Usability or Donkey Design? (Or, Why do you love usability?) Options

[webword]

I am passionate about usability. If you are reading this you are probably passionate too. At a minimum, you are probably interested in usability and you think usability is valuable.

I have something for you to think about. Are you really interested in usability for the sake of usability? Or, instead, are you really interested in the results of usability?

Here's something to think about. Let's pretend that you could improve a web site 350% by getting a donkey to stomp all over your keyboard. We'll call this Donkey Design. In this situation, we can see that Donkey Design is superior to usability.

So, what really matters? Do we really need to care about users? Do humans come before technology? Do you really care about usability or do you care about the results of usability? Does Donkey Design sound better than usability now that you know it offers excellent ROI, particularly in relation to usability?

This isn't quite as silly as you might think. If you just embrace usability because it works, you'll be blind to other options. You won't explore other ways to increase ROI. And trust me, there are other ways to improve ROI. Usability is just one way to get what you want. It isn't the only way.

We should constantly be looking for ways to improve our designs and web sites. In some cases we can improve by using different technologies. In other cases we can improve by doing more editing and proofreading. In still other cases we improve by optimizing our sites for search engines.

The key is to understand your goals. The are many ways to get what you want, including ROI, without usability. Match the methods to the goals. Don't just blindly take the usability path.

The summary is that you probably care about the results of usability not usability itself. Some people love math for the sake of math. It is an object of desire. It is a standard. It is a way of thinking. But, most of us like math because it gets the job done. It is a tool. Usability is no different. It is one path but it isn't the only path.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John S. Rhodes
Industrial Strength Usability
Usability Consulting --> http://oristus.com
Usability Blog --------> http://webword.com

[RonZ]

I'm totally missing your point, John. As you can probably guess from our exchanges over the years, I don't agree with most of your assumptions. Also, I don't understand why you introduced "Donkey Design". As a contrasting methodology, or something much bigger like mathematics? I don't see how usability is like Donkey Design or mathematics, though it might make sense to compare a specific usability testing method to Donkey Design. I don't think there is anything analogous to mathematics - testing methods are too specific while usability itself too vague.

[bragadocchio]

We should constantly be looking for ways to improve our designs and web sites. In some cases we can improve by using different technologies. In other cases we can improve by doing more editing and proofreading. In still other cases we improve by optimizing our sites for search engines.

Actually, that's part of the point behind these forums.

We have sections on design, usability, SEO, marketing, and others here because we've recognized that taking a broader view to look at the goals of a site can be beneficial to people working on web sites.

The cross-pollination of ideas, from conversations where people have different sets of knowledge, and different experiences, enables us to strive to keep from looking too closely from only one perspective, and to keep the goals of a site in mind.

I don't know if we have any forum members who are donkeys though.

[AbleReach]

If you just embrace usability because it works, you'll be blind to other options. You won't explore other ways to increase ROI. And trust me, there are other ways to improve ROI. Usability is just one way to get what you want. It isn't the only way.

Nothing can be one-sided and still function well.

Elizabeth

[RonZ]

Since there have been two good comments while I wait for John to reply to my questions and concerns, I'm going to at least point out that I agree with those comments, and that I find John's post only confuses those points, rather than inform or enlighten.

I find the assertion that "Usability is just one way to get what you want. It isn't the only way." to be a strawman. I especially don't like John's contrasting this strawman with "We should constantly be looking for ways to improve our designs and web sites."

Well, this thing that John is calling "usability" is not something I recognize at all. It's certainly not any type of usability I've seen, heard of, or used. Usability is not "one way" but a goal (one of many) of design. "Usability" is sometimes also used to mean the extremely large and varied set of methodologies for achieving this goal (and usually, at least some of the other goals).

[webword]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the critical thinking. I always appreciate your comments.

I know many people who are too willing to take a very narrow view of usability. They see usability as only an attribute of a product or service, for example. They do not see it as a process or method, or set of methods. Or, they won't consider both points of view. Your last paragraph makes exactly these points so I find that we are in agreement.

Donkey Design is Donkey Design. It is what you make of it. You don't agree with the idea and you don't like it. Fair enough! It is meant to generate a discussion, not much more.

I think that I am going to ignore your comments about the strawman in light of my comment above. I don't feel it is really a strawman. I have some training in philosophy but I just don't feel like spending energy on it. I'll respect your position and move on.

I'll end with this. It is specifically for you, Ron. What do you want? I mean, what do you think we need to do to get people on the right track regarding usability? What is the right track? Ultimately, that is what I am thinking about. I enjoy the (meta) discussion about usability. I have my methods, questions, and tools, and so do you.

Cheers,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John S. Rhodes
Industrial Strength Usability
Usability Consulting --> http://oristus.com
Usability Blog --------> http://webword.com

[RonZ]

Hi John! With all the discussions we had in the past, didn't you see this one coming? Thanks for your response.

Yes, I've seen many terms or phrases used mean some extremely small attributes or extremely constrained approaches to design. "Information architecture" immediately comes to mind in this context for some reason. Let me call it "a restricted approach to design" instead.

Let me introduce "Black Box Design" as a replacement for "Donkey Design". Black box design being a huge black box rather than a donkey. You don't know how the black box works, only that it produces better designed websites...

