It's not about how usable you are but how useful you are.

Usability is simply access to usefulness. Usefulness means there's some fulfilment - from the user/customer/business view of value.

What we fail to understand and orchestrate is the connection between technology that's easy to use and company operations that are easy to do business with. Get them to a fulfilment point as easily and quickly as you can and they'll be back. In the near future a company's biggest point of contact with their customers will be thru a user interface (quote me on that).

No one navigates for the sake of navigating - unless you own a Ferrari.

- rp

Personally, I like Stephen Krug’s book, but I believe having T-shirts printed with the frontpage graphics is going a little over board. I would rather hand them a cheap white t-shirt and spend the money saved on a number of copies of the book to give to the team. Let’s face it, however meaningful the title seems after reading the book and however well chosen it is, the title made little sense before, and I’m sure that you entire development team will feel the same way.

Your upcoming project sounds very interesting. From a usability standpoint you have the advantage of knowing your users better than any website does. Thus, you can design your system to fulfil their very needs. Compared to website usability you have the advantage of allowing a more complex functionality that make use of the system more efficient, since your users are more inclined to become expert users. Having said that, Jacob Nielsen as early as 1994 set up a number of usability guidelines that are still very applicable to any computer based system, including websites. Stick to those and do serious user testing and you are home dry.

Regards,

Lars Christensen
christensen@buyingexperience.com

This is basically a test to see if the forum is still alive. But I also have a contribution. I am fulfilling the role of usability expert (OK - who laughed?) on a major web enabled development project here in the UK. The project has some interesting aspects; intranet rather than internet; integration of multiple 3rd party applications, seriously sensitive data hence security implications; etc. I'm wondering if there are deviations from the usability "rules" that would be applied to internet sites. Having said that, I am already having t-shirts printed for the project team bearing the logo "Don't Make Me Think" which is all they need to know in my opinion.

I like the idea(s), JS. They get at two general principles of Web goodness: use detail whenever possible ("Here are some suggestions we've acted on...") , and give it personality (i.e., speak like a human being talking to another human being).

>>Personally, I tend to think that settling bar bets ("Name the seven dwarves") and
answering nagging questions ("What's the part number for the glass shelf I just broke in
my refrigerator?") are the real killer app of the Internet, and that we really haven't
                       figured out how to do them well enough yet. >>

>I love that quote. I love it so much I'm using it as my sig. I totally agree with it, just never
quite got around to formulating and articulating it myself. >

Thanks, Erik. I never imagined being in somebody's sig. I sometimes use this as my sig:

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to
 use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks." -anon

and I wish I knew who thought it up, so I could give him/her credit.

Ask yourself when have you seen a feedback form that was costructed to pull out any interesting responses? Listing three or five or more suggestions *Actually Used* would give the impression of a dialog between customers and company. (and prove the company wants suggestions) How about a feedback form saying something like "We are currently brainstorming quality issues for [product], your experiences would be especially appreciated." And which management team takes a list of what it thinks are its priorities, and has customers rank them to see if there are any surprises in their asumptions?

>>Personally, I tend to think that settling bar bets ("Name the seven dwarves") and answering nagging questions ("What's the part number for the glass shelf I just broke in my refrigerator?") are the real killer app of the Internet, and that we really haven't figured out how to do them well enough yet. >>

I love that quote. I love it so much I'm using it as my sig. I totally agree with it, just never quite got around to formulating and articulating it myself.

This information might be helpful...

GVU's Tenth WWW User Survey (1998) Connection Speed:
http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/sur.../technology/q01.htm

CyberAtlas -- Broadband Information
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/broadband

Wireless, Broadband Penetration Continues
http://www.digitrends.net/nwna/index_15935.html

FCC Broadband Page
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/

DIRECTV Broadband Statistics
http://www.telocity.net/press/statistics.asp

Broadband Homes To Number 90 Million Globally By 2004
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/165112.html

Broadband Access Still Rare In Most Countries
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/164042.html

Broadband - It's a City Thing
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24626,00.html

Broadband (Yahoo! information page)
http://fusion.yahoo.com/resource_center/research/broadband.html

- John

http://webword.com -- Industrial Strength Usability
john@webword.com

I wrote a quick editorial for Internetworking on the topic of feedback forms. I even provided some data. You can find it on this page (scroll down the page once you land there):

"THE FAILURE OF GENERAL USER FEEDBACK"

http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/mar99/opinions_search.html

I was wondering if anybody had firm, recent statistics on the access speeds through which the majority of users access the Internet...

