Selling Usability By Design
April 16, 2004 | 
12 Comments
In the hopes of furthering the building of a bridge between “design” and “usability,” I thought I’d throw a concept out there. It may not be new, but hey, if not, I think we could all use a reminder.
Design can help sell usability.
I’m not talking about selling it like Jakob Nielsen sells it. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s in his best interests to keep well away from the “design crowd” — I mean, heaven forbid we begin to take some of what he says and make it that much better! (Watch out Nielly — we’re coming for you!) What I’m talking about is using design not only to enhance user experience, but using it to help sell your clients and stakeholders on the whole concept of usability. Or, if they can’t be sold, at least design can run interference and help get the ball rolling.
Let face it. Many Web designers are in a constant battle with clients and stakeholders. It can be hard enough just to get your design approved, let alone bringing concepts like accessibility into the picture. Of course you and I know that it’s important, but if you expect your CEO or Director of Marketing to care, you’re kidding yourself. Or you’re really damn lucky.
They want Flash! They want hot! They want sexy!
Usability isn’t sexy. Accessibility isn’t hot.
I believe that visual design (you know — the sexy) can, if done right and for the right reasons, can really add to a visitor’s experience. It really can. I’m still a big believer in form follows function, but hell, if you’re doing it right you should have quality in both areas. Design is part of what makes sites usable.
If you go to your stakeholders and try to sell them on usability and you can’t show them how it’s going to meet their goals by making it look nice, etc. you’re in for some problems. Granted, you may find some enlightened CEO who either doesn’t care or really “gets it”, but for the majority of us this is a pipe dream — at least for the time being.
When making your case to these folks, begin with the design. I know, I know — this goes against my form follows function statement, but bear with me — if you come to the table with an integrated strategy, one that focuses on visual design and user-centered design — it just makes sense to start with what’s going to get you moving and position the rest as “added benefits.” Doesn’t mean you actually have to do it that way.
If you’re prepared and know what you’re doing, you’ll have an integrated strategy anyway, one that incorporates all of those things that make up Web best practices. All I’m saying is to tailor your pitch to your audience, just like you tailor your site to your audience. Usability can be a lofty concept, and if you haven’t had a chance to get your stakeholders to read Don’t Make Me Think, you will probably be better of talking to what they feel is important.
I think at times those of us who advocate for users take a line that’s a bit too hard. I know I’ve been guilty of that — it’s the passion for the Web talking. We know what’s right for our audiences and what will make our Web projects a resounding success. We want those sponsoring us to understand what it’s all about. We want them to respect and value what we do. We want them to see beyond the superficial. This is something I think we should still strive for, but at the end of the day, we’re doing our visitors a better service by trying to mesh their needs with the needs of those folks who sign the check.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Amit Deshpande said:
Agree! Strongly agree. If Nielson’s theory looked slightly better I would have frequented the site more!
Posted on April 16, 2004 09:57 PM | #
2. eric said:
Neilson’s hideous website has scared me off more often than not. How can he claim to be a ‘usability expert’ when his work is, though poor visual design, pretty much unusable? I always found that a bit ironic.
I’m currently redesigning my site with (what I understand to be) fully accessible code, even though probably exactly no one is going to ever actually view it with styles off, partly because code is cleaner that way and partly for kicks. But in making it ‘usable/accessible’ I’m not by any account making it ugly. I’d like to think.
Posted on April 17, 2004 12:05 AM | #
3. patrick h. lauke said:
in essence, tell your audience what they want to hear - not lying, but being selective with how you pitch things…and possibly mention all the extra things in passing “oh, and of course the site is also accessible, and presents usability enhancements, blah blah”. just the way that, say, a craftsman might just talk about having used the best materials for a particular job, rather than going into the minute detail of why this type of screw or bolt is better than that one, etc…
sound advice, as always keith :)
Posted on April 17, 2004 04:00 AM | #
4. sosa said:
I agree.
Purpouse of design is *not* to make things prettier but make it better in all the ways. Form and function had to work together.
Anyway, it would be a very good idea if you tried to show us some examples of sites that have acomplished that usable-but-aestethically-good sites.
Posted on April 17, 2004 11:55 AM | #
5. Ethan said:
All I can add is that I hope t-shirts with “What Would Neilly Do?” are currently in production.
Posted on April 17, 2004 11:39 PM | #
6. Joshua Porter said:
When I worked as a freelance web designer, I came to realize that there were two distinct audiences that I was trying to please. One audience is made up of users, who will determine the success of the design. The other audience is the client, who will determine the success of the project.
