Comments on (Over)simple Answers for Simple Minds

dkr — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:26 GMT

So true. It seems that more and more there is no right answer. I work in an organization where I have to wear many hats and often feel like I’m expected to be an expert at everything “web” while at the same time having to educate the organization about things I’ve not fully mastered myself. While I truly want the people I work with to understand what we do, and how it can help the organization – sometimes it seems that knowledge transfer can backfire.

Hand someone in marketing “Don’t make me think” and there is a good chance you’ll have to follow it word for word. That’s not a knock, it’s a great book, but it doesn’t have ALL the answers. Would that it did, it would make my life much easier.

(heaven forbid disagree with the Producer who gets Alertbox in his Inbox – he or she may not get design – but who needs it right?)

mschindler — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

You don’t have to be a Postmodern French thinker to accept that fact that there just simply is no truth in the world, especially in the tech industry. The proverbial skinning of the cat for any one problem/solution is infinite.

I see these overgeneralizations really being aimed at the culture of our corporate dysfunction, or “lack of vision” that’s ever-present in the industry. Really, it’s a way for the simplest of minds (ie middle management) to justify their decision-making.

But it’s just rhetoric and discourse. The people with real vision can pick it apart and perhaps more importantly (as the author suggests) most of the nonsense will merely be disproved over time.

tbc — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Yes this strikes a very large (possibly minor and atonal but…) chord with me – the culture of the ‘Net Guru’ is best described in the book Net Slaves – it describes them as ‘priests and madmen’. (It also describes a very funny episode which is either loosely based on John Perry Barlow I think (or not so loosely?)

It’s funny, but the grandiose and grand-standing pronouncements by people like Nielsen may feed their pay cheques but makes other’s people’s lives in the industry pretty much unbearable – especially designers and ‘information architects’ (ugh hate that term) because the management or client picks up Nielsen’s latest book and sees a set of easy-care ‘rules’ to apply with no thought. And insists that because they are an expert that they have to be strictly adhered to 100%(hey Nielsen did some good work on readability at Sun so he *must* be an instant IA/usability expert, yeah! just add water! :-P)

I call this ‘cookie-cutterism’ – just ‘dragging and dropping’ the solution from the apparent ‘expert’ to the project without actually questioning whether it’s true or looking into it.

And it is killing creativity on the web, frankly.

It’s made it into a profession where I frankly don’t want to be, the fun that made me join this industry in 1996 has gone out of it. Where’s the ‘fun’ in Nielsen’s pronouncements or useit.com? – it’s like being nagged by your mother! They see design and creativity and bending or breaking the rules as something to be stomped on – ‘it’s not information it’s noise!’ – without embracing that sometimes that is appropriate and part of the reason the person is at the site in the first place. But that is intangible and not easily measurable like function or usablity is (did someone shout pseudoscience? snigger…:-P)

Don’ t get me wrong, I have 100% respect for Nielen’s business partner – Don Norman, who walks the talk and has done so since the 70’s I think, and knows what he’s tlaking about and doing (and more importantly knows what he DOESN’T know)

He doesn’t seem to do the big pronouncements and grandstanding – and like all designers (in the proper wider sense) wants to make it work better – be it the web, his phone, his car or whatever – but seems to understand the future is not absolutist or definite, it’s in flux but to strive to make things better is the place to be – but I get the impression like me he believes better as in fun or creative or original is important as well.

zeldman — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Ongoing relationships (business partnerships) often work better than deliverable-driven projects with fixed end-dates. Ongoing partnerships acknowledge that design and usability are iterative: they improve with revision.

With an ongoing partnership, you can say, “This approach seems best. Let’s try it for 30 days, then reevaluate.” Nothing wishy-washy about that. Businesses are always testing results and adjusting goals and strategies.

The trouble arises when you must deliver a project and walk away from it — a situation that encourages entrenchment on the consultant’s side and nervous second-guessing on the client’s.

As to books, it has always disturbed me that black-and-white views outsell and out-persuade more thoughtful approaches. It bugs me even more that such books and their authors create the terms of professional discourse. What kind of dialog can you hope for when diametrically opposed, extreme viewpoints define the terms of discourse?

George Olsen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

It’s true we do represent users. But I’m a little baffled that professions that otherwise profess to be user-centered seem to overlook user-focused approaches when dealing with users of our services—clients and colleagues.

That means meeting their needs. As Lyle points out, sometimes they need recommended solutions, sometimes they need suggestions to try out, sometimes they need options with an analysis of pros and cons.

This is _not_ the same as saying we always need to give definitive answers. In fact many of our recommendations may be contingent on the context, as I’d said in my concluding paragraph.

But too many people seem content to merely point out the issues and not move on to (contingent) recommendations/suggestions/options based on the best available information. If we’re not willing to do that, then no I don’t think we’re being professional. That’s true whether you’re a usabilitista, designer, programmer, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc.

It also means realizing that sometimes we have to balance user’s needs and desires against other factors. That’s why I’ve never liked “user-centered” and prefer “user-focused.” It’s a small but important shift in emphasis. By focusing on the user, we recognize that we’re taking away focus from other things.

Sometimes—no I’d say oftentimes—those other factors can’t be ignored. I’d love for Porsche to sell me a Boxter at the price of a Yugo. That would do a wonderful job of satisfying my user needs and desires. It would also put Porsche out of business.

Balancing different concerns is hard, but it’s one of the things that makes us professionals. The real difficulty comes not in balancing “right” and “wrong,” but balancing among competing “rights.”

Joe Clark — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Actually, no, I would have no hesitation to trust a doctor who answered a question with “It depends.” Sometimes it does depend; that is the correct answer. Jumping to a conclusion could constitute malpractice.

