Ann's Rant: Lawyers, Doctors and Usability Folk

Like calm technology, there are calm professions that go about their business ubiquitously, transparently and quietly. It's usually a sign of age. When a profession is long established, its orthodoxies, standards and procedures are so well embedded in the consciousness of the surrounding community that only scandals bring public focus back to matters of definition and scope. Bodies regulate them; training is institutionalised and small children see future ambitions in their light.

When a professional activity is new, it has no orthodoxies, standards or familiar procedures to steer by. And transition to a more august role is not always easy, elegant or wholly successful. So, let's talk usability. Things always look messiest when you are right up close. And many of us are fairly close just now to the business of examining what we do.

Much of the struggle to define a new discipline or profession is motivated by lack of security: a need to create sufficient space to flourish, sufficient respect to be allowed to get the job done without interference, to be paid to do the work in an appropriate fashion, to set up organisations to handle larger projects and, ultimately, to prove that the activity in which we are engaged is as worthy as that of the next person.

This process of defining standards and attempting to pin down practice can look like navel gazing to people uninterested by work boundaries or the health of the enterprise as a whole. Sometimes it is. It should come as no surprise that a business characterised by observation, analytical thinking and the generation of guidelines is interested in producing definitions. We delight in precision; but we also take pleasure in developing the best solution. And, from discussions taking place in various quarters, it is clear that some of us regard this evaluative process as a key opportunity to explode issues – to open everything up to scrutiny before arbitrary narrowing takes place. There are important matters of role, vocation and meaning to explore.

First, we can ask whether there is any value to pinning things down at all. I was at a UPA meeting last year when a group of participants were voting on whether – in an ideal world – usability work should be the preserve of specialists or wholly integrated into the job of designers and developers. The tendency in recent years has been towards separation and specialisation, with dedicated people becoming skilled and outsourcing to agencies to perform specific services. Now the usability role is visible, but, many would argue, disconnected from the design process. The vote at the UPA was decisively for integration. Ideally, once design practice is user-centred, the dedicated professional disappears. There cannot be much clearer an indication that the business is in flux and perhaps ought to remain that way. Not, perhaps, if the ideal is achievable... but that still doesn't necessarily leave us with a usability profession.

Then there is the question of what constitutes the job. And it varies. Skills and interests are still eclectic, reflecting the many routes in – from frustrated software programmer to psychologist to more group-orientated paths such as geography, sociology and media – and the many different ways of being employed. OK, so now we have dedicated staff, but what they are asked to do keeps developing. The technology under review changes with fearsome regularity, as does our understanding of what is important about it. Accepting Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox column as a barometer, we observe that he has just started alluding to 'Joy of Use'. This follows growing interest from Don Norman in aesthetics and emotion, an increase in articles about affect amongst HCI folk and a user-centred design community that talks about compelling experiences. How far is the usability role beginning to overlap with that of marketing to look at influence? Meanwhile, plenty of usability people can talk to clients about cultural issues, accessibility and branding – and do. They are not restricted to assessing functionality in its simplest sense.

But, assuming that we are all engaged at core in improving performance, there are still enormous divisions. Some practitioners are part of a development team, responding to ideas at an early stage and testing low-fi prototypes with users. Others come in after a product is all but finished and critique. Can we meaningfully legislate for standards to which both these processes should adhere? Of course, there is an important difference between introducing standards of practice and introducing a standard response. The first might ensure that practitioners have enough experience to evaluate the particular needs of a project; the second reduces individual creativity and does not allow for an adaptation to context. But, even the first kind of standard might be hard pushed to incorporate the full range of practice.

That is only the start of a myriad of questions. With moves afoot to introduce a system to set some industry standards, it is relevant to ask whether accreditation of practitioners is a good thing. Is it protectionism by people already in the business as the industry takes a down-turn? Shouldn't a relevant qualification from one of the universities suffice? Should it be insisted upon? And if we embrace accreditation, what form should it take? Should it be in the nature of a professional body, binding members to a code of conduct, or a trade group, with a threshold ensuring a code of practice? How will it be judged whether someone is worthy to be accredited or not, and who will do the judging? Will we sit a formal test, or will work speak louder than words? What about evidence? What about training?

I asked a number of people recently how they arrived in the field of usability. A common theme was parents with a 'service culture' outlook: jobs in the public sector, in quality control, in the service departments of commercial companies. There was also interest in people and what they do. Frustration with ineffective products and processes scored high. And a sense of audience, of context, of valuing interaction... Let me say immediately that mine was an unscientific treatment of this particular research question – I just asked around some folks I knew.

Interestingly, there was also a sort of rage. It is possible to see the battle for usable products as a new political arena. I think some young hot bloods do. That was perhaps the closest I got to finding the vocation of usability. But it certainly doesn't unite all the individuals involved in usability work any more than practice or background does.

Maybe, by the time even the young hot bloods have reached retirement, there will be no more questions to ask about orthodoxies, standards and procedures. Maybe we will have achieved the near invisibility that comes with total acceptance. In some ways it would be a good thing. But, personally, I hope – for a mixture of reasons – that our industry never gets that dull.

Associated Link: Who is this woman?

Why 'The 10 Commandments of Web Design' are Complete Baloney
Source: SitePoint, 5 July 2008
 
Further to our earlier discussion...

Local Council Websites: Good, but no Cigar
Source: Webcredible, 4 July 2008
 
The 'Local Council Websites: Good, But No Cigar' report evaluates the top 20 Socitm council websites against 20 best practice usability guidelines.

Why does the OK Button say OK?
Source: Gerry McGovern, 3 July 2008
 
Most times I come across the OK button, something not-OK has happened.

The 10 Commandments of Web Design
Source: Business Week, 2 July 2008
 
To try and make sense of it all, BusinessWeek.com canvassed a broad range of Internet luminaries to discover the design rules they live by right now.

Bill Gates' email rant at the Usability Team
Source: Crunch Gear, 1 July 2008
 
The Seattle P-I has tracked down an old e-mail from 2003 that Bill Gates sent out to members of the Windows Usability team.

Can a better User Experience also be a Greener Experience?
Source: Catalyst Resources, 30 June 2008
 
By improving the user experience of its web collaboration software, Catalyst made it easier for clients to work in productive teams without travelling the globe.

The Spread of Telepresence Technology
Source: Tech News World, 28 June 2008
 
Rising energy costs and green concerns are fuelling a huge increase in demand for videoconferencing, collaborative software and virtual telepresence technology.

UK Usability market worth more than £200 million by end of 2008
Source: eConsultancy, 27 June 2008
 
The UK Usability market will grow by an estimated 20% in 2008 to a value of £214 million, according to research published this week by e-consultancy.

Research suggests growing importance of Usability to UK Businesses
Source: Business Strata, 26 June 2008
 
Integrated software for lead generation and marketing is valuable, but only as long as it's usable.

Web 2.0: Too Smart by a Half?
Source: Computer Technology Review, 25 June 2008
 
Will the Web 2.0 generation’s epitaph be, “They died with their options open?”