Why do crappy interfaces sell?

I believe that Jared Spool wrote an article on this YEARS ago (and can/should/will probably correct me where I'm wrong).

I think they buy these products with crappy interfaces because it has the functionality that they need. When they first purchase a product, that is their main concern. It's not until they have used it for a while that they move on to the next step beyond functionality.

Actually—Jared, my brain hurts, do you still have this article? Assuming you also feel that it relates to this question.

Susie Robson
The MathWorks
Sr. Usability Specialist
1.508.647.7685

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Figueiredo
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:24 PM
To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

I just spoke with a client for who I did an interface review for a CD product that is almost on the market. They told me that they loved my work but they have been showing the product with the old interface to clients and they already have a couple of orders for it so they're scrapping the review
work for now.

My question is: why do people keep buying products with crappy interfaces? I
guess that since most products ship with poor interfaces, people have very low expectations. But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years? They should know better by now. Why do people keep giving incentives
to companies who deliver poor products?

I think that people are generally unaware that these products can indeed be much better. So that points us towards education. Shouldn't we be educating
the general public? Maybe by rewarding good interfaces or by giving them information about what a good product should be?

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Bruno Figueiredo wrote:

I think that people are generally unaware that these products can indeed be much better. So that points us towards education. Shouldn't we be educating the general public? Maybe by rewarding good interfaces or by giving them information about what a good product should be?

A number of reasons, in no specific order:

1. Traction—they're used to a product or crappy interface/experience and don't see a need to change.

2. Fear of change.

3. Lack of knowledge—don't know any better.

4. Really good sales person. Just look at Lotus applications—ugh!

5. Sold on functionality—ever seen applications used in trading? UI? What UI? Information hierarchy? What's that?

6. Buyer isn't the user. How many people here in large-mid sized companies? Go ahead, raise your hands. Okay, how many of you get to pick the platform and applications you use? Oh, right.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

My question is: why do people keep buying products with crappy interfaces?

Hey Bruno,

If it serves as a consolation, the familiarity of the old interface, the risk of raising legal implications with clients who pre-ordered the CD with the old interface, manufacturing laziness and savings had a big play in your case. Pretty much a Pareto analysis with focus on saving on remodelling a product that sells. 7 out 10 DVD menus are horrible but if the film is good, it puts all the nice peripheral work in perspective. [Sigh] I wish the world was run by Honda.

Ate' mais,

Luis

But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years?

Bruno, I think that's the very root of the problem: inertia. When there are only one (or few) players in the field, the market for a product tends to mature slowly. The financial and medical industries are classic examples. Especially in these industries, upper management sees a different approach as something that needs additional training and integration work. Never mind that the "new thing" would make people more efficient and offset the costs. On the customer and the vendor side, they see it all as extra cost that doesn't make sense, especially when there are shareholders to report to.

Not sure what the market is for the CD product, but I'm guessing once another company wants a piece of the pie, it'll come up with a slick new way to do things and give your client a run for its money. That's when there's incentive for someone like your client to use that extra cost to "buy a competitive advantage." And when the competitors of customers in the market become more efficient by using the new, more efficient product, they have an incentive to demand more efficient products, too.

- N

1) simplicity sells, a ui that is crappier functionally, but looks 'easy' is likely to sell better than a more powerful complicated ui.

2) and most people are essentially color blind when it comes to design.

3) users have no preconceived notion/expectation like you. If it works it's good enough...often a user coverage of features will only be 10-30% of the total functionality in a product (same goes for the percent of books people read).

Relatedly they don't do side by side comparisons so they rarely have a frame of reference to compare. You see this in hardware sales, yes a 52" TV side by side may be noticiably different, but back at home ...anything is better than the 20" with rabbit ears.

Maybe the problem is that this product is targeted to a very small niche. I don't even know if they have competition at all.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

i don't have the research to cite but i also suspect that virtually any interface can be learned given enough time.
i used to do data entry for custom mainframe software as a summer job and later i beta tested Merrill Lynch's DOS-based brokerage information system in the early 90s. both interfaces sucked but people dumber than the corn in shit were able to master them given enough time...

On 1/22/08, Nasir Barday nasir at userlicious.com wrote: But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years? Bruno, I think that's the very root of the problem: inertia. When there are only one (or few) players in the field, the market for a product tends to mature slowly. The financial and medical industries are classic examples. Especially in these industries, upper management sees a different approach as something that needs additional training and integration work. Never mind that the "new thing" would make people more efficient and offset the costs. On the customer and the vendor side, they see it all as extra [trim]

www.flyingyogi.com

On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Nasir Barday wrote:

financial and medical industries are classic examples

These are two industries that need to most help and can show the biggest ROI, IMHO.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

Anyway, I think that the main problem is the general lack of knowledge on how good an interface can be. I'm not talking about ROI, athough that's a very strong (and also difficult to proove) argument. I'm talking about the lack of frustration when using it.

The product that I'm talking about is aimed at students. I believe that most of all, these interfaces need to be very good. After all, students should be focusing on learning the content, not on how to master the interface.

This leads me again to the question: "How can we, as Interaction Designers can educate the general public about good interfaces?"

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

On Tue, January 22, 2008 2:01 pm, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote: financial and medical industries are classic examples These are two industries that need to most help and can show the biggest ROI, IMHO.

Interestingly enough (or not), when I was recently digging through HFI's CUA list, I noticed a large amount of folks getting certified were in the Financial (and Insurance, I believe)—at least in the midwest.

I wonder what we can derive from that?

--Russ

I like this question a lot, Bruno. It's really a lot like asking the question: "How do we teach people how to dress?" I actually describe the evangelism/education part of my job this way.

The short answer, really, is to build an impressive example product so people can see the light. No amount of telling people about Fitt's Law, etc. is as effective as showing people what really can be better. It all comes down to market maturity: once there is a better product out there (provided it makes it to market— I totally empathize with your story), people begin to accept it and competitors start running around with their hair on fire.

- Nasir

Easy answer in two words: Brilliant Marketing!

This applies especially to products that do something never done before. Most people don't know such a thing as interface design exists. Brilliant Marketing convinces them that if they don't understand how to use the product, or if its functions are not intuitive, they are out of step with the seething mass of humanity and it's a malfunction within themselves.

I'm releasing my Brilliant Marketing theory under the Creative Commons license, by the way, if anyone wants to borrow it. Just give me credit anytime you use the term in public or private conversation.

In your example, Bruno — and here I'm assuming that your design actually is better — people have adapted to bad design and it has become their new norm. My guess is that the flaw in the company's testing lies in their reliance on existing users (clients) rather than novices who could offer a potential for expanding their market share. Given a choice, most novices would choose the more functional design. Clients choose the more familiar one.

And yeah, there's that whole "inertia" thing, too. So essentially I'm in full agreement with Todd and Nasir, but in a much more cynical way. Do you think a long vacation would help?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

This may just be 5 hours of sleep talking, but what the hey....Jared, I'd be interested to see your article on the subject...

Bruno: I think you have a point that people are generally unaware that interfaces could be better. But probably more important, it takes a certain kind of person to demand, and expect anything in return. There are very few opportunities in life to demand what you want - we don't get to demand cars that run more efficiently, we don't get to demand our relationships are more fulfilling, and despite what Burger King says, we don't really get a Whooper "my way". By and large I think most people "make do" with what they have, and only really demand things when they're physically painful, EXTREMELY annoying or offend our values.

So yeah, I think people could be better informed that you don't have to suffer with the same bad interfaces, and their lives could be so much easier with the right touch of design & common sense. Once informed, though, they still have to demand something. In a work environment, it might just be all you can handle demanding a paycheck every week, much less a web page that doesn't give you carpal-tunnel syndrome.

As an anecdote, in her 20 years managing a radio station, my mom took a certain amount of pride and job security knowing that she was the only one who understood how to use their billing and program management applications. When I pointed out there were better tools on the market, she quipped: "What, and lose my job?". She wasn't lazy, but just felt she had mastered those tools and didn't have a whole lot else to show for her tenure.

Bryan http://www.bryanminihan.com

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Figueiredo
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:24 PM
To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

I think that people are generally unaware that these products can indeed be much better. So that points us towards education. Shouldn't we be educating the general public? Maybe by rewarding good interfaces or by giving them information about what a good product should be?

