for users, which continues today. We are told users want easy. They don't want to think. Well, Krug, I want to think! I have a brain! I want to use it! I want my brain cells taxed and my concepts challenged and threatened! Now that is not to say I want easy when things should be easy, but the Neilsen/Krug axis has taken us all one step too far, and by suggesting that:

• All users are the same
• all sales processes should be the same

Hence we have a million websites that look the same and employ the Amazon sales process because its easy. All so we don't have to think.

This is a radical and empowering view and it both improves customer experience and hits business targets.

But users are not all the same and sales processes should be different for a car or a CD. At the core of a proactive usability process is the principle that users and customers are all different and should be treated appropriately. Some may not want to think, some will. How do we accommodate this? We get customers to actively participate in the process of design through involvement and prototyping. This is a radical and empowering view and it both improves customer experience and hits business targets. These processes are not trivial, not quick fixes, and not applicable to ad hoc methods, but at least they are in the real world.