The irony is that most times only the project is measured: if we get money for it then it was a success. We rarely know for sure if the design was a success.
You’re absolutely right, Keith. Usability and accessibility aren’t sexy. But neither is designing for the wrong audience. I think this is why web design is a very difficult profession: we’re designing for two audiences and only one is paying us.
Design can sometimes be the only way to sell usability.
Posted on April 18, 2004 04:08 AM | #
7. Jim Summer said:
Hi,
First visit to your site… nice article. Something I have found that works for me is to pitch usability within the context of ease of site maintenence($$) and forward compatibility($$). You are right most clients see $$ as a success so pitching an easily maintained site that will not have to be reworked for future user agents spells $avings to a lot of folks footing the bill. Most don’t know that Nav4.x is dead or just how good most of todays browsers are at handling css etc… but that $$$ thing gets their attention. Pitching it that way usually gets them to relenquish some of the “gotta be sexy” you speak of. By the way, the url I have there is so old it is embarrassing, I am redoing it either at http://tentonweb.com/2004/ or http://tentonweb.com/2003b/ any comments on those 2 are welcome. Not all links done on either just rough drafts.
Take care and again a good read,
Jim Summer
Posted on April 19, 2004 09:31 AM | #
8. Maddy Saint said:
Reading this has brightened my day….well, perhaps I wouldn’t go that far, but it has certainly got me thinking about things from a new perspective. Had a client today who, in his words, wants his site to have some ‘Whiz, Bang, Pop’ - excellent brief! He really wasn’t interested in what his customers might want from the site, or particularly interested in telling me about his business. He just wanted his site to look impressive!
I was questioning whether I even wanted to work for the guy. I guess I’ve been spoilt by having clients that trust me to do my job and can see beyond doing something on a website “just because you can”. I can now see that I need to dress this one up another way and don’t have to compromise on my own standards and methods.
Posted on April 19, 2004 01:11 PM | #
9. Dino D'Romero said:
Read the following article “The Designer Is Dead, Long Live The Designer!” (http://www.digital-web.com/columns/artofinteraction/the_designer_is_dead.shtml) and we can go from there.
Posted on April 22, 2004 05:15 AM | #
10. Keith said:
Dino – come on! Read it!? I edited it. Editor in Chief of Digital Web? That’s me. ;)
It is a good one that ties in nicely.
Posted on April 22, 2004 09:56 AM | #
11. Steven Streight said:
Why would an organization not care if their web site was easy for customers to use? That’s insane. Only want it to look nice, or have lots of Flash and other effects?
I’ve worked in database and direct response marketing since 1978. Since 1998, I have focused almost exclusively on web usability analysis and content writing. It’s more fun and challenging.
But no organization I ever worked for was apathetic regarding response rate for direct mail campaigns. We had A/B split tests, and your butt was on the line: “Either outperform the control package/ad/etc.–or buzz off.” Usability and responsivity was mandatory, paramount, vital.
Why would anyone put up a web site and not care if users had trouble understanding, navigating, and performing tasks (from info finding to downloading an article to ordering a product)?
My clients hire me because they KNOW something is dreadfully wrong with their web sites…we run User Observation Tests with representative users attempting to perform tasks…we watch and take note and time them…we discover flaws in the sites.
But yes: design can sell usability…and usability helps ensure the success of the design.
Design and usability…form and function…to me it’s like body and soul.
P.S. I find Nielsen’s site extremely usable. I go there to quickly see what he has to say about, for instance, site maps, or the “About Us” page, and guess what? I find it fast, read it fast, move on. That’s what usability means.
Could it be more pleasing to the eye? Probably. I love this site. But Nielsen’s site is okay with me. I don’t knock it, when I think of all the insight that I gain at it.
I don’t even concern myself with how pleasing it is visually. Maybe I’ll start thinking about that, prompted by the criticisms. But I am pleased by the intelligent articles and wide range of topics. I know of no other site so rich in usability information.
Posted on April 24, 2004 11:42 AM | #
12. Vidya Gopinath said:
Strongly believe usability and design should go hand in hand.Though we all love art and beauty still think that any graphics or designs which gets into the way of usabiltiy is to be done away with.
I am sure that almost everyone who had spent a frustrating time at a site trying to get access to the information they want would not re-visit that one again.But I do not mean that a site has to be ugly in order to be usable.
A true usability expert can revamp a site and make it usable without compromising on the ‘look and feel’ of the website.
Posted on May 30, 2004 09:46 PM | #
Comments are now closed