Interestingly enough (or not), when I was recently digging through HFI's CUA list, I noticed a large amount of folks getting certified were in the Financial (and Insurance, I believe)—at least in the midwest. I wonder what we can derive from that? —Russ

The Finance industry is starting to "catch on" in that they know what this "usability thing" is. So some firms are throwing money at CUA certifications. Not that CUA certifications are a bad thing to spend money on, but the HFI curriculum focuses on testing bad stuff rather than making it right in the first place. So recommendations end up being "lipstick on a pig." Would be nice to see how many IxDs are working in Finance vs. Usability Analysts.

Honestly, with so many people averse to change in this industry, and with so few competitors, the incentive to become more efficient is not that high yet.

- N

I guess that there's also a lot of hidden frustration out there. Fisrt, people don't want to be deemed as stupid. So, if they're shown a crappy interface by a vendor, even if they find it cumbersome and hard to use, they won't say it. And second, there's the sense that whoever designs these products are geniuses and if they don't get it, it's their fault.

This reminds me of a conversation I once overheard between motorists. They were discussing the new key cards on the new Mercedes models and one said that at first it took him ages to figure out how to open the door. In the end, he concluded: "the car's technology is really high-tech". So he thought that since he couldn't master it, it was because he was not on the same level as technology".

About hidden frustration, as the head of the Portuguese UPA I oversaw the lauch of a new website on the last WUD called "hard to use". We gathered feedback from the general public about everyday products that they found hard to use. The website closed a month later and we sent that feedback over to the companies responsible for delivering those products.

What we found is that there was a lot of hidden frustration out there. But people seem to see tech products as something very distant from them, so they generally don't question them. I believe this is due to a lack of understandment. Shouldn't we as Design collective be educating people about this? It would certainly make our jobs easier.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

I've given this idea (that any interface can be learned given enough time) some thought for the past few years, and I have (for now) two direct observations about this idea.

# 1 What about Blinking 12? Enough time could not save Blinking 12, because there was enough motivation. Actually, these days, I don't even bother putting numbers into the memory of my landline phone anymore, because it is just easier to look up the number on my cell, and then call with the landline (when I'm wanting to make a landline call)

# 2 In a past life I was a photographer who worked avidly in a good old stinky chemical darkroom (sexy places, those stinky chemical darkrooms... don't ask me why, and don't telll OSHA). I've been out of it for a long time, but I did love the magic of that work, which caught hold of me from about age 12 on when I saw my first image appear in a tray of developer. You could say I was highly motivated to learn the "interfaces" of almost all darkroom processes, from enlarger operation to the finer points of transferring images through the trays, contrast control, flashing an image while in the developer to solarize it, combining negatives in a single print, trick photography. I actually preferred darkroom work to shooting a lot of the time (never grew to like lugging equipment).

Now these days we all know our Photoshop arcana, same difference, and that is fine, but consider the different assumptions made about the usability of "darkrooms."

I also taught photography and darkroom work for many years, so I hit this head on too. In short, most darkroom processes would not meet even the more power user standards for mass market usability. They were far too imprecise, artful, intuitive, and interdependently extended, for most beginners and many advanced users to even be able to produce an identical print twice (although work in PR, and you will soon learn to do it).

What does this mean, as Martin Luther might say?

Darkroom processes weren't developed (heh) for the mass market? Neither are many software programs, but that doesn't mean their processes aren't often honed to standard (dumbed down?) usability design patterns.

I also had many colleagues in the humanities (journalism) who have raging cases of technophobia. Yet many of these same people would have no hesitation walking into a darkroom and dusting off their rusty skills to make a print. I've told them, when they throw up the wall at me and say BS like "blog software is TOO HARD for me to use" or "how can I be expected to do this (search a database) when I'm no good with computers!" that the things I'm asking them to do are actually EASIER technically than working in a good old fashioned sexy stinky darkroom, with far fewer processes to remember, formulas and calculations to apply, or even dexterity required!

As you may guess, my arguments get nowhere.

I think my bigger question here (if I have one) has to do with our assumptions about lowest common denominators, and how many technological solutions in our world we might be blowing off, just because interfaces are "too hard to use."

Applying that logic, we might never have developed photography at all, let alone mass market photography, from Brownies to stereoscopic cameras to glass negs and view cameras, flash powder and flash cubes, Instamatics and ordinary people actually able to thread 120 film in old twin lens reflex cameras without accidentally exposing the whole roll?

Usability is a great thing, but I don't know if I'm blaspheming the in temple if I say, I kinda miss interfaces that challenged me to master their mysteries and discover their Easter Eggs.

Chris

On Jan 22, 2008 2:57 PM, Ari Feldman ari1970 at gmail.com wrote:

i don't have the research to cite but i also suspect that virtually any interface can be learned given enough time. i used to do data entry for custom mainframe software as a summer job and later i beta tested Merrill Lynch's DOS-based brokerage information system in the early 90s. both interfaces sucked but people dumber than the corn in shit were able to master them given enough time... On 1/22/08, Nasir Barday nasir at userlicious.com wrote: But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years? Bruno, I think that's the very [trim]

This thread is a total deja vu of The Inmates are Running the Asylum and Design of Everyday Things. After reading them long ago, I felt I understood the insanity.

Not necessarily at peace with it (or I wouldn't be an IxD), but certainly understood the psychology of the insanity and how to fix it (at least within my company). I'd suggest a quick read of both— consider the total purchase price insurance against an ulcer :-).

- Nasir

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:39:57, Bruno Figueiredo bruno.figueiredo at gmail.com wrote:

I guess that there's also a lot of hidden frustration out there. Fisrt, people don't want to be deemed as stupid. So, if they're shown a crappy interface by a vendor, even if they find it cumbersome and hard to use, they won't say it. And second, there's the sense that whoever designs these products are geniuses and if they don't get it, it's their fault. This reminds me of a conversation I once overheard between motorists. They were discussing the new key cards on the new Mercedes models and one said that at first it took him [trim]

Actually, those two books were the ones who opened my eyes and made me shift towards usability and interaction design. I think they're really great books but most people won't read them, so how can we send them their message?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

What has really worked for me, honestly, is showing off the good that IxD can do, over and over, until people started seeing the light. Eventually people within the company start getting convinced that it's worth it to take the time to do things right. Then a well-designed product eventually makes it to market, and clients say things like "OMG, this is f*ckin' awesome!" (a direct quote, no joke). A feather in the cap later, the rest of the company starts getting the message and gets on the ball.

We're talking about changing perceptions here, which, in my case, took a few years of hard-hitting talks internally and perservering through rejection after rejection. It's most effective to start with small projects, and work your way to bigger ones, so the pain of having an idea ignored is less.

- N

I agree with educating people more. I found in user testing how much people put themselves down when they are having a hard time with the task. I tell them they are doing fine and if they can't find it, it means it's not there. Figuratively speaking in most cases as it is there, the design has just made it difficult to see.

So, should we start with demonstrations on the street or something a bit more subtle? I'm thinking about those truth commercials about smoking, perhaps we can hold our protests in front of the offending companies?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Oh! I forgot that you don't work internally. Don't have much experience there, except to get a prototype in front of your client's customers, gather feedback, and use that to your advantage. Hopefully that'll garner some more work, too (I do and sell my work as if I was an outside consultant and this has proven effective).

- N

Bryan said: "By and large I think most people 'make do' with what they have, and only really demand things when they're physically painful, EXTREMELY annoying or offend our values."

Great point. In a former life I was a police and court reporter for newspapers, and I learned some interesting things there. Do you know what the prevailing standard is for justifying installation of a traffic light at an intersection? ... (wait for it) ... The number of fatal accidents at that intersection. Not good design, not good planning, but political pragmatism fueled by a public outcry.

Tangential, but it's an important point about human psychology. Change in itself is so painful for people that it usually occurs only after our circumstances have passed significantly beyond our pain threshold. Then there's "The Stockholm Syndrome" ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

... in which the captive becomes dependent upon and even enamored of the captor (in this case, a dysfunctional interface). It's all very sick — and, sadly, predictable.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

The odd thing here is that I did user research and we tested with users, who considered the redesign a huge improvement. But in the end, if it's selling without having to effectively redesign it, why bother? It's just basic economy.

