[thelist] USABILITY ---> DO not confound with traditionalism.

[Erik Mattheis]

At 12:48 AM +0100 4/28/02, Martin wrote:
>>That response perfectly illustrates the pitfall of designing
>>according to a set of "usability" rules. An innovation like this
>>becomes an impossibility:
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/tw/2002/mar27pedal.shtml
>
>Whereas this shows why messing with the user interface of
>moving vehicles is a seriously dumb idea:
>http://www.asktog.com/columns/027InterfacesThatKill.html

Your assertion is a logical fallacy ("irrelevant conclusion":
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/irrelev.htm)

That bad interface design resulted in the death of a pilot shows that
a particular interface was a "seriously dumb idea" - not that
"messing with the user interface is seriously dumb idea."

Bringing it back to web design, providing a link that is not blue and
underlined certainly may present a usability problem, but it also may
solve a usability problem, such as when the link appears on a blue
background.

>Please, Erik, do read the subject. It is easy to confuse usability
>as performed by someone with 20 years of experience:
>http://www.useit.com/jakob/publications.html
>with traditionalism. And many inexperienced designers who
>come across Jakob and find him restrictive do just that, rather
>than reading what Jakob actually says, which is "test the damned
>thing... but if you can't, here's some good defaults which will ensure
>that most people can use what you produce"

You seem to misunderstand Jakob Neilson ... from
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html :

<quote>
Websites must tone down their individual appearance and distinct
design in all ways:
*	visual design
*	terminology and labeling
*	interaction design and workflow
*	information architecture
</quote>

He calls for a homogenous, unchanging web - everything the same
except for the content.

It's just weird, his writings are chock full of logical fallacies and
proponents of his take on usability accept them (and come up with
more of their own!) just a few examples:

 From http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723_comments.html
Newspaper layouts all look virtually identical. Newspapers are highly
usable. Therefore the web will only be usable if the UIs all websites
are identical.
(Fallacy: false analogy)

 From http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010204.html
<quote>
Most readers of this column probably belong to the top 10% of the
population in terms of intelligence ... Even in the most wired
societies like the United States and Scandinavia, only half the
population is currently using the Internet. It continues to be quite
an elitist medium. Thus, almost by definition at this point, anyone
who is now using the Web is probably a fairly smart person. Given
this, it makes no sense to blame users' difficulty with a site or
design on stupidity. When current Web users have problems, it's
because the design is too difficult.
</quote>
(Fallacies: untestability, limited depth, false dilemma, denying the
antecedent ... and he doesn't even attempt to put forth a premise for
the conclusion that "anyone now using the web is probably fairly
smart)

Could go on (and on and on ...)

>Oh, btw - to point out some errors in the article you cited:
>>Meanwhile, site owners prefer more traffic to
>>less, and more repeat visits to fewer.
>... only the ones who either
>1) Are too dumb to understand about LTV and ROI because
>    they were out smoking when they should have been in
>    Marketing 101

This is the exact point that I've made in previous discussions on
usability/accessability: That maximizing the number of people who can
access or easily use a site, thereby maximizing the potential
traffic, does not necessarily increase the value of a website. The
response I got from your camp, Martin, was that I was wrong ...
anyway, I'm glad you agree with me on this.

>it's clear that the actual profitable sites are those which are most
>usable [...] Innovate all you want, just don't expect to make any
>money on any more
>than a small percentage of it. If you're happy with that level of
>business risk (and remember that few business funders are), fine, go ahead.

Boy, do I feel marginal! Haha.

A lot of us think sites we make are valuable despite the fact that
they make no attempt to enter the realm of the "actual[ly]
profitable."
--

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

__________________________________________