Re: [Usability] Usability Digest, Vol 55, Issue 5

[Jacob Beauregard <deadowlsurvivor gmail com>]

Allan Day wrote:
> > > > The biggest problem that's going to occur is that most people have an 
> > > > extremely strong preconceived notion of how a desktop should behave, 
> > > > and while you want to have representation this group, it can't be the 
> > > > only group that's represented if you really want to improve the 
> > > > desktop experience.
> > > >         
> > > Very true... probably makes it more important for us to consider the 
> > > learnability of any proposed designs, too.  We can't necessarily 
> > > expect people to "get it" the first time they use a completely new 
> > > desktop, but if they're comfortable and productive within a week, then 
> > > we might be onto something.  If it takes them six months, we're 
> > > probably not.
> > >       
>
> It'll be important to get background information from participants about
> their previous desktop experience. Conducting observations, we should
> also be looking out to see at which points people's behaviour is
> directed by habits picked up from existing systems.
>   
It would be a mistake to deny that.
>   
> > > > Fortunately, I recently discovered a clever solution to this. You 
> > > > could weed a lot of these people out by building a survey with a very 
> > > > open-ended question that suggests an answer. Then you can see who 
> > > > responds with the suggested answer.
> > > >
> > > > Example survey question where the results were usually echoed from 
> > > > the suggestion, however with exceptions:
> > > > --------------
> > > > What interests you in the field of Computer Science? Why?
> > > > (Ex. Do you enjoy creating things? Do you enjoy knowing how stuff 
> > > > works?)
> > > > --------------
> > > > Then you can find the people that don't simply echo, and at the same 
> > > > time you can also represent the people that do echo, it's just easier 
> > > > to find the other people that don't echo way.
> > > >         
> > > Sounds like a good idea-- the screener questionnaire is certainly an 
> > > important part of selecting participants for any study.  But I've 
> > > always been lucky enough to have other people around to do that part, 
> > > so I'm not really all that qualified to comment :)
> > >       
>
> Personally, I'm unsure about how useful a pre-questionnaire would be in
> this particular respect, since I wouldn't expect there to be a simple
> relationship between people's conscious understandings and how they use
> the desktop. Let's sit them down at the prototype with a task (or
> whatever it is that we end up using) and see what happens. If we need
> to, we can ask questions about their actions either as they go or
> afterwards.
>   
I wouldn't consider it very expensive to find out if you're unsure, and 
I would bet my life that there is a very strong connection. In fact, 
with a pre-questionnaire, you can save a lot of time and money (if 
you're spending money to do this).
> I'd have concerns about classifying people according to a predefined
> schema (if that is what you're suggesting). In this situation, it would
> be much better to generate our own groupings through observation and
> analysis, rather than relying on pre-existing conceptualisations of
> behaviour.
>   
People are already classified according to predefined schema. Go ask a 
marketer for a software or hardware company if you have any doubts. You 
think Dell would sell a gaming PC if they didn't segment the market to 
include "gamers?" Do you think they would sell laptops if they didn't 
segment the market to include "mobile users?"

Some categories:
--Power users
--Casual users
--Mobile users
--Desktop users
--Home users
--Enterprise users
--Hardcore gamers
--Casual gamers
--Studio users
--Users that are disabled (hard-of-sight/hard-of-hearing/motor-impaired)

Yes, there are a million ways to categorize users. You want to segment 
users based on how they use their desktop. Before you do that, you want 
to segment users based on what they'd like to be able to do with their 
desktop. Some of these groups are a lot bigger than others. A 
pre-questionnaire allows you to make sure all of, or most of, the market 
segments are represented with minimal cost (i.e. you won't end up 
interviewing fourteen power users and a single casual user if 15 is the 
size of your sample). The best resource to aid you in segmenting the 
user population, and designing a pre-questionnaire, once again, would be 
someone in a marketing department.

If you're asking a question during an interview, "how do you improve the 
desktop experience?" most responses will be bound to the user's past 
experiences. There's a segment of users that aren't nearly as bound to 
their past experiences and they would likely be a more reliable resource 
for brainstorming, whereas the other group would likely be a more 
reliable source to measure practicality.

Would you consider this practical?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_lxBwvf3Vk

I really wouldn't. I don't think I should have to worry about managing 
files at all, never mind on my desktop. You've also got a problem in the 
model with the preconceived notion that a desktop contains files and 
shortcuts. This shows that even someone with an experimental perspective 
can be hindered by sticky preconceptions. What I'm trying to get at is 
that the question isn't necessarily how do you use your desktop, but in 
what ways can you use your desktop outside of the boundaries of what's 
already defined that would make it more useful to you. Then you focus on 
HOW can an idea be made both practical and as usable as possible. The 
widget idea, for instance, is certainly catching on and is considered by 
many to be superior to wallpaper, panels, files and shortcuts.
> Allan
>
>
>   

I hope this clears things up a bit.