And Nasir, I understand your points, but I'm not talking about selling the idea of good interfaces to clients. I'm pretty good at that by now. I'm talking about how to make the general public DEMAND better interfaces?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Thanks for the article, Susie. Very insightful. Amazing that it was written almost 11 years ago. I love Jared's work and the way he always seems to think so clearly and ahead of time.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Bruno wrote: Thanks for the article, Susie. Very insightful. Amazing that it was written almost 11 years ago. I love Jared's work and the way he always seems to think so clearly and ahead of time.

I completely agree. And I'm very surprised that I still remember that article after all these years. But, it was because we felt the same pain back then, too.

Susie Robson

Has it already been mentioned in this thread - but my gut tells me that a big reason crappy interfaces sell is that the person buying is not the person using. I won't name names - but a huge complaint about many ERP systems is that the CIO/CFO is sold the goods - and she never ever uses it - so the ERP companies don't have to invest time designing elegant interfaces.

An economic theory perspective would be information cost is too high (purchasers simply don't know a better interface is out there.) - or that the opportunity cost of finding/trying all alternatives is too high.

On Jan 22, 2008 4:53 PM, Susie Robson Susie.Robson at mathworks.com wrote:

Bruno wrote: Thanks for the article, Susie. Very insightful. Amazing that it was written almost 11 years ago. I love Jared's work and the way he always seems to think so clearly and ahead of time. I completely agree. And I'm very surprised that I still remember that article after all these years. But, it was because we felt the same pain back then, too. Susie Robson *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post [trim]

—
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com

Bruno said: "I'm talking about how to make the general public DEMAND better interfaces?"

With all due respect, that's not your problem at all. People will not demand what they don't know about. Your Brilliant Marketing must succeed within the company before it can succeed elsewhere.

More psychology (alas): Your frustration comes not from the failure of consumers to demand better design, but from not getting your groundbreaking interface to market. To do that, as Nasir wisely suggests, you must overcome the inertia of inaction born of complacency. That happens first inside the company, later in the world at a large.

Considere isto: If this company is humming along happily selling produit du crap, do you think they want to rock the boat to the extent that they must go scout for a new factory so they can triple production? No. Because they are humans, and when humans are fat and happy they are also lazy. Brilliant young hotshots in any field (like you, Bruno) confuse such people with your enthusiasm for change. That isn't your fault, it's just a fact of life.

Put your rejected plans in a drawer and wait for the next sales slump, when everyone is scrambling to figure out what's wrong. You'll get their attention then, and you may just become some kind of hero. Timing is everything!

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Bruno and I have worked on the same products a couple of times in the past year, and I hope he knows I share his frustrations on this (hi Bruno!). But maybe I'm not as surprised at the problem.

As unsettling as it is to say, I think that under certain circumstances the quality of the interface simply doesn't matter at the point of sale - if the (short-term) measure of success is simply whether or not a sale is made. The circumstances I'm thinking of often come up in the sector Bruno drew his example from: educational software.

Part of the problem is about selling to clients who aren't the users (e.g. colleges buying materials for their students), and several comments above deal with this.

But there's a second, more significant factor when selling learning content: the sale really is all about the content. We're not selling the interface; or, at best, it's a "bonus". It's telling that most of the feedback we get from clients - and users - is about the content, and that's usually the basis of word-of-mouth sales. If we get spontaneous feedback on the interface (rare, but it happens) then you can bet it will be negative. Like a referee, it's only noticed when it's bad. If the interface is done well, it disappears (chalk up another contribution to Jared Spool, who made this point eloquently at dConstruct last year). The user simply doesn't notice it - or care about it.

This ties in with a feeling of unease I occasionally get reading Jacob Nielsen's stuff. He sometimes seems to imply that all software lives and dies on its interface - above all else. I doubt that he thinks that, but still that feeling comes through. Stats that describe the relative success and failure of websites cannot be taken as a measure of the relative usability of the interfaces on those sites. Sometimes users (or buyers) are after the content, or the features, and they simply don't care about the interface. They might care later, but not when they're buying it. And if the content's great they might never really care.

Back to where I started, the effect of a bad interface on, for example, a set of online learning materials, is to be a distraction from the content and a slow-burn frustration for users. This doesn't necessarily have any impact at point of sale.

BUT I do think it's extremely important to build high quality interfaces. In the educational sector, the ROI on interface design is about the long-game. Good design is likely to help build customer loyalty, it's a bonus, it's the absence of a negative - though it's unlikely to be the identifiable driver behind individual sales, which are all about the courses we write and not the software wrappers we put them in. This can make the internal push for investment in design a little trickier.

Andrew said: "Back to where I started, the effect of a bad interface on, for example, a set of online learning materials, is to be a distraction from the content and a slow-burn frustration for users. This doesn't necessarily have any impact at point of sale."

Well said. Especially true for educational software, where tens of thousands of units may be sold before anyone uncovers the flaws. Or cares, even if they do uncover them.

Witness the ubiquitous WebCT, which I despise ... well, OK, let's say I really dislike it. It was widely adopted not because it was a great tool for the job, but because it was the best available tool and the education community was clamoring for such a tool to make distance learning more feasible — which WebCT did, in its own clunky way, to the frustration of many students undertaking coursework on the Web.

I look forward to the Next Big Thing in that market! It's probably arrived by now.

Your point's well-taken about content driving the educational software market, too, Andrew. I think it should, but in this case the content delivery system can be almost completely disregarded — and the real costs of that disregard (frustration, and ultimately failure) can be passed along to the end user.

It isn't a real-world market because the buyers are insulated from the consequences of their flawed decisions. Happens a lot in government, too; that's how we get $900 hammers and $600 toilet seats for the U.S. Air Force.

So in partial answer to this thread's overarching question, can we say that crappy interfaces are far less likely to sell when the end user is in control of spending, and can vote with his/her pocketbook?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

I'll give a witness to the godawfulness of WebCT, Jeff! How terrible is that tool? Let me count the ways.

1. Totally horseless carriage. All it does is strive to reproduce face-to-face old fashioned classroom tools online.

2. Teacher-centered instead of student-centered. When it comes to educational UCD means STUDENT-centered design. Maybe it got adopted more widely because it looked like a teacher's admin tool (a really CLUNKY teacher's admin tool), and teachers make those decisions, but from what I experienced with it (as a teacher in an intensely applied computer-assisted pedagogy classroom), most of the adoption decisions on it were made quite a bit higher up than individual professor- or teacher- level. Probably with an advisory committee, tho. Its servers worked (at least when I used it) and older teachers were immediately comfortable with it because it seemed to give them chalk and a chalkboard.

3. WebCT is Professor Yellow-Note's best friend. The best thing the tool supports is garbage-in, garbage-out memorization-style teaching. If you want to do anything innovative pedagogically, you spend half your time trying to work around or kludge around WebCT. And Blackboard wasn't much better.

4. Take a leaf from MIT's book: when it comes to educational materials, FIREWALLS SUCK. As well as professors who hide away and copyright their syllabi. Way to teach students about the free exchange of ideas, the importance of dialogue and debate in the Public Commons. Balkanize the entire pedagogical landscape already used for decades by teachers who have built careers out of teaching collaboration and collaborative tools, both with students and with colleagues.

Teachers could use BLOG software and support more enriching courseware experiences than with all of the tools available in WebCT (except maybe the integration of uploading and downloading Excel to a central administration gradebook tied to the Registrar).

Heh. I just had to go off on a rant there for a bit. As you were.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:33:46, Jeff Seager abrojos at hotmail.com wrote:

Andrew said: "Back to where I started, the effect of a bad interface on, for example, a set of online learning materials, is to be a distraction from the content and a slow-burn frustration for users. This doesn't necessarily have any impact at point of sale." Well said. Especially true for educational software, where tens of thousands of units may be sold before anyone uncovers the flaws. Or cares, even if they do uncover them. Witness the ubiquitous WebCT, which I despise ... well, OK, let's say I really dislike it. It was widely adopted not because it [trim]

The situation described here is not one where consumers have a choice. That is, the company involved isn't presenting the new design to consumers and allowing them to vote with their feet. Instead, they have noted that the old design is selling, so they don't see the ROI they could realize from improving their product and to them the added cost is not justifiable given that they are able to reach their sales targets just fine with the old, icky design. I am not really surprised by that.

