Ann's Rant: Is it all in the Language and the Editing?

Sometimes what you need is good plain English. And the more layers of consultation a document has to go through, the weaker its language and style can become. Consultation for what to write, yes. Consultation in what is written? Well, that depends. If writing by committee is essential, then one person who understands the meaning of the document should be left to conduct the final edit.

Why am I suddenly ranting about this? Well, because ambiguity is only useful in poetry. And among the many things coming the way of the e-Envoy's hapless document about usability for public sector websites (enter 'Framework' in the search box top right for all the UN articles that have dealt with it - too many now to list here) is my accusation of ambiguity. And I should know. I have gone into print attacking the Government for advocating something that it has no intention of advocating...

Let me quote from Louise Ferguson's article on UN yesterday, eGov Feature on e-Envoy Framework causes Questions (and Fur?) to Fly, where she quotes me (she was originally writing for the readers of eGov Monitor): 'One section of the Framework has proved particularly controversial is that discussing the optimum number of people for user testing. The advice is that: "Once groups of more than eight users are used, the law of diminishing returns applies. Other companies prefer to observe one user at a time carrying out tasks and to ask them structured questions about their experience." Light was particularly critical of this approach. "The advice - seemingly from the industry - that multiple users be tested simultaneously has not come from any theorist or practitioner that I know of," she said, "and could lead novices into treacherous waters."'

Now, some people have had the bright idea of tracking the changes that the e-Envoy's guidance went through in its development process. A weakness of putting out a Word document without cleaning it up is that it can give away more information than you meant to - the Framework came out as just such an un-purged Word doc. If you are interested, Ferguson has a resume of unearthing the report's shortcomings in this way on her blog (see the post for 18th August).

What an analysis of tracking reveals for the section on which I commented is this:

Before:
1.41. Eight is the optimum number of people to use for user testing. Once groups of more than eight users are used, the law of diminishing returns applies. In a series of tests with Barclays, The Usability Company found that eight users from each target market group were sufficient. Other companies prefer to observe one user at a time carrying out tasks and to ask them structured questions about their experience.

After:
1.41. Six to eight users is the optimum number of people to use for user testing. Once groups of more than eight users are used, the law of diminishing returns applies. Other companies prefer to observe one user at a time carrying out tasks and to ask them structured questions about their experience.

Aha! Once I know what the section is really all about, I can only applaud the good commercial sense of Barclays and The Usability Company. But note that deleting the sentence in which they appear changes the meaning of the paragraph and it is no longer apparent that total numbers of users, not user testing processes, was being discussed. One understands the need to eliminate specific company details from advice. But the final sentence has not been shaped to make sense with its reference to 'other companies' and overall, the passage has become deceptive.

Yes, editors do pick up on these things particularly - and some even shout their mouths off about them - but good writing, whether for guidelines, reports to clients or just everyday communication, is essential to convey the detail you mean and not something else completely. That is the important point to make out of this morass of confusing detail.

Caroline Jarrett's last corner for UN dwellt on a similar theme: We'll never get this past Legal. I recommend the copywriters in the e-Envoy's Office read it and take it to heart.

Associated Link: Who is this woman?

All change at the top for System Concepts
Source: System Concepts Ltd, 3 July 2009
 
Leslie Fountain has been promoted to joint Managing Director of leading usability consultancy System Concepts.

Life in UCD immortalised in fiction: you couldn't make it up
Source: UN, 2 July 2009
 
Sarah Herman's fictitious book on life in a user-centred design company has hit the shelves and The Guardian's book pages...

Interfaces Magazine - Issue 79: The Education Issue
Source: Interaction Group, 1 July 2009
 
The latest issue of Interfaces is now available as a free download from the Interaction Website.

Two new Behavioural research Tools from Noldus
Source: UN, 30 June 2009
 
Tool updates make on-site behavioural data collection easier.

Cell Phones that Listen and Learn
Source: MIT Technology Review, 29 June 2009
 
New software tracks a user's behavior by monitoring everyday sounds.

Top Six Don’ts for Usability Testing
Source: FutureNow Inc., 27 June 2009
 
Six tips for creating quality usability tests to ensure useful feedback from testers.

Usability: ‘Lovely software. But I can’t work it’
Source: FT.com, 26 June 2009
 
In a recent survey by Global Graphics, 77 per cent of office workers estimate they lose up to one hour a week because business software is difficult to use.

And what do you do?
Source: Dexo Design, 25 June 2009
 
How do you describe your job role? Here are the results of a recent 'Preferred UX/UI Title' Poll.

Most Doctors cite Usability as critical to Electronic Health Record Adoption
Source: TMCNet, 24 June 2009
 
It's all about 'meaningful use'.

Glossy monitors look good but can hurt
Source: QUT, 23 June 2009
 
A new advisory cites research which suggests high gloss monitors make users sit awkwardly.