The reason I ask is that I was talking to a designer the other day and we got around to discussing download times and I, in my ignorance, hadn't realised that the so-called industry standard which designers work to is a 10/14 second wait over a 56k modem...

Now, I don't know about you, but I reckon there are very few things in life that justify that kind of wait and the 'everybody-else-is-doing-it-this-way' excuse just won't wash. For certain sites whose raison-d'etre is high bandwidth-type content (eg movie trailers, online entertainment, high-end brochureware etc), it's fine - but if I want to buy a book, or some toilet paper, it's just rude to make me wait so long on a phone line I have to pay for.

The problem with having 'arguments' (or should that be constructive discussions?) with designers/clients about these topics is that they tend to exploit our industry's (perceived?) uncertainty as to users' connections speeds and the need for 'branding'.

Now, the branding arguement is (or at least should be)fairly safe ground for us to stake a claim upon, as negative experiences using a site reflect upon a brand, and designers should (in my mind) be able to 'design around' the restrictions imposed by a medium in order to maintain/promote a brand (as opposed to pretending the whole world is a printed page).

I found a useful resource at websitegarage.com that estimates the download times of pages for given connection speeds based on page size, number of images etc (although I can't vouch for the accuracy of its estimates), but it would still be very useful if anybody knew of any firm, recent source of data which one could cite as to mainstream users' connection-speeds...

Or can one now even assume that a large enough percentage of users will have access to an 'office-connection' for the 'home-access' issue to have become redundant?

What this industry/profession needs is a respectable, reliable source of free data on issues such this. Design guidelines are all well and good, but more fundamental concerns appear to be overlooked - does any one have any suggestions as to sources? (short of my paying a fortune for the information!)

sk - glad to have been of help...remember me in your will!

:)

best,
t

Yes. What t (or is it Tim?) said. Exactly.

It falls in the "every little bit [of feedback and contact with the users' collective consciousness] helps." Or maybe it's really, "it couldn't hurt."

But take t's excellent list to heart, and do no harm: make sure it's clearly voluntary, don't get in their way, be sure you give them a reply, etc., etc.

And take whatever input you get with a big grain of salt. Don't panic when your site gets flamed. As t points out, replies are from a self-selected crowd.

On the other hand, be open to whatever you get, compare it to what you already know, and try to learn from it. Except for the time it takes to reply (which can be considerable), it's "free" input.

t: Thanks for saving me ten minutes out of my life.

thanks for the input

Feedback forms are, I would say, a classic case of a 'good text-book idea'. That is to say that everyone knows that one should seek feedback, and try to act upon it, as a means of improving one's product.

I have, however, always had my doubts as to whether or not they are ever going to give you a 'true' picture of users' views on/problems with a website when used in isolation.
 
It's a bit like when TV channels screen a program, and 12 people phone in to complain - the company will always (justifiably) say that there were 10 million other people watching who DIDN'T complain.

This doesn't, of course, mean that the 10 million viewers were actively happy with the program...nor that their views (were they asked to give them) would correspond to those of the 12 complainers. All that it means is that the 12 can not be assumed to be representative of the 10 million - especially as they are a 'self-selected' group.

Indeed, one could argue that anyone who had enough time and energy to fill in a 'feedback form' was highly unlikely to accurately represent the views/profile of the 'general user population', in so much that the 'classic' responses to problems using a product is to discard or modify it.

The most important issues with one's product - if one chooses to classify these as those which cause the most amount of inconvenience/irritation to the most number of people - might, therefore, be better identified through system logs, conversion rates and usability testing.

I suppose all of this was, then, just a drawn-out way of saying a similar thing to that which everyone knows - that gathering as much data about what people really think of, and how they react to, your current product is the best basis for future revisions to that product.

I can't really see how including a 'feedback form' could do any harm as long as it:
- was voluntary;
- wasn't presented to the customer at a point at which it would interfere with an ongoing task;
- clearly explained its purpose
- gave an alternative help/complaints phone number if at all possible
- didn't take long to download
(all feedback forms should also, ideally, receive a personal response from an appropriate individual within the organisation)

So the message to take home with you and have sleep at your feet? Use feedback forms by all means, and respond directly to them whenever you can, but don't rely upon them as your sole source of feedback!

best,
t

What's your opinion of feedback forms? Is it cheesy to have a form on your site that asks people what they think, as a means of better understanding their goals?

Thoughts, anyone?