The fact is, good UI is a concern to many companies only if standard measures of ROI are ignored. From a traditional ROI perspective, UI design services are a cost that don't have a corresponding, measurable return. We know, of course, that good design does have very significant returns on investment over time, but not without juxtaposition to poor designs. That is, in a competitive marketplace, good design is a plus; all things else being equal, a better designed product will sell better. For example, given a first time consumer making a choice between two products that offer the same functionality, at the same price point, one of which has a better design... the consumer will generally pick the better designed product. But to labor under the illusion that good design in and of itself sells products is a foolish mistake. Functionality will almost ALWAYS trump design, for example. Price will often trump design. Availability will necessarily trump design. There are many factors that go into making a product saleable that extend well beyond design, and UI designers need to be cognizant of this.

What makes a product "usable" is way more than what we might traditionally think of as design. "Usable" is a deeply contextual concept, and even poorly designed products can be considered "highly usable" given a mix of other factors that have nothing (or little) to do with design. I know that is heretical thinking, but the fact is, it is true; I have been doing this a long time and there are many MANY examples in the market of products that are badly designed and tremendously successful. At issue is not the way consumers buy products; this is not a question of the dumb ignorant masses being in need of education. Actually, WE are the ones who need the education; we need to understand that in the competitive marketplace, good design is just a part of making a product saleable. And yes, it can be a very powerful added value that can catapult a product above and beyond its competitors. It can be a defining factor. But good design is not THE defining factor... something we would all do well to appreciate.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Original Message From: "Jeff Seager" abrojos at hotmail.com To: discuss at ixda.org Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell? Andrew said: "Back to where I started, the effect of a bad interface on, for example, a set of online learning materials, is to be a distraction from the content and a slow-burn frustration for users. This doesn't necessarily have any impact at point of sale." Well said. Especially true for educational software, where tens of thousands of units may be sold before anyone uncovers the flaws. Or [trim]

Often times, crappy interfaces sell because the new and improved ones offered to replace them don't pass the threshold required to make the investment to learn a new interface worth it. New interfaces can't just be better, they have to pass a threshold that makes the time investment, the monetary investment and the emotional investment something that can make a significant difference for the user or the business, or both. If it doesn't, the reaction from users or business executives often feels like a baby tossed out with the bath water proposition.

What's the threshold? That's going to require knowing what the most significant pain points are in an existing product or market, and then being able to not only solve those problems, but demonstrate easily how the new approach solves those issues as well. If you don't do that, then the new interface is often perceived as not worth it, and the mountain to climb to motivate adoption around it becomes significantly steeper.

We worked on a project last year where we were able to help a company design a whole new interface for their web application product. It had a whole new aesthetic, new workflow, upgraded their technology and did a whole host of things better than the old. However, the real test of the new interface had nothing to do with the prettier icons, the cleaner data displays, the new code using upgraded, more robust technologies to drive the product. The real test was showing how to do a repetitive task that in the old interface tool some 20 to 27 clicks through multiple screens whereas in the new interface, the same task had been flattened to 3 clicks or so. That data point alone allowed the new interface to have a solid foundation to start from in getting people geared up and ready to make the massive change the new interface provided.

To make this real for myself, I look at how often I need or want to purchase a new car. The mere thought of it makes my stomach turn and sends me into a depression at what is required to make that happen. Even when I'm going to buy a new car that will actually improve my overall well being, like when I bought my Honda Civic Hybrid last year. No matter how much I'm actually going to like the new car, the thought of having to switch everything over to the new one is not an activity I enjoy in the least.

Most people who use our products treat changing, learning or adopting new interfaces like that, and who can blame them? Given that, its up to us to make such a heavy investment truly worth what it's going to cost people. And if we are, then we also have to make sure we demonstrate exactly how with a simple, clear and effective demo of the new interface. (FWIW, Steve Jobs is brilliant on how to demo new products to do exactly this.)

-- Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

On 22 Jan 2008, at 12:07, Bruno Figueiredo wrote:

Anyway, I think that the main problem is the general lack of knowledge on how good an interface can be. I'm not talking about ROI, athough that's a very strong (and also difficult to proove) argument. I'm talking about the lack of frustration when using it. The product that I'm talking about is aimed at students. I believe that most of all, these interfaces need to be very good. After all, students should be focusing on learning the content, not on how to master the interface. This leads me again to the question: "How can we, as Interaction Designers [trim]

I find it most effective to look at things that are as close to ROI as you can get. Looking at addressing things of direct business value to the organisation. Improving abandonment rates on shopping baskets, etc.

Once you've shown improvements on the detail, selling the bigger picture becomes a lot easier.

Cheers,

Adrian

On 22 Jan 2008, at 19:23, Bruno Figueiredo wrote:
[snip]
My question is: why do people keep buying products with crappy interfaces? I guess that since most products ship with poor interfaces, people have very low expectations. But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years? They should know better by now. Why do people keep giving incentives to companies who deliver poor products?

Because the choice is between a product with a bad-UI, and no- product. Or a product with a good-UI vs a product with a crappy-UI and more functionality that the user needs.

The UI on my phone sucks - but there wasn't a phone with a good UI at the functionality/price-point I wanted.

I really don't think it's an issue with users being dim and picking the wrong product. I think it's a problem with companies being dim and not producing better products that can win with a UI at appropriate levels of functionality/price.

Adrian

Having read the Jared Spool article Susie pointed out, I think that it's now clearer to me. The development stages he outlines there make perfect sense and explain a lot about the maturity of markets and why on the initial stages of exploring a market niche products are so ill conceived.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Something that I've noticed across usability and design discussion groups is that those of us who design and evaluate products often have a difficult time agreeing on what a "great user interface" really is. In fact, as a field, we are excellent at critiqueing products and providing bad examples, but less good at highlighting really good examples of design that nearly everyone would agree is a good design. A question that I often ask candidates for jobs in usability, interaction design, or related roles is "What designs have been inspirations to you in your work and why were they inspirational?" I've asked that question now 7 or 8 times and come up with some blank stares. I would be fine with many answers including people saying thinks like I was inspired by the work of Dreyfuss or Lowey or Frog design or Oxo products or the Bauhaus movement or Gestalt theory or ... Actually, when I ask people to list their top 5 book related to the position, I often see them struggle.

Chauncey

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:40:29, Bruno Figueiredo
bruno.figueiredo at gmail.com wrote:
Having read the Jared Spool article Susie pointed out, I think that it's now clearer to me. The development stages he outlines there make perfect sense and explain a lot about the maturity of markets and why on the initial stages of exploring a market niche products are so ill conceived. Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss [trim]

This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago. It is a way to try to educate the public that they don't have to settle for difficult to use products, that there is a large group of people that can help make things easier. World Usability Day is growing each year so I can only hope we are making a difference, even if it is a small difference right now.

Susie Robson
The MathWorks
Sr. Usability Specialist
1.508.647.7685

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Patricia Garcia
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

I agree with educating people more. I found in user testing how much people put themselves down when they are having a hard time with the task. I tell them they are doing fine and if they can't find it, it means it's not there. Figuratively speaking in most cases as it is there, the design has just made it difficult to see.

So, should we start with demonstrations on the street or something a bit more subtle? I'm thinking about those truth commercials about smoking, perhaps we can hold our protests in front of the offending companies?

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

I hope I don't come off as the cynical sandwich in the picnic basket, but I believe it sometimes happens to keep
power in the hands of the developers/software company - they remain the gatekeeper of knowledge about their
product and its interface. Just sometimes.

Scott

-- sing while you may

Here's my 2-cents:

Fact of the matter is, crappy UI's DO NOT SELL. If you don't give the user/client a choice, they won't know any better and just take it as it is. Down the line, they'll be figuring ways to reduce overhead not knowing that a crappy UI may increase productivity time, thus overhead.

I bet if you start selling the better UI and its benefits, the users/clients will buy it. This can't happen without a top-notch sales team.

Bruno said:
"They told me that they loved my work but they have been showing the product with the old interface to clients and they already have a couple of orders for it so they're scrapping the review work for now."

Sounds like the sales team needs to be fired as they're currently doing a disservice to their clients.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

"This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago."

