On 15/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't the world be a boring place if everything was reduced to a result > of some user testing? >
Probably. But if you want something to work for users it seems unavoidable. If you don't do it at the alpha or beta stage, then you're transferring the whole of the risk to a hunch that will only be vindicated once the product is live. At some design conference I went to I saw (can't remember which one) a > designery chap described the joy he had going to a book shop and buying a > book that was wrapped in brown paper and string. The fun and satisfaction he > had unwrapping this parcel was far greater than the ripping open of some > bland and highly practical Amazon container. > That's not really "design" though.. more a Luddite view! Jacob has his place (and I'll probably always read his stuff), but lets not > devalue any artistry used here. A > design/visualisation/dataset/webapp/whatever could be the most usable in the > world, but I know I won't be interested in playing with it (and perhaps > giving them money) if its not fun. > Fun is fine, I have no problem with that. However it is always more economic to have something that is boring-but-used than fun-but-unused? Boiling this down to a practical example – Flickr is the best thing I can > think of. Adding tags and categorising my photos isn't the most enthralling > task in the world, but Flickr makes it light-hearted (e.g. "Now you know > how to greet people in Arabic!") and entertaining. They make more money by > doing this. > But that wouldn't fail usability testing would it? If it makes it more usable then that's fine and will be declared OK by testing. It's simply arrogant to think that because one understands something it is obvious to everyone else. J > > > On 15/8/07 10:09, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 15/08/07, *Simon Cobb* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kim said: "Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask." > > I'd argue that useful and playful can be part of the same thing. Certainly > nothing ever stuck with me that I didn't enjoy using/ thinking about. > Likewise many of the children I used to teach. The trick is to combine the > 2. I think there's ways from that set of visualisations to encourage people > to make playful and useful interfaces to bbc data/ apps if the API's were > available. > > > > As I was trying to say, a system that allows the end-user to construct > live visualizations of data is a commendable idea, but (almost) by > definition this will be impossible for others to use. For example, many > people will use red to indicate an error state and green to indicate a OK > condition. But you can't use that for everyone as 10% of men are red-green > colourblind. > > If you do some research you will also find out that some people are > visually-orientated and respond well to these kinds of representations. But > others prefer speech over visual explanations and this kind of thing will > exclude those people. > > > Brian said: "I presume you have some substantive evidence that no testing > is require then?" > > That's not what I said, it's just that I'm not personally convinced that > his views are as up-to-date as they should be and so cannot perpetuate his > status as an untouchable usability expert. But that's best discussed over a > pint at some unspecified future backstage event rather than this list. > > > That's a total cop-out, either you can explain why no usability testing is > required or not. Personally I don't drink so I can't see why I would never > discover the great truth that has been revealed to your good self. Simply > being rude about someone is a failure to explain - just an insult rather > than a debunking. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth > *Sent:* 14 August 2007 18:12 > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] more data visualisation links > > > I guess this brings us right back to Richard MacDuff's "Anthem" programme > which attempted much the same but with music in the first Dirk Gently book > (coming soon to Radio 4)... > > On 14/08/07, *Kim Plowright* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I think the point here is 'does the visualisation of the data adds > meaning, or is just pretty to look at?'. > > Does your visualisation tell people more about the data set than the > raw numbers? Is it 'legible'? Does it expose trends and meaning that > would otherwise be hidden to all but the most numerate? Does it let > someone reach sound conclusions faster, or navigate quicker, or become > more accurate? > > Which is Tufte territory, not Nielsen. > http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/ > > Not that there's anything wrong with pretty, but good datavis is about > adding layers of meaning, as well as the layers of aesthetics. > > Its possible to remove the 'data' during the visualisation process and > turn it in to a purely aesthetic entertainment experience, too. Some > of the Jonathan Harris stuff does this - it's information as > spectacle. Fun to look at, not 'wrong' per se, but a terrible way of > actually turning data -> information -> knowledge. > > Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask. > > > Some of these seem to be of dubious real use. Has anyone put any of > them > > though Jakob Nielsen-style user testing? > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk > <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/><http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/> discussion group. > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html > <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html><http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html>. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
