You know a book title has something when you stare at it. Just staring means it grabbed your attention.
Do you remember the phrase "pay attention"? If means that if you get someone's attention, it's worth money. Think "Paris Hilton".
Now think "usability". Pretty boring, eh?
And that's the problem.
Or, it was the problem until Alan Cooper invented the eye-popper title for his usability manifesto: "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity".
This introduction reflects our mutual problem: "Why can't I get our management to jump on the usability bandwagon?" You and I know that usability solves big problems. Yet we still face challenges getting project time, developer commitment, and end-user access to do our job.
Let's investigate the madness of it all. At least it's more interesting than just plain old "usability".
What holds your organizations back from committing to usability as a method? I recently received an email from a former course participant asking how to solve this problem.
(His CUA certification got him a new job with the following challenges.) He wrote:
How do you answer these problems?
Our challenge is clear. How do we break through the self-created prohibitions that trap the unwary manager in a downward spiral of misperception?
Normally, I would cite some research that addresses our question of the month. However, after looking though all my usual sources, I couldn't find a pragmatic answer.
Consequently, I looked at how HFI's founder Eric Schaffer addresses these hard problems. Interestingly, the questions asked by my former student received fair treatment in Eric's blogs on HFI Connect.
In essence, Eric proposes that management must "institutionalize" usability ‚Äď making it the standard practice rather than a special treatment.
Let's see what that means for all of us struggling to leave the asylum. (Remember Alan Cooper?)
The next four points answer our CUA letter-writer with pragmatic solutions to management's logic of bad design.
1. Loving the madness of good design ‚Äď the bandwagon effect works
Eric's comments from 1 Feb 2010 address our CUA's first Logic of Bad Design: the boss wants usability but also wants design changes so fast there is no time to study users, develop scenarios, invent better solutions, test and iterate.)
I started work on my book, Institutionalization of Usability, in 2001. I wrote it because I realized that our field had to mature. We were clearly proving our worth. By showing the ROI of usability, companies would want to have it built in as a routine part of their development process. And they would want a process-driven process.
I blame piecemeal usability as the source of the oscillating UX group. The group gets hired. Then they run around frantically because they are perhaps 2% of the staff strength needed to operate properly, and they are operating without the infrastructure and acceptance that makes us efficient. Pretty soon the question comes; "Are they worthwhile? What do THEY do?" And of course there has been no time to prepare contrast studies and documentation of the value of the work. The team is disbanded at the first budget reduction. Then there are slowly growing complaints and a team is put in place. Then repeat. It's awful.
So we need to be built in as an organized part of the SDLC. And we need to be "PROCESS DRIVEN". That means that we don't depend on a couple of brilliant craftspeople to do magic (and train a few apprentices). It means we accomplish UX work based on normal, systematic engineering processes. Jared Spool and I debated about 5 years ago and he asserted that UX was only ready to be done by craftsmanship. It was a bitter if very friendly debate (and I think he was really on my side). But now we have proven the possibility, and companies are jumping to make UX work routine.
Eric just pointed out that usability has become popular. Managers who find solace in following "general practice" of the herd now find the herd galloping towards usability. In a sense, this IS the solution we need. Of course, we also need diplomatic evangelism to encourage early adopters amongst our manager audiences.
Solution: Show your managers articles (and blogs) that discuss trends such as Eric describes next.
Worldwide we see companies who understand that it makes sense to do UX work right the first time. We are seeing the end of fixing train wrecks. We are seeing a transition away from emergency and chaotic UX. We are seeing more clients then we can manage ask for help setting up those organizations. They understand that it requires executive sponsorship. they understand that there must be a roadmap to setup the organizations, communication channels, staff resources, culture, methods, standards... etc. They understand that panic is not efficient.
So, I'm willing to bounce around the world for awhile as I see a dream come true. When I started in 1976 it was truly unimaginable. The level of executive support we have today is fantastic. In fact the biggest problem is often that there is LOTS of support in a massive pileup of cross control and confusion.
But...the plane is boarding. I promise to write more later.
2. Be a broker between the vision and the doing
Our second Logic of Bad Design lamented that the boss wants me to add functions but allows no time to think about other user groups and no time for usability testing that might find "unintended consequences". On his 8 Feb blog, Eric shows how to co-opt management goals as usability goals.
The executive team sits at a table with a set of stakeholders. Some, like information technology have a long established seat. Marketing has a seat. Even Quality has a seat. But can we sit there? Can we help guide the future of the organization? Well, the answer now is "YES WE CAN".
I have institutionalization of usability clients in India, Australia, The Philippines, and Africa. These are places you might think would lag behind. But, NO. The executives all get it. They understand that usability and customer-centricity in design of their applications is a critical differentiator. The executives understand that user experience matters!
The challenge is that the table is a zero sum game. When we sit down we take a share of the resources and that means less for others. In that, we have a challenge. How can we gain acceptance from marketing, technology, strategy, etc? I spent all of last week at such a table, and I will share the winning strategy.
The insight that won the day for the UX side was a simple idea. The fact that UX design had been absent meant that 'THE Executive', Strategic Marketing, and Strategic Initiative groups were all DISEMPOWERED! Their ideas never reached the design and coding group because they could convey their ideas (e.g., "We need to reach out to youth, changing our brand and fitting in their lives").
But, the design team had no idea what that really meant. It is only when the UX work takes the strategic intent and converts it into innovative ideas and specific designs that the connection can be made. UX is the 'golden chain' that connects the strategist's work with the coders. So, there are a whole set of people who we make effective. And when you make others effective, they want you at the table.
Eric tells us how to go to "charm school". Make friends. Appreciate their genius. Help them attain the goals they have. Remember, usability is not their thing. But strategic business is their thing.
