Putting out the fires
As an executive involved in e-com, you have probably seen promotions, books, or seminars promoting a "Guru" approach to usability consulting. Many of these usability professionals capitalized on unsophisticated web development groups by giving the impression that usability problems could be solved by a "put out the fire" approach. While such sessions are probably a reasonable way to promote "usability" as a general concept, they are rarely useful in addressing the complex problem solving and organizational issues related to developing powerful and engaging screen-based delivery systems. They are also of little use in creating workable "User-Centered" design process models at the broad corporate level.
It turns out not to be as simple as we thought
Most importantly, these very high priced sessions generally give clients the impression that, with a day or two of consulting a month, "usability" could somehow be "injected" into web development teams. Well, if we have learned anything about professional usability engineering, it is that such problems are hideously complex and often counter-intuitive. Above all, long lasting and workable solutions cannot be achieved by "force feeding" an already overworked development group. This is not to say that such sessions are completely without merit. They do have their place, but care must be exercised in their use and funding. The reasons why complex product development problems cannot be solved employing the usability Guru method are real and profound.
Design solutions are more about people than process
Yes, clearly there is an important process model involved in the professional execution of User-Centered design methods. But the actual solutions come from the creation of well-balanced and strategically minded development groups that understand and buy into UCD. The process of defining and structuring effective large-scale development teams (the type we now know are required for web development) often eludes even the best management consultants. These are truly difficult and politically charged corporate issues which do not yield to "spot consulting" techniques, even those priced at tens of thousands of dollars a day.
No one likes to have their work trashed in front of the boss
Often the usability Guru approach takes the form of a well-orchestrated exorcism. Beating the bad usability spirits out of the web site by a constant and highly negative critique of the current site and of course by association the development team. The ferocity of such exorcisms is sometimes directly related to the size of the consulting fee: the higher the fee the more aggressive the critique. However, this type of analysis can only be based on broad usability principles and constructs that can be readily applied to obvious usability problems. What one usually finds when conducting professional usability research with carefully targeted customers is that first impressions are rarely the root of the problem.
What you see is often NOT what you get
In formal usability testing programs we frequently find that the web sites that appear to be simple and in fact adhere to many core usability principles are actually cognitively complex. Other sites that seem complex upon first impression end up being highly usable. This issue we call the "first impression paradox." While it is true that matters of navigation, consistency, and content structure are important, we are now learning that god is in the details. Exactly how does the product or service impact the users' total experience over the complete range of task segments? This question can only be answered with the execution of time consuming and difficult cognitive task analysis, design and testing and redesign and re-testing….
When taken in this context, even the best usability Guru is unlikely to have a suitable understanding of your customer profile and their critical cognitive structures, such as prior learning, experience with other software, and motivation. Therefore, even though usability Gurus may have the best intentions in their criticisms, there is absolutely no guarantee that their recommendations will improve customer acquisition, retention, or migration. Granted, some design flaws are so obvious that they deserve a bit of rant and rave; but such reviews should always leave the motivation of the development team intact. It should never be a humiliating experience in front of the boss and the boss's boss. Want to kill UCD for the current generation of web development teams? Make them think that everything they did was stupid and wasteful.
It is now clear that web development is exceedingly complex and difficult work. I was once told by a wise and extremely successful development executive that, "some (certainly not all) usability experts know a great deal about human factors engineering and nothing about people." In the context of his statement he was referring to the fact that data is one thing and information is another issue entirely. Data only becomes information if it is used to make a better and more informed decision. Going beyond the data is essential for future mission-critical web development efforts.
If Gurus are so good how come their sites are so bad?
This has always been a puzzle. Do as I say, not as I do. Sure, one can create a site that is straight HTML, without any concern for visual branding, customer acquisition, retention, or migration, and call it a good usability solution. It is overly simplistic to say that "response time" is everything. Why, for example, do sites that have the best response time do no better on customer acquisition, retention, and migration than the slower more graphic-heavy sites with which they compete? It appears that reading broad usability engineering precepts onto all solutions is not as valid as once thought.
Fight the good fight
Executives experienced in web development now know that e-com solutions
that represent anything less than the full set of corporate political
centers are nothing more than mock-ups. This means that marketing has
the right to fight the good fight, engineering has the right to completely
ignore marketing, and the CFO has the right to cancel your consultant's
contract for non-compliance. It also means that the CEO is likely to call
after attending an executive retreat funded by IBM and tell the development
team exactly what needs to change immediately on the site. Which finally
leads to the real reason to hire usability Gurus: to have them deliver
a highly compelling and strategically focused speech on web "usability"
design issues. But do not expect that your development teams will suddenly
become "User-Centered." Retaining a usability Guru to deliver a highly
compelling speech can be worth the money (how much money is another question).
It is important to remember that James Burke, Paul McCready, and a host
of world-class experts deliver truly amazing speeches on technology and
development for about the same fee quoted by some of the leading usability
Gurus. Finally, assuming you do retain a Guru, if you find them digressing
into a critique of your corporate web site before the salad course is
finished, your money was probably not well spent. Next time, spend your
funds on sound, high-quality usability testing. The ROI will be directly
measurable and the results something your development team will find fully
actionable.
Charles L. Mauro
Biography
August 6, 2001
Email
the editor with any questions
or comments.
