I say Interactivity, what do you say? Options

[bwelford]

'Usability', as it's known to some of the gurus is becoming a bigger and bigger topic. However there's more to this than meets the eye. I explain that in a recent blog entry, "Usability or Interactivity". So vote in the poll on what you find the best expression and then why not explain your reasons here.

[Ransak]

Interesting blog post Barry.

I totally understand what your getting at with 'Interactivity' and I think the term is great for a static item such as a DVD player. I think Usability goes a step further however.

Interactivity seems to me to imply a reaction to a users action. Usability, for a webpage also implies how the information is broadcast and displayed.

So I'd say interactivity is a part of usability but overall I think usability might be the better term.

Frank V.

[Ruud]

Usability.

I like how it sounds. It keeps me focussed: it has to be usable. The interactivity of a site has to fall under the usability "rules": it has to be usable.

[AlGordon]

I can understand your point Barry, its just that to me whenever I hear, think or read the word 'Usability'; I automatically link it to the word 'User'.

Whether this makes any of my sites more usable is open for discussion, but I do think it keeps me focused on the relevant issues.

[sanity]

Usability for me too.

I don't mind interactivity, or user experience for that matter, but IMO both fall under the umbrella of usability.

Usability to me means is it usable and is it focused toward the user.

[Scratch]

I appreciate the question Barry. Here's an excerpt from my book (still months off). It comes after I've described the problem of web design (standard is generally so low, and the web is a disorienting and hostile place) and stated that what's needed is a new standard.

Thought it seemed relevant to this question. I voted for "User experience" by the way, although I mostly use "Interaction design", but I'm interested in the concept of "experience design" as a meta-profession...

Why usability isn’t the new standard

In the early days of the web, people realised that using most sites was difficult, and started using the term ‘usability’ to describe how easy a web interface is to use. An industry of usability testing emerged, which has taught us a lot about where things go wrong, by watching real people using web sites and comparing the ease-of-use of different design solutions.

There's been a long-running "design/usability" debate in the web industry, with different people arguing that one is more important than the other. The argument is based on a concept that design and usability are distinct or opposing forces.

Separating usability from design is no longer helpful. The problem is a design problem.

The sole purpose of visual design is to facilitate communication
When designing products that have a communication function, design that’s usable is simply better design, because it makes a product better at its job. Usability is a central element to successful design. There is no either/or.

(That’s about the last time I mention usability in the whole book).

While it’s certainly useful to test how successful a web site is, it’s even better to design usefulness in from the very start of the design process. There’s little point in discovering that your design doesn’t work after you’ve built your product. It’s much better to know how to do a design that works in the first place, and proceed with confidence. You should still apply user-testing at points throughout your design process to help polish the finer detail and improve an already effective process.

[Scratch]

Why graphic art isn’t the new standard

What most designers mean when they debate ‘design’ versus ‘usability’ is really ‘graphic art’ versus ‘design’. The argument generally revolves around the priority of aesthetics over function.

Design applies visual techniques to solve a communication problem, whereas Art uses the same skills for their own sake. Art has its place, and it has its place on web sites, and the artistic instinct can be very helpful, but creating a successful web site is all about design.

Your web site can be visually appealing and a pleasure to use
Visual appeal and usefulness aren’t mutually exclusive. Sometimes, design success depends on visual appeal. Beautiful and attractive visuals can encourage visitors to stick around a little longer, or explore a little deeper, help create a particular brand experience, or make a product appealing enough to buy.

Problems can arise when graphic art gets in the way of design, when it is used in a way that doesn’t support the site’s true goals, and the commercial consequences can be severe. If design fails, aesthetics doesn’t come into it.

The web industry is currently going through the same learning process that other media industries have already been through, but in a more accelerated timeframe. We can learn from their experience.

There will always be a creative tension between artistic drive and creating a product that does its job. Creatives in all other media industries have come to terms with this long ago, and found ways to work within it.

Everyone involved in web design needs to understand clearly what makes sites work and what makes them fail. That is coming over time as we collect, test and share our knowledge.

Buyers also need to be better informed, to know how to discern quality service, and demand it.

[gravelsack]

They 2 different words with different meanings - both relevant, but to differing degrees depending on the site.

Mostly I just try not to let them get confused.

[jasonb]

I'm with Scratch and Alan Cooper - 'Interaction Design' gets my vote!

[cre8pc]

I voted for "I call it something else" because the words I use may depend on whom I addressing.

For example, usability is a common term and understood immediately. It works well with startups, home and small businesses and anyone I run into, at say, my son's football games when they ask what it is I do for a living. I say I'm a "Web site usability consultant" and even the kids know what I mean.

For web site and software app designers and developers, the words vary from "interactive design" to "user centered design" to "user focused design" to whatever comes to my mind at the moment.

For stakeholders, I stick in words like "Requirements" and will jog their thinking from "I want it this way because we have to earn a million and half bucks to meet second quarter estimates" to "You will get a requirements based build that meets a list of usability and targeted customer goals...blah blah blah".

Most days, "Usability" is enough

[Black_Knight]

I've seen many things that were 'interactive', indeed, sometimes excessively so, that were not usable in a real sense. The tool actually required more interaction (and thus effort) than the task it was supposed to be a helpful tool for.

Interaction design means designing something to interact - but interaction is not always positive. Automation, for instance, is generally aimed at positively decreasing the amount of interaction required for any task.

The guy who bugs you often, slowing you down is interacting. The guy you've never met or spoken to who processes your bank account transactions is helping you, with no interaction.

Usability may often involve minimal interactivity, and in general, is the pursuit of minimising the amount of interaction (thought, clicks, concentration) that are required. A usable tool 'just works' and is ideally very intuitive. The more you need to interact with a tool, the less usable it may be, except as a passtime.

[Scratch]

Interaction design isn't just "making things interactive" -- It's the discipline of designing, or architecting, interactive systems. You can have good design, good architeture, bad design and bad architecture. I don't think the term should neccessarily imply a level of quality.

I totally agree that not all interaction is good. What we're talking about is quality of interactive systems. Usually, the minimum interaction (especially on the user's part) is better, provided it helps people reach their goals.

Usability engineering isn't design. It tells you how usable something is, but doesn't help you creatively find new design solutions.

Experience design is broader and richer. One thing I like about this term is that it may be more sympathetic to the publisher's/site's goals, in addition to the user's goals. Because all web sites need to succeed in their own ways, which means more than enabling visitors to succeed. On the down side, its breadth makes it sound weaker...

[thirstymoose_2000]

Something can be interactive --- yet not very usable.

And 'user experince' to me is the end result of the design, not the design itself.

And as mentioned, usability isn't new. It has been around for years.

Here is a quote that I used to introduce usability when I used to teach ...

"A good design, in short, is the best possible visual expression of the essence of “something,” whether this be a message or product. To do this faithfully and effectively, the designer should look for the best possible way this “something” can be shaped, made, distributed, used and related to the environment. His creation should not only be aesthetic but also functional, while reflecting or guiding the taste of the time." --- Wucius Wong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Principles of Two-Dimensional Design, 1972