With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade", and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

Well, considering that the the Brasilian url for the event, wud.com.br, contains the "w", a letter which would, it weren't for the word "Watts", be completely unheard of by the great public, one can see that it is not just crappy interface design that makes its way into the world but also basic mistakes such as language, which I believe should be there even before one starts talking about accessibility. It is easy to make it difficult.

Nevertheless, if by public (internationally speaking), they mean "people from a certain social status who understand English" I have no argument as to how wide the public UPA is trying to serve is.

Regards,

Luis

On 22/01/2008, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at toddwarfel.com wrote:

6. Buyer isn't the user. How many people here in large-mid sized companies? Go ahead, raise your hands. Okay, how many of you get to pick the platform and applications you use? Oh, right.

I think the term is 'Golf course purchases' : ) I've seen many six figure CMS and personalisation systems that do less than a three figure or free CMS.

Common myth clients tend to believe 'our site is very big and very complicated'. Then you fit their complete site with all the pages onto a couple bits of A3 (or even one sheet).

Stew Dean

-- Stewart Dean

Luis,

Interesting. Has this been brought to anyone's attention that can make the necessary changes? I would have thought, though I could be mistaken, that each local UPA chapter had some control in how they publicize this, call it, or create a URL for it. I can check with the founder/organizer about it to see if we can work with each chapter around the world to fix this for next year. But, it sounds like there was at least public mention of the effort?

Susie

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Luis de la Orden Morais
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:34 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

"This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago."

With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public
with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade",
and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

Well, considering that the the Brasilian url for the event, wud.com.br, contains the "w", a letter which would, it weren't for the word "Watts", be completely unheard of by the great public, one can see that it is not just crappy interface design that makes its way into the world but also basic mistakes such as language, which I believe should be there even before one starts talking about accessibility. It is easy to make it difficult.

Nevertheless, if by public (internationally speaking), they mean "people from a certain social status who understand English" I have no argument as to how wide the public UPA is trying to serve is.

Regards,

Luis

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

Hi Susie,

I tried to get in touch with the Brasilian chapters at the time without any success. I wrote to UPA and got a reply from the Switzerland Office.

In 2006, I started publishing a few articles on linguistic accessibility and content contextualisation,
http://www.webalorixa.net/artigos /acessibilidade /acessibilidade -contextualiz subcab1 , someone from one of the Brasilian chapters replied with a rather snotty email all written in capitals.

UPA's Brasilian web reach still has a rather confused linguistic approach as one can see at www.wud.com.br , http://www.diamundialdausabilidade.com.br/ , nevertheless, from photos of the 2007 event in Curitiba, they seem to use Portuguese in their printed materials as I could see at http://build.exclusiveconcepts.com/WUD -Blog /wp -content /uploads /2007 /12 /wud _2 , I am still looking for the website they put in the PDF, which to my surprise is all localised, including name of the event and motto.

I do appreciate your attention and wish the best of luck to whoever deems this of interest,

Best regards,

Luis

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Susie Robson
Sent: 23 January 2008 19:01
To: Luis de la Orden Morais; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

Luis,

Interesting. Has this been brought to anyone's attention that can make the necessary changes? I would have thought, though I could be mistaken, that each local UPA chapter had some control in how they publicize this, call it, or create a URL for it. I can check with the founder/organizer about it to see if we can work with each chapter around the world to fix this for next year. But, it sounds like there was at least public mention of the effort?

Susie

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Luis de la Orden Morais
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:34 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

"This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago."

With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public
with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade",
and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

Well, considering that the the Brasilian url for the event, wud.com.br, contains the "w", a letter which would, it weren't for the word "Watts", be completely unheard of by the great public, one can see that it is not just crappy interface design that makes its way into the world but also basic mistakes such as language, which I believe should be there even before one starts talking about accessibility. It is easy to make it difficult.

Nevertheless, if by public (internationally speaking), they mean "people from a certain social status who understand English" I have no argument as to how wide the public UPA is trying to serve is.

Regards,

Luis

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

Hi Susie and Luis: I don't know if this helps but in Portugal we call it Dia Mundial da Usabilidade. I think it helped a lot in letting the word out to the general public. Usually the press is always very interested and P-UPA (Portuguese UPA)representatives even gave some interviews.

I know that Brazil doesn't have a formal organization yet. Would it make sense to use P-UPA? We get a lot of membership requests from Brazil and other Latin-American countries.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

On 23 Jan 2008, at 17:41, Stew Dean wrote:

On 22/01/2008, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at toddwarfel.com wrote: 6. Buyer isn't the user. How many people here in large-mid sized companies? Go ahead, raise your hands. Okay, how many of you get to pick the platform and applications you use? Oh, right. I think the term is 'Golf course purchases' : ) I've seen many six figure CMS and personalisation systems that do less than a three figure or free CMS. Common myth clients tend to believe 'our site is very big and very complicated'. Then you fit their complete site with all the pages onto a couple [trim]

True - although sometimes this is also related to legacy decisions in the past that are difficult to change. Far too many people don't understand the concept of a sunk cost :-)

Of course these sort of purchases are often wrong on all counts - not just the crappy user interface.

Cheers,

Adrian

I contacted the founder/organizer of World Usability Day to let her know about this issue. Her response was:

"Thank you for sharing this. It is a timely comment, since UPA is currently trying to figure out just how to be more of a Global association and not just a US based one."

So, it looks like this can be considered/worked on. How can you help out?

Susie Robson

Original Message
From: Luis de la Orden Morais [mailto:luis at webalorixa.net] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:55 AM
To: Susie Robson; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: RE: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

Hi Susie,

I tried to get in touch with the Brasilian chapters at the time without any success. I wrote to UPA and got a reply from the Switzerland Office.

In 2006, I started publishing a few articles on linguistic accessibility and content contextualisation,
http://www.webalorixa.net/artigos /acessibilidade /acessibilidade -contextu aliz acao-linguistica-02.html# subcab1 , someone from one of the Brasilian chapters replied with a rather snotty email all written in capitals.

UPA's Brasilian web reach still has a rather confused linguistic approach as
one can see at www.wud.com.br ,
http://www.diamundialdausabilidade.com.br/ ,
nevertheless, from photos of the 2007 event in Curitiba, they seem to use Portuguese in their printed materials as I could see at http://build.exclusiveconcepts.com/WUD -Blog /wp -content /uploads /2007 /12 /w 007_curitiba.pdf , I am still looking for the website they put in the PDF, which to my surprise is all localised, including name of the event and motto.

I do appreciate your attention and wish the best of luck to whoever deems this of interest,

Best regards,

Luis

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Susie Robson
Sent: 23 January 2008 19:01
To: Luis de la Orden Morais; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

Luis,

Interesting. Has this been brought to anyone's attention that can make the necessary changes? I would have thought, though I could be mistaken, that each local UPA chapter had some control in how they publicize this, call it, or create a URL for it. I can check with the founder/organizer about it to see if we can work with each chapter around the world to fix this for next year. But, it sounds like there was at least public mention of the effort?

Susie

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Luis de la Orden Morais
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:34 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

"This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago."

With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public
with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade",
and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

Well, considering that the the Brasilian url for the event, wud.com.br, contains the "w", a letter which would, it weren't for the word "Watts", be completely unheard of by the great public, one can see that it is not just crappy interface design that makes its way into the world but also basic mistakes such as language, which I believe should be there even before one starts talking about accessibility. It is easy to make it difficult.

Nevertheless, if by public (internationally speaking), they mean "people from a certain social status who understand English" I have no argument as to how wide the public UPA is trying to serve is.

Regards,

Luis

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

The term "usability" is not a term used much by the public and I think that we should change the name of World Usability Day to something more like "Making things easier for everyone" (OK, that can be much improved). World Usability Day seems like a term for usability practitioners and not the general public. The term "user experience" seems to be more common with it coming up in TV and print ads. So there is a localization issue, but also a bigger issue of public understanding of "usability". We often talk about elevator speeches to explain what we do whereas when I tell people that I help create and design products that easier to use they seem to grasp the concept immediately (often referring to home appliances or autos or kitchen gadgets).

Chauncey

On Jan 23, 2008 10:33 AM, Luis de la Orden Morais luis at webalorixa.net wrote: "This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago." With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade", and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

I completely agree! I have had nothing but "blank stares" from anyone outside of our field, followed by "who cares?" Honestly, that is what has kept me from getting more involved myself — I've seen very little come of it beyond a "birds of a feather rally".

