[IxDA Discuss] interesting article : Why Usability is a path to Failure

[Joseph Selbie]

It is unfortunate, in my opinion,  that "usability" became so well known.
Experience design, interaction design (though having their own drawbacks)
say so much more about what we do. But nine times out of ten, if I'm trying
to explain what I do to someone, if they recognize any words I use, they
will recognize usability.

I have always chaffed under this because I've always considered usability,
as a collection of disciplines and methods, to be far more about analysis
than design -- a needed sub-discipline of the process, but one that should,
in my experience, take a distant second, third or fourth place to the
creative talent and skills required to design.

I would have to agree with the "path to failure" rant below to the extent
that if a design team actually thinks that testing and analysis alone
insures a great design then they will probably create something mediocre at
best.

Joseph Selbie
http://www.tristream.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Steven
Pautz
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 2:32 PM
To: Dmitry Nekrasovski; discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] interesting article : Why Usability is a path to
Failure

On 8/4/07, Dmitry Nekrasovski <mail.dmitry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yet another blogger trying to attract attention by denigrating a
> fundamental concept/term in our field. Yawn.
>

I doubt many people would consider the classic, academic view of usability
-- which seems to be the usage being considered by the article -- to be
"fundamental" to the field of Interaction Design (or related fields). This
field is a balanced union of many different fields and disciplines; its
foundation is that balance, I believe, not any specific concept/term from
the ingredients of that balance.

I personally believe IxD (and related fields/disciplines/whatever) to be
fundamentally different from classic usability and UCD: the classic fields
tend to be descriptive, studying and polishing the artifacts and tasks which
already exist; while newer fields like IxD tend to be more prescriptive,
defining and detailing what needs to be. Although both are beneficial and
oftentimes challenging -- a point the author does fail to respect -- the
latter is far more relevant to (and far more effective as) strategy.

Also, why speak so demeaningly about bloggers? Shouldn't we evaluating a
claim by its soundness, relevance, and value, rather than the authority of
its (stereotyped) source? Reliance on authority (e.g., Jakob) is how we
ended up with masses believing in usability as an end in itself -- which is
the exact sentiment the article seems to be criticizing.

Just my $0.02,
Steven Pautz
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org