One assumption implicit in current usability practice is that one-usability-fits-all, or, more specificly, what is usable for me is what is usable for you and is usable for the rest of the world. This is Usability 1.0.

So at least part of the definition of Usability 2.0 will be an interface accommodating different individuals in the way that suits them. This is a daunting task, but this should not deter us at least to try to do this, or think how it might be done.

Obvious contenders for 'difference' will be demographic data such as age, gender, geography, etc. but I think that as we look for cues to identify difference we will find that users choices of content and navigation may tell us more about what is in their heads that who (age, gender, geography...) they are. One way that we are trying to get a handle on this is by thinking in terms of Myers-Briggs Psychological Types.

The theory behind Myers-Briggs Psychological Types is rooted in Jungian Psychology and its all bit deep to attempt in this short piece but it divides individuals up along four axis:

There are, therefore, sixteen types. For example, I am an ENFP and as an ENFP I do things in a particular way, a way that an ISTJ probably wouldn't. Crudely, I make decisions on the basis of instinct and harmony, an ISTJ would be more logical and rigourous. I will put things off and faff around, an ISTJ will plan and do. Other types have similar traits, understandable and potentially dectectable by content and navigational cues.

So, using an established psychological methodology, some detailed behavioural analytics and some usability labs, it becomes possible to concieve of a Usability 2.0 that designs content and navigation differently to be relevant and appropriate to psychological type. This provides us with a beginning, and a way in which to think about Usability 2.0.

What's to stop us? Well, stopping us is a belief that a website is like a building, practically and metaphorically set in stone. But I'd say that a website should be more like a conversation that by its essence is shiftable, mutable, changeable, adaptable. So much so that a 'default' site may never exist, as a 'default' user does not. There is no default Myers-Briggs profile. Why treat our users and customers like there is?