I'm a huge evangelist of design and usability; I work very hard to sell design/usability to executives and other stakeholders outside of our group, but I just don't see the point...

Russell Wilson
VP of Product Design, NetQoS
Blog: http://www.dexodesign.com

On 1/24/08 11:54 AM, "Chauncey Wilson" chauncey.wilson at gmail.com wrote:

The term "usability" is not a term used much by the public and I think that we should change the name of World Usability Day to something more like "Making things easier for everyone" (OK, that can be much improved). World Usability Day seems like a term for usability practitioners and not the general public. The term "user experience" seems to be more common with it coming up in TV and print ads. So there is a localization issue, but also a bigger issue of public understanding of "usability". We often talk about elevator speeches to explain what we [trim]

In this context, I'd like to not see the word "user" used since it apparently differentiates practitioners and the lay public from one another. We are all users of something (and far too often of something poorly thought out and badly designed).

I have no idea how it would translate, either in language or in concept, but what about "Make it easy day"

Katie

At 12:54 PM -0500 1/24/08, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
The term "usability" is not a term used much by the public and I think that we should change the name of World Usability Day to something more like "Making things easier for everyone" (OK, that can be much improved). World Usability Day seems like a term for usability practitioners and not the general public. The term "user experience" seems to be more common with it coming up in TV and print ads. So there is a localization issue, but also a bigger issue of public understanding of "usability". We often talk about elevator speeches to explain what we do [trim]

--

Katie Albers
katie at firstthought.com

Katie said: "In this context, I'd like to not see the word "user" used since it apparently differentiates practitioners and the lay public from one another."

I agree. "User" has some bad connotations too, at least in English ... drug user, so-called friends who are "users" ... etc. You don't want to stir up any cognitive dissonance.

A small sign hangs on my wall, a quote from Henry David Thoreau's "Where I Lived, and Why I Lived There."

It says this: "Simplify."

That's good advice for World Usability Day, which I suspect from Susie's description is more designer-centered than user-centered. Sounds like they are in desperate need of clarifying their intent.

If I ruled the World Usability Day, I'd want to listen to what users tell me and immediately demonstrate how good design can make their very specific circumstances better — which might make it something more like World Usability Week or Month, in more practical terms. But it would get the point across.

I think it was SitePoint that recently sponsored a web design contest among competing design teams challenged to redesign a site in a day. I didn't pay attention to the results, but that's the kind of thing that really shows people what you're about.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

The use of the term "user" (in a different context) was raised and debated not long ago on this list: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=18748

Besides the negative connotations of gun "users" and drug "users" don't forget to include library "users" and park "users".

Although I cannot make a statement about whether or not usage of the term "user" referring to library patrons is increasing, decreasing, or stable within the library world, I can confirm that it is being used. cut
Thank you,
Toby General Reference Services
The Seattle Public Library

In the US, State Parks denote mixed use trails with safety signs "All Users Stay Right".

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Yes - we've beat this poor horse dead before - looks like someone dug the poor thing up for an addition round of beating.

Semantically - people who are interacting with machines to accomplish a task are using the machine.
Drug addicts to not use the drugs, they take the drugs - but that horse is out of the barn and we can't fix it.
I always thought the appropriate term was Library Patron? Is user on the uptick because of the increasing reliance on machines for access to information?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:26:17, jayhilwig jayhilwig at cablespeed.com wrote:

The use of the term %u201Cuser%u201D (in a different context) was raised and debated not long ago on this list: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=18748 Besides the negative connotations of gun %u201Cusers%u201D and drug %u201Cusers%u201D don't forget to include library %u201Cusers%u201D and park %u201Cusers%u201D. %u201CAlthough I cannot make a statement about whether or not usage of the term "user" referring to library patrons is increasing, decreasing, or stable within the library world, I can confirm that it is being used.%u201D cut Thank you, Toby General Reference Services The Seattle Public Library In the US, State [trim]

—
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com

Before we go haring off too far on the question of whether the word "user" itself is misleading or derogatory or whatever, I'd really like to pull your attention to the fact that my issue with referring to "users" in this context is limited to this:

"Users" marks a group of people as "other" and in some sense lesser than the designers/developers/professionals.

So if you're trying to get people to believe that their experience and ability to employ a product are a relevant, even important, aspect of whether that product can be said to be "good"...that their opinion is — in some sense — the single most important factor in the determination of the "good" and that they have the right to demand that products conform to them rather than exclusively vice versa, it is a bad idea to use a distancing word to describe these people.

Katie

At 3:40 PM -0500 1/24/08, W Evans wrote:
Yes - we've beat this poor horse dead before - looks like someone dug the poor thing up for an addition round of beating. Semantically - people who are interacting with machines to accomplish a task are using the machine. Drug addicts to not use the drugs, they take the drugs - but that horse is out of the barn and we can't fix it. I always thought the appropriate term was Library Patron? Is user on the uptick because of the increasing reliance on machines for access to information? On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:26:17, [trim]

—

Katie Albers
katie at firstthought.com

Greetings all, been buzzing around but finally decided to join this wonderful list today.

There are so many posts in this thread that is hard to determine what has already been said but here's my 2 cents:

The most important thing needed to answer this question is to move out of a discussion about design and into one about strategy.

You have to change your terminology. Using the terms: "crappy", "slick", "sexy", etc, are using adjectives that are abstract at best, and all of them are relative to your personal experience with interfaces in the past.

The better terms to use are:

"effective"
"ineffective"

You are now saying something absolute when using these terms.

The discussion switches to being about whether or not the interface effectively allows the user to complete the task they have set out to complete. You can also attempt to measure that effectiveness, whether that be in time saved, steps removed, or any other advantageous effect a new interface may bring to the table.

Once we are at that point, we can now have real discussions with decision makers in a language they understand, because now user experience is being treated like a feature or requirement like any other they have on the list.

It is always difficult to justify design for design's sake, but in this context it is a lot easier to explain why experience design is valuable.

There are many companies that obviously do not compete on experience. This can be for many reasons:

1/ They have a differentiator that is far more important than the effectiveness of their interface. This could be the fact that they are competing on price. When you compete on price you make sacrifices in many places and that is often found on the experience side.

2/ They have no competition. This one has also been brought up. No need to get really far ahead of no one.

3/ If you are dealing with companies that have internal product teams, often their can be lack of experience in implementing "effective" interfaces. If that team has to implement an interface designed outside of their team, they can often resist it because of their own feeling of inadequacy in implementing it. They can often play this out to higher ups as: "It isn't worth it"

I have found that it is probably a better idea for experience designers to walk away from projects where the client does not see user experience as something important. In these scenarios, you will often end up being an order taker and the job will end up being nothing but a nightmare:

1/ price squabling
2/ changes in mid-project
3/ getting sign off

and many other things.

It is always best to work with clients that see you as strategic and see you as an expert. I know that seems like a utopia type scenario, but it is something to strive for.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Katie said: "Before we go haring off too far on the question of whether the word "user" itself is misleading or derogatory or whatever, I'd really like to pull your attention to the fact that my issue with referring to "users" in this context is limited to ..."

All points well taken, Katie. My comment was meant in reference to marketing to a population unused to any of the professional jargon.

That's an interesting point about connecting "user" to "other, " too, even if it's been ridden to death before my time. Semantics can be critically important to human and/or machine interactions. "Client" and "customer" work well enough for me most of the time, because my own perception of my role is not the creation of tools, but the provision of services. Tools are by-products or conveyors of the actual service I provide to clients. ("Clients" is also consistent with the "server-side, client-side" imagery, too.)

OK, I'm done with that semantics exercise.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Sidestepping the whole "user-definition" volcano...I agree that the word "usability" is really just a big wet blanket in terms of its appeal.

I'm not a marketing expert, but I worked for a drug company, where the names of things (esp drugs) HAD to have a very specific connotation in order to sell themselves.

"Usability" is a very passive word. If they had called Earth Day "World Cleanability Day", nobody would have shown up. They changed the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" for (among other reasons) the fact that "warming" is neither powerful, action-oriented, nor necessarily a bad thing (in Buffalo, NY this time of year). You could say the same about "usability"..."I practice usability"..."I improve usability". See? If you treat lung cancer patients, you don't say "I improve breathability", you say "I cure cancer".