This entire posting seems to boil down to “Unless we give definitive answers to all questions, we end up sounding wishy-washy.” This, in turn, suggests that what we have just read is another instance of projected inferiority complex: “Usability is too a profession!” But then the doubts come to mind (if it’s really a profession, why are so many answers contingent instead of clear-cut?), and an article like this one, which essentially denies that there are contingent answers in usability and blames usabilitistas for not drawing a line in the sand and forming definitive opinions, is the result.

And people somehow take it seriously.

Jared Spool — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

I’ve often felt that the desire and positive response that these simplistic declarations receive is a side effect of a desire to eliminate complexity from our lives. Answers like “It Depends” doesn’t eliminate complexity. “Never do That” does.

It isn’t restricted to web design. It happens everywhere. “Men are from Mars!” Well, that explains it. No wonder he’s a jerk.

Have a pain in your arm? Well, take an aspirin. Wait! Aspirin eats your stomach wall. Take acetominaphen. Hold on, if it is more of a muscle soreness, ibuprophen might be better. Unless you need a longer relief, then naproxen sodium is a better idea. Pain killers are so complicated—I just want my pain to go away!

As a scientific researcher, I work very hard to find out THE truth, only to find out that it’s couched in such a complicated set of context and conditions that it’s virtually impossible to get one’s head around it. Even with extensive training in the field.

Which is why I think that the simplistic answer will always sell more books and get more press coverage than the complex one.

You’ll never see a headline in the NY Times that says “Researchers have discovered that users prefer Search when searching for books and cds, but prefer Links when searching for apparel and office supplies and the researchers don’t know whether bicycle parts are more like books or office supplies.”

Now, where did I put down my clipboard…. Back to the research.

PeterV — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

As the immortal Frank Herbert said in one of his books, “Knowledge without action is empty”. I agree making a decision based on incomplete data is what our job is all about. At least we are aware of what data is missing, what data is an assumption, and what data we think is solid.

Experience and sharing stories can help us build our intuition.

Constantijn Baarendse — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Hi, I’m on Nielsen’s side.

The article says: “We work in a user centered way, but our advise depends on the circumstances in the company.” I call this is a contradiction, for users have nothing to do with the company.

We make things better for users. The reason we are hired by companies should be that these users can be consumers, customers or employees. And they can bring in income, productivity, cost reductions etc.

And whatever technological wonders, design freaks, marketing wizzards and management gurus are working for these companies, we only have to focus on the people that want to use their sites. And give feedback based on what they experience.

Constantijn.

Lyle Kantrovich — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Amen brother! Excellent points all. I’ve found (as an internal consultant) that you have to gauge the situation and determine when to ‘be decisive’ and when to answer ‘it depends.’ Here are some related thoughts:

Sometimes clients want a quick answer to their specific problem – like what an error message should read. As a consultant you can either:

a) offer a recommendation for an error message
b) suggest they prototype an error message and usability test it
c) tell them ‘it depends’ and offer alternative solutions and analysis of pros/cons as to how each alternative serves different audience groups

Which option is right may depend on the context: time/urgency, client understanding of UCD, client relationship, budget, risk associated with poor design, etc. If a client doesn’t know much about usability testing, option B allows you the opportunity to educate. Option C allows you to demonstrate some of your expertise and to illustrate that different audience needs have to be considered. Option A might set you up as the ‘instant answer guy’ in the future.

In the end I think you have to recommend an approach (if not an exact solution). Sometimes teaching people how to solve design issues is the right way to go—unless of course YOUR job is to be the designer. In the end, how ‘decisive’ you should be depends heavily on the role of the consultant.

Sometimes clients are looking for “rules”—and they may not exist. My inclination is to educate people beyond their current issue whenever possible, but to always help them solve their basic problem. It’s dangerous to try to be “THE expert”—a few bad calls and you become “the guy who thinks he’s an expert.”

I think it’s listening skills that are the most valuable for a consultant—understanding your clients’ real needs first before answering questions is important. E.g. When they ask for an estimate, are they looking for a ballpark figure for budgeting or for an exact fixed-bid price?

Another key point is to make sure that you clarify when you are offering OPINIONS versus relaying hard facts based on lots of research or whatever.

Consulting also often involves helping people understand when they are facing a “Big Gnarly Problem” rather than a simple issue. We have to justify all those hours and billing rates somehow…

George Olsen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

Speaking of science, the irony is that the hardest of the “hard” sciences—quantum mechanics—teaches that systems are governed by probabilities, not rules. And I’d like to think humans are more complex multi-varient systems than cosmic matter.

David Heller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

George, this is totally right on. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance and usually that line is in the delivery, but it is also in the reception as well.

One of the things that I feel has hurt many UX people is that we are the border between the technical and the aesthetic and b/c of that we are often linked to the technical or scientific. Science means truth, or proof of truth. Design though doesn’t have truths, it has trends, fashion, & results. It can be argued that the results “prove” the design, but I would say that in our field results are fashionable as well. What works today, works b/c it is an improvement on the past, but it is never a final solution. Not b/c it was a bad solution but because, so much of what we work in innovates at a rate of gestation that is so fast with such huge deltas that the next solution has to be that much more different to accommodate it.

So yes, we have great guidelines … the problem is our bosses and clients want rules for us to follow. How stagnant is that?

—dave

Anuradha — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:25 GMT

George,

I just read your article article -(Over) simple answers for simple minds- and I personally find it to be very true.

There is never only one right way to do things- and we only undermine our role as IAs by not being open to other business and programming needs.