So, how would someone with a restricted approach to design react to Black Box Design? I'd guess they'd respond with a great deal of denial until they're convinced either Black Box Design is truly better, or until they find an argument for how their restricted approach to design is still somehow better under certain circumstances.

So, is anyone denying that something like Black Box Design exists? I don't think so. Are people blinded by their own approaches from looking for Black Box Design? Absolutely. I don't think it's bad though. It may not be their job (or otherwise in their interest) to do so. Of course, I hope people will apply at least a little critical thinking to why they've chosen their own approaches.

[Black_Knight]

Perhaps I can help you understand one particular real-world case of 'Donkey Design' Ronz.

I know a rather skilled SEO practitioner who has a rather unusable website. It is made deliberately difficult to find information. It leads one down many false trails. The information you seek always seems to be close, but not quite within grasp. In frustration, the users pay to get the instant answer rather than trawl their way through the terrible information architecture that was so carefully constructed.

The site is not a fraud. The information the users seek is there. But profits come from them losing patience with finding it themselves, and responding to the quick fix promise of paying for direct results.

The usability is deliberately poor. That is the entire profitability of the site, and very profitable it is too. That, Ronz, is real world Donkey Design. If you were to offer to improve the usability of that site for free, the webmaster would break both your arms to stop you.

As you can see, this is not black-box design. We know exactly where the profitability (the results) lie - with poor usability. It is what John has so clearly alluded to with his 'Donkey Design' concept. The idea of breaking something to get more of the real desired result (profit) out of it.

I'm afraid that there are cases, and quite a few of them where it is the assertion that "Usability is not "one way" but a goal (one of many) of design" is very much the strawman, and an entirely false assumption.

Its akin to thinking that the most profitable restaurant is the one with the best food ingredients. Or that the most profitable shop is the one with the best customer service.

In the real world, sometimes it is making things less good that actually increases the profits. Like the businesses that deliberately play poor music so customers leave sooner making room for more customer turnaround.

[AbleReach]

Except, Ammon, your "Donkey" was making a calculated plan.

Here's something to think about. Let's pretend that you could improve a web site 350% by getting a donkey to stomp all over your keyboard. We'll call this Donkey Design. In this situation, we can see that Donkey Design is superior to usability.

There are lots of reasons why it's good to have creative and technical control.
Shall we call Donkey Design WYSIWYG circa 1997?

So, what really matters? Do we really need to care about users? Do humans come before technology? Do you really care about usability or do you care about the results of usability? Does Donkey Design sound better than usability now that you know it offers excellent ROI, particularly in relation to usability?

I suppose that's a personal preference. I wouldn't sleep well putting technology before users.

Does this get us back to black versus white (and grey) hats? The last time I took on the black hat role was years ago as the wicked witch in a public library's puppet theater series. Not that I've never made anyone nuts, as my mom may confirm - I was into mud pies as a little kid and she was a neat freak, but that's got to be at least six lifetimes ago.

I'm not raking in the cash, but I sleep at night and I learn for fun. I am at my most productive when I am either creativity-driven or under the stress of a deadline.


Elizabeth

[invader]

So, what really matters? Do we really need to care about users?  
Do humans come before technology? Do you really care about usability or
do you care about the results of usability? Does Donkey Design sound  
better than usability now that you know it offers excellent ROI, particularly
in relation to usability?

Nobody cares about anything, actually. But themselves.
Nobody cares about usability, or users.

What really matters?
Money. Livelihood. Survival of the fittest.

It drives us, and the level to which it drives us, creates a false impression
that we really care about the art itself. Unfortunately, the art has just become
the medium, there are hardly any people who would do it just because of the
love of it. Most would think otherwise, but it's an illusive world.

Nice observation, John.

[AbleReach]

OT Alert--

Nobody cares about anything, actually. But themselves.  
Nobody cares about usability, or users.  
 
What really matters?  
Money. Livelihood. Survival of the fittest.

And Firefox Extensions! :sunny:
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/viewtopic.p...p=116552#116552
Sorrrrrrry, couldn't resist.
(If only there was a little World Cup of FF Extensions emoticon )

Elizabeth

[invader]

haha! right : -)

[webword]

Black_Knight wrote...

\"In the real world, sometimes it is making things less good that actually increases the profits. Like the businesses that deliberately play poor music so customers leave sooner making room for more customer turnaround.\"

Excellent comment. It reminds me of Paco Underhill's Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping (ISBN: 068484914). If you haven't read this book, you should. It'll open your eyes. I wish that someone would write a book on this topic specifically for the web. The closest one would probably be Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think (ISBN: 0789723107).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John S. Rhodes
Industrial Strength Usability
Usability Consulting --> http://oristus.com
Usability Blog --------> http://webword.com

[Black_Knight]

Steve Krug's book is excellent stuff, heartily recommended, but still not touching the kind of 'Donkey Design' that I highlighted.

The adult industry used Donkey Design to great effect in the mid nineties. Free adult-oriented images were always dangled just a click away, yet most clicks would merely take you to yet another 'portal' site where free stuff was only a click away... and there, as frustration grew, were the instant access signups that promised to take you to even better content, in a risk-free, low-cost, ever so simple step.

That's not a perfect example, because sometimes the frustration would have the opposite effect, and destroy the trust in all the claims. However, done right, it worked very effectively in eventually converting traffic by driving them around and around in ever decreasing circles. Terrible usability used to drive profits.