That may be why no one really listens too much when we say "...but the usability sucks!".

Maybe we should start calling ourselves "Sanity Activists"

K, back to my cave...

Bryan http://www.bryanminihan.com

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Russell Wilson
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Chauncey Wilson; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

I completely agree! I have had nothing but "blank stares" from anyone outside of our field, followed by "who cares?" Honestly, that is what has kept me from getting more involved myself — I've seen very little come of it beyond a "birds of a feather rally".

I'm a huge evangelist of design and usability; I work very hard to sell design/usability to executives and other stakeholders outside of our group, but I just don't see the point...

Russell Wilson
VP of Product Design, NetQoS
Blog: http://www.dexodesign.com

Hi all, Bruno,

Why do crappy interfaces sell?

The resolution of this problem it's mainly in the education and spreading of the IxD vantages to the point of everyone could identify the activity.

For that, the efforts must of UNION, Usability, IxD, Architecture, Graphic Design ...

All the initiatives are important, all the opinions count, if we all fight for the same principles.

One last remark, in Portugal there are other initiatives specifically around IxD, Userdesign.org (maybe in association with APPU) it's dedicated to spread the good principles of IxD within the professionals, and all the citizens.

As I write this post I'm translating the first principles of Tognazzini ( http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html ) to Portuguese and expecting space availability confirmation to organize a initiative that will use some principles of IxD around urban spaces, that will count with professionals, neighbours, and space users in general.

Cheers,

Pedro Soares Neves

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

Pedro said: "For that, the efforts must of UNION, Usability, IxD, Architecture, Graphic Design ..."

I think that's really important. I just posted on that topic on another thread and it has also come up in the "definitions" project.

I think that people are afraid that if their particular specialty is not at the "top of the hierarchy" they are somehow diminished. But of course the result is that we end up with a balkanized set of professions that make little sense to the outside world.

A medical doctor (at least in the US) is a doctor first and a specialist later. You become a phyisician which grants you basic rights to practice medicine and then can specialize (dermatology, neurology, etc.) if you want to.

I think that should work for our profession as well.

Charlie

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24918

I'm having this wild urge to blaspheme in the temple again, don't ask me why.

OK, devil's advocate answer to the question: "Why do crappy interfaces sell?"

What if, in the immortal words of Bill Murray in the classic summer camp film "Meatballs, " "It just doesn't matter!"?

In other words, isn't the secret, whispered question behind this larger question really: "What if our work has NO effect on the success or failure of an interactive product?" What if everything we do is for naught? Sound and fury signifying nothing? A fart in the wind?

I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just raising the question. It would mean other factors override interface design consistently most of the time, perhaps even TRUMP them.

Other factors like what? The position of the moon? Pluto moving into Capricorn? Big budget and branding of the producer? Kairos? The right words at exactly the right moment? The stuff that makes Jello set? The underlying code? Pretty pictures? The perfect photo of a smiling stock photo person, conveying orgasmic joy at the most fulfilling experience of her life?

What would the ramifications for us be, if good interface design truly "just doesn't matter"?

Chris

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:11:00, Pedro Neves sevenpedro at gmail.com wrote:

Hi all, Bruno, Why do crappy interfaces sell? The resolution of this problem it's mainly in the education and spreading of the IxD vantages to the point of everyone could identify the activity. For that, the efforts must of UNION, Usability, IxD, Architecture, Graphic Design ... All the initiatives are important, all the opinions count, if we all fight for the same principles. One last remark, in Portugal there are other initiatives specifically around IxD, Userdesign.org (maybe in association with APPU) it's dedicated to spread the good principles of IxD within the professionals, and [trim]

Interesting metaphysical question.

What if there was no God? What if all the praying, reading Torah (or Bible, or Koran, or Dianetics), good works, moral life, had absolutely no impact on anything - all that praying - farts in the wind.

To your question - if good interface design just doesn't matter - we just need to continue to instill the fear of god that it does matter - or sulfur and fire shall rain down upon their stock valuation and they shall never enter the pearly Google-gates of wealth, bliss, and everlasting happiness. Fear should keep them writing checks.

:-)

PS: For your blasphemous statements - "Fetch The Comfy Chair!!!"

On Jan 25, 2008 4:34 PM, Christine Boese christine.boese at gmail.com wrote:

I'm having this wild urge to blaspheme in the temple again, don't ask me why. OK, devil's advocate answer to the question: "Why do crappy interfaces sell?" What if, in the immortal words of Bill Murray in the classic summer camp film "Meatballs, " "It just doesn't matter!"? In other words, isn't the secret, whispered question behind this larger question really: "What if our work has NO effect on the success or failure of an interactive product?" What if everything we do is for naught? Sound and fury signifying nothing? A fart in the wind? I'm not [trim]

—
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com

On Jan 25, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Christine Boese wrote:

A fart in the wind?

A fart in the wind, when well placed, can certainly matter.

That said, it's the case that the quality of the interface only matters in a selling situation sometime.

Having just purchased a car for my 17-year-old, I looked for certain qualities in the vehicle — interface wasn't one of them. This car is going to live its last year of its life under the control of my son. He will do what it takes to learn its operation. I'll never drive it. Price and reliability were far more important to me.

Not all qualities are important to all people all the time. As much as we'd like to think the ones we contribute are always drivers, there are plenty of situations when they have no effect.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks

LOL. Good answers, y'all!

And to Jared, I was fondly reminded of the '67 VW Beetle my dad got me as my first car. There was one interface that mattered. He could lift the engine out with one arm (he was an electrician, with years of pulling wire through conduit) and swap it, which was a good thing, because I went through three of them.

Several other interfaces didn't matter as much, like the brakes, because I could shift down, you see. And the shifter, because to shift down, I had to learn to double-clutch. (can you imagine parents these days letting their kids run around like that?)

And then, on the third engine, the defrost blowers didn't line up with the ducts anymore, so I drove back and forth from basketball practice and games all winter in Alaska scraping the inside of the window. It died for good the night of the senior bonfire after graduation.

Lest you are all 21st Century horrified, I should also note that my family also had these same Beetles as the family car in the 60s and 70s, so as kids, my brother and I rode around in the backseat without the seatbelt interface (or kiddie seats), hanging on to those cute little straps.

I wonder if the good old "Folks-mobile" bears any relation to the cheap cars coming in India that many hope will keep entire families from riding around perched precariously on motorbikes.

Chris

On Jan 25, 2008 6:00 PM, Jared M. Spool jspool at uie.com wrote:

On Jan 25, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Christine Boese wrote: A fart in the wind? A fart in the wind, when well placed, can certainly matter. That said, it's the case that the quality of the interface only matters in a selling situation sometime. Having just purchased a car for my 17-year-old, I looked for certain qualities in the vehicle — interface wasn't one of them. This car is going to live its last year of its life under the control of my son. He will do what it takes to learn its operation. I'll never [trim]

On Jan 25, 2008 3:00 PM, Jared M. Spool jspool at uie.com wrote:

A fart in the wind, when well placed, can certainly matter.

A couple more syllables in the second clause and you've got a fine Haiku, Jared :-)

Michael Micheletti

On 25 Jan 2008, at 21:34, Christine Boese wrote:

I'm having this wild urge to blaspheme in the temple again, don't ask me why. OK, devil's advocate answer to the question: "Why do crappy interfaces sell?" What if, in the immortal words of Bill Murray in the classic summer camp film "Meatballs, " "It just doesn't matter!"? [snip] It matters - it's just not the only thing that matters :-) Adrian

Christine:

I knew I had something about this - and I found a great white paper/report by our friends at Adaptive Path that talks about the ROI of User Experience

http://adaptivepath.com/ideas/reports/businessvalue/

Leveraging Business Value: How ROI Changes User
Experience http://adaptivepath.com/ideas/reports/businessvalue/

Over the last few years, ROI has been sought as the "holy grail" of getting more headcount and credibility for Web design teams. By unraveling how to measure the value of Web design, ROI analysis contextualizes corporate decision-making and transforms user experience design into a real competitive advantage.