Solution: Adopt the vocabulary, metaphors, goals, ideas of your management. Talk their talk, not usability talk.
When I started working with Institutionalization clients, I thought what was needed was an executive champion. I wrote about executive champions and my experience was that there is usually someone at a high level who drives each effort. To an extent, this is still true. But, I find that in large organizations there must often be a whole SET of champions. It is not just the individual executive on her throne. It is a table full of leaders.
When we work on programs to institutionalize usability we pay attention to governance. Without a seat at the table all the efforts will eventually fail.
3. Madness is the courage to do it right, even if it's "different"
Our third Logic of Bad Design rationalized keeping the old design because the boss says "It's based on how Microsoft Office was designed." In his 28 Feb blog, Eric says:
Of course, the experts are not as detrimental as the person pretending to be an expert. There is a huge systems integrator in India...I keep getting called in by their customers because their software is so very unusable. They have low prices. They code nicely. But, they have horrid interface designs. Remarkably, they have a UX team, with about 50 people! So how can they have such awful designs? I was intrigued by that.
On closer investigation we found that the head of the organization is a graphic artist who was briefly exposed to HFI many years ago. He has acquired enough of the UX language to talk about the field. But he was never actually a qualified practitioner. And now the dynamic appears to be that he is carefully hiring only staff who are even less qualified then he is. It seems he is afraid of being shown to be technically weak. So he avoids strong hires and even strong consultancies. He does not understand that the power of a strong leader is in having people in the organization that are technically better than himself.
Eric chides leaders who feel they have design expertise. After all, would you tell your surgeon how to tie the sutures for your appendectomy? If fact, do you insist on watching the video of your brain surgery to insure they excised the tumor correctly? Of course not.
However, managers who evaluate your designs by looking at your prototypes commit the same fallacy.
Solution: Support your manager's quantitative business goals with your own usability metrics. Present and talk about your metrics for user success: faster learning, faster productivity, and greater feelings of success. At some point, you may even ween your management off of looking at the screens ‚Äď after all, you demonstrate their value with your metrics. Eric concludes:
I have never seen a leader deposed for building and motivating a strong team. Leadership is actually not about how well you can do the work. It is your ability to glue the team together and appreciate (even celebrate) work that is better than you could ever do.
In the end, I think that the head of the UX operation need not be a super expert in the field. Passion for the field is essential. Some knowledge is essential, but can be acquired. The key is having someone who can provide leadership, who understands the organization and can find the right people and the right issues. Get someone who knows how to make friends and knows how to fight politically if necessary. And then a strong technical team can be filled in underneath.
4. Embracing the madness of the institution
Recall the final lament of our CUA warrior: "It's a hell of a job ‚Äď especially because I am "dropped in" after 15 years of other people developing and using the product ‚Äď and they expect me to take my magic wand and fix it."
We identified the logic of bad design: colleagues say "People have always bought our software. Changes will scare users away. We must code now."
Our final word comes from HFI's "Institutionalization Self-Rating Scorecard". I answered the questions to mimic our CUA's conundrum. Here is the diagnosis for the institutional solution.
You've made some progress towards institutionalization of user experience in your organization.
Here is what you need to concentrate on to improve:
HFI encourages making usability a "socialization" process. Show evidence that usability is "popular". Encourage the bandwagon effect. Institutionalization can only happen when everyone agrees there is no risk.
Solution: Nothing speaks better for a successful future than a successful past. Start with projects small enough to guarantee success. Increment. Grow. Only make promises you can keep. Be nice.
Do you feel this process could help you avoid the bias you might introduce into an interview?
You would not be pointing to any elements of your own design to start the conversation.
Better yet, you will have put any web page of special interest to YOU in a context that lets your PARTICIPANT decide what's interesting.
This is the achievement of the Repertory Grid Technique.
Veronica made these additional observations...
"This in-depth information about important features allows researchers to create benchmarking goals for the first impressions of a home page."
Ah, tell me, just how do you feel about that?
What name or "construct" would you use to label that feeling?
And how does this contrast with asking direct questions ‚Äď or even administering a Likert questionnaire?
We live in time of change. Software development practices started with coding. And for many managers, software still means "coding". However, consumer (and corporate) demand for software that transcends training brings a sea-change in perception of what software must do.
Software must be easy to use.
Coders simply do not have the time or expertise to achieve that goal single-handedly.
The future is clear. Usability will win.
And the present is now clear, as well. Usability is winning. Socialize that fact.
Use the resources given above, as part of your talking points.
Send links. Socialize. Tweet the truth.
Institutionalize us all!
Cooper, A. (1999), The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity,Sams - Pearson Education.
Schaffer, E. (2004), Institutionalization of Usability: A Step-by-Step Guide, Addison-Wesley Professional
After fighting just such battles for many years, I won't do it anymore. Seeing a job description with the words 'evangelize usability' or one of its many variants causes me to run in the opposite direction. In this day and age, any company that has a need for evangelizing just doesn't get it and I want nothing to do with them.
Great article! If you replace usability, UX, et al, with "ergonomics", what's in this article is exactly the battle and the approaches I've been using for some 25 years. There is light at the end of the tunnel, it may at times be only a candle, but it still illuminates.
Even though India is being considered as a big IT Hub, the scenario for usability hasn't reached to the level expected. Very few companies are implementing case studies for their projects. The productivity within the service industry would rise 5-10 percent if every software program were designed for usability.
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ‚Äúcookies‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúweb beacons‚ÄĚ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users‚Äô PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ‚Äúdummy‚ÄĚ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users‚Äô experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI‚Äôs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI‚Äôs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant ‚Äėper module‚Äô processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.