*Download the Executive Summary (PDF, 84 KB)
» http://adaptivepath.com/ideas /reports /businessvalue /ap _businessvalue _summary.pdf *

Bad design decisions are not the fault of any one designer, manager, or developer; rather, they stem from an inability to understand the business value of the design process. ROI and other valuation techniques transform abstract design decisions into real business cases. This report will help you think about user experience in terms of business value.

Too often, the business value of the Web is narrowly viewed the sum of two parts: increased online revenues, plus the cost reductions that technological efficiencies offer. Such thinking ignores the firm's entire relationship with its customers, and constrains Web design priorities to specific, short-term outcomes.

Applying ROI methodology to user experience design helps to ensure that you're investing in high-value projects that touch many parts of the business — from marketing and customer conversion to order fulfillment and customer support. At the same time, if you approach Web projects with user-centered design principles, your site becomes a strategic lever for understanding the whole customer, influencing their online and offline behavior, and anticipating their future goals.

This report provides frameworks and analysis that will help you to:

Many in our field have long believed that a good user experience

delivers business value. We have often seen how aligning product

specifications with business objectives and user needs delivers a real

competitive advantage, but — outside of retail e-commerce — we have

rarely seen that value being measured and managed. Based on these

beliefs and observations, we began a research project in May 2003 to answer the specific questions "How do companies currently use valuation

methods, like return on investment (ROI), to measure the value of user

experience?' and "What are the benefits of doing so?"

We began with an expectation commonly held in the design field, that

"measuring the ROI of user experience" would entail applying a general

equation, and we expected that our research would reveal the elusive formula. We assumed that armed with this silver bullet, Web development

teams would be able to prove their value and thereby garner more credibility and resources within their companies. Even more naively, some of our colleagues encouraged us to seek an answer to the question "What is the ROI of user experience, " hoping for a specific value, like 500 percent or $234.

While our research showed that valuation methods can help managers

justify resource increases, it)s impossible to measure ROI for user experience with a simple equation that can be applied across a wide swath of companies and projects. Nor is there a specific number that represents the general value of user experience.

Although there is no silver bullet, what we found was much more

interesting. The impact of ROI extends well beyond its obvious benefits

in making resource-allocation decisions. Our research revealed that using ROI and other valuation methods helps to evolve design competency

within organizations. The valuation methods provide tools for developing and measuring a design strategy as a component of a larger business strategy: The ability to "value" user experience design makes it a visible and credible business lever on par with marketing, research and development, and channel strategy. As a result, applying ROI-measuring techniques to user experience investment decisions has a positive impact on how Web teams are structured and perceived within an organization.

This explains many of the anecdotal problems that we have encountered

at several conference sessions and panel discussions. We have

seen successful Web strategies languish for reasons that were difficult to pinpoint. In almost every case, those firms made no attempt to forecast the future value of user experience design. It was viewed as an expense to minimize rather than an investment that ought to deliver a return. As a result, user experience design was "undervalued, " and successful implementation was doomed by a lack of commitment and support. The five cases featured in this research study show how companies that take even rudimentary steps toward measuring the long-term value of user experience avoid such political pitfalls. They also tend to have Web development processes and organizational structures that better optimize the value of design.

On Jan 25, 2008 6:00 PM, Jared M. Spool jspool at uie.com wrote:

On Jan 25, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Christine Boese wrote: A fart in the wind? A fart in the wind, when well placed, can certainly matter. That said, it's the case that the quality of the interface only matters in a selling situation sometime. Having just purchased a car for my 17-year-old, I looked for certain qualities in the vehicle — interface wasn't one of them. This car is going to live its last year of its life under the control of my son. He will do what it takes to learn its operation. I'll never drive [trim]

—
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com

On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Bruno Figueiredo wrote:

My question is: why do people keep buying products with crappy interfaces? I guess that since most products ship with poor interfaces, people have very low expectations. But these kind of products have been around for what? 15 years? They should know better by now. Why do people keep giving incentives to companies who deliver poor products?

How quickly can you identify a "crappy interface"? More to the point, how quickly can they identify one? Barring the really bad ones (think consumer art programs circa 1997, where your stomach would turn just by looking at the screenshots), they can't tell from a brochure. They can't tell from a live demo. They may not be able to tell from a 5 minute "test drive". Only after a few days of working with it do the bad parts really show themselves as such. And by then, the money is spent, the learning curve has started, and the brakes have already given out on the runaway truck/

People continue to buy products with "crappy interfaces" because (a) they don't know how to tell the quality quickly, and (b) they assume/ hope that the interface won't actually be crappy.

-- Jim Drew
cfmdesigns at earthlink.net

Hi Susie,

Apologies for the delay. I just moved into a new UxD job, so things have been a bit crazy.

I am delighted to hear that you were able to bring the issue to UPA's attention, and the response has been favourable.

As I commented in my first communication with UPA some time ago, I believe that just as accessibility and user centred design, localisation is something that, in order to work, should be adopted organisationally. It might sound a bit centrist but, making localisation and contextualisation part of the proposal and objective of UPA's events is a good start and can trigger the local response that seems to be still a bit timid.

I believe the Localisation Industry Standards Association (LISA) http://www.lisa.org/index.html could come in handy in some intra-associational (if there is a word such as "associational" ) venture along with UPA in this sense. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons (they both have a huge know-how for localisation of printed materials!)

Kind regards,

Luis

Original Message
From: Susie Robson [mailto:Susie.Robson at mathworks.com] Sent: 24 January 2008 16:50
To: Luis de la Orden Morais; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: RE: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

http://www.lisa.org/index.html
about this issue. Her response was:

"Thank you for sharing this. It is a timely comment, since UPA is currently trying to figure out just how to be more of a Global association and not just a US based one."

So, it looks like this can be considered/worked on. How can you help out?

Susie Robson

Original Message
From: Luis de la Orden Morais [mailto:luis at webalorixa.net] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:55 AM
To: Susie Robson; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: RE: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

Hi Susie,

I tried to get in touch with the Brasilian chapters at the time without any success. I wrote to UPA and got a reply from the Switzerland Office.

In 2006, I started publishing a few articles on linguistic accessibility and content contextualisation,
http://www.webalorixa.net/artigos /acessibilidade /acessibilidade -contextu aliz acao-linguistica-02.html# subcab1 , someone from one of the Brasilian chapters replied with a rather snotty email all written in capitals.

UPA's Brasilian web reach still has a rather confused linguistic approach as
one can see at www.wud.com.br ,
http://www.diamundialdausabilidade.com.br/ ,
nevertheless, from photos of the 2007 event in Curitiba, they seem to use Portuguese in their printed materials as I could see at http://build.exclusiveconcepts.com/WUD -Blog /wp -content /uploads /2007 /12 /w 007_curitiba.pdf , I am still looking for the website they put in the PDF, which to my surprise is all localised, including name of the event and motto.

I do appreciate your attention and wish the best of luck to whoever deems this of interest,

Best regards,

Luis

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Susie Robson
Sent: 23 January 2008 19:01
To: Luis de la Orden Morais; discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

Luis,

Interesting. Has this been brought to anyone's attention that can make the necessary changes? I would have thought, though I could be mistaken, that each local UPA chapter had some control in how they publicize this, call it, or create a URL for it. I can check with the founder/organizer about it to see if we can work with each chapter around the world to fix this for next year. But, it sounds like there was at least public mention of the effort?

Susie

Original Message
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Luis de la Orden Morais
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:34 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

"This is why World Usability Day was started a few years ago."

With all due respect Sue, I cannot see how WUD is trying to reach the public
with the World Usability Day when from the start the name of the event is not consistently localised to a country's language. You know, the always Coca-Cola/Toujours Coca-Cola principle. In Brazil, UPA calls the event as World Usability Day and the newspapers call it "Dia Mundial da Usabilidade",
and the same happens in every other country as well, a little bit of a wasted PR effort, in my opinion.

Well, considering that the the Brasilian url for the event, wud.com.br, contains the "w", a letter which would, it weren't for the word "Watts", be completely unheard of by the great public, one can see that it is not just crappy interface design that makes its way into the world but also basic mistakes such as language, which I believe should be there even before one starts talking about accessibility. It is easy to make it difficult.

Nevertheless, if by public (internationally speaking), they mean "people from a certain social status who understand English" I have no argument as to how wide the public UPA is trying to serve is.

Regards,

Luis

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list . discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe .... http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help http://www.ixda.org/help