A Plea For User Advocacy
May 04, 2004 | 
24 Comments
I don’t particularly like computers.
Surprised?� I guess considering what I do for a living you might be, but it’s the truth.� I love what I do, I’ve got a passion for the Web and for design, but in general I’d rather be outside playing than here working on a computer.�
I guess I’m just not that geeky.
There are times I just don’t get them. I’m not really what you’d call a “power user” and some of my biggest frustrations come from computers. I think this is more a result of bad design and lack of user focus than any lack of brain power on my part.
I could be wrong, but that’s no excuse — computers should be easier to use.
Having said that, I am pretty good at solving problems and figuring out how to get something done with computers.� It’s what keeps me in business. I’m not always sure how I did something, but I can usually muddle through it.
In many ways I consider myself a “user” more than I do a “developer” or “designer” — I guess I “use” much more than I “develop.”� This is one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about user advocacy.
We Work For Computers
Computers are hard to use.� The Web is hard to use. Too damn hard.�
I used to think that if I could “figure it out” than just about anyone could.� After a few years of user observation I’ve come to realize that even though I don’t consider myself a “power user” I’m much better off than many others.� Things that frustrate me slightly often cause others to give up.
And these folks are somewhat motivated to succeed. Imagine a user at home, with nobody watching.
I’ve been stifled enough to know how that feels.� Hell, at work I’ve recently upgraded to Office 2003 and I feel it everyday since.� It’s not a nice feeling. You should see me use the Web. I’m a bailer — if something is taking to long, or I have to think too hard about it — I’m out baby!
Let’s face it, it’s the year 2004 and we still work for our computers.� It’s one of the reasons I switched to a Mac.� If a computer is going to be my boss, I’ll take a sexy one who’s a bit easier to work for, thank you!
I long for a day when computers work for us.� I long for the day when the Web is to use and I can easily find what I want with it. The day when I don’t have to think so damn much about everything.� Seems like that day is still a ways off.� It’s too bad, but guess what?�
It’s our fault.
User Advocacy Can Be Tough
I refer to goals quite a bit and in my mind the goals of the user have to be balanced with other goals.� All to often these other goals take precedence.� Even here at Asterisk, where I try really hard to give all my readers what they want and provide a pleasant and satisfying user experience.� There are times when my own goals win out.� It’s too bad, but it’s true.
Part of this can be blamed on the technology we’ve got to work with.� It’s backwards, even obsolete.� Browsers aren’t the perfect delivery method for our work, especially “the broken one.”� It’s obvious the makers of some of the technology we use don’t care about users.� Or, if they do, they’re not doing a good job of balancing goals.
A case in point is my whole frustration with how browsers render based on doctype. Sure, some of this is my own lack of knowledge, but I still don’t fully understand why it works the way it does, and why does it have to be so complicated?
There are other technical problems aside from the browser itself, but some of the blame has to fall on the developer (or designer, or countless other stakeholders who effect the implementation of technology).
I really try and keep my readers best interests at heart with every decision.� I don’t think many designers and developers can say the same, considering the state of many of the sites out there.� In many cases this is justified — I mean you’ve got to pay the rent, or maybe that just isn’t part of your job description (for example if you work from spec) — but it’s still too bad because lots of times we’re the only one in a position to make a difference.
Think About The User
At times I feel it’s the responsibility of those of us who develop and design technology, be it the Web or something else, to do our best to advocate for ourselves — the users, the people — and begin to get technology to work for us.� I’m not the only one who feels this way.
One of the ways to do this is to practice user-centered design as much as we are able.� At the very least take the user into consideration when making design and development decisions.
Hell, just thinking about how a person will interact with your site, or application or what-have-you would be a good start. Look, I’m no usability expert or anything, but I do think there is value in trying to meet your users needs. I think we need more focus on usability from people who actually work with the technology.
(Less theory and more practice might be a good way to go, eh, Jakob?)
We’ll never be able to take all the ego out of design, many of us are underpaid and overworked (especially on the Web), and there will always be business goals to contend with, but I really think we can do a better job as a community in taking care of the people that read, use and visit our sites.�
Web design and development actually lends itself to a user-focused process.� By adding user-based goals into the mix many times we can actually better meet other goals.� Hopefully if we can create easier to use Web sites, and show some ROI (Return On Investment — see what Jakob has to say about ROI and Usability) on those efforts, we’ll create a snowball effect that will result in more user advocacy and more usable technology across the board.
And a large step forward to a future where the computers work for us.
For those who are interested in user advocacy and learning more about usability for the Web here are a few places to start:
Books
Web resources
Update / Side Note: Scrivs suggested I ad sub-headers to long posts like this. It’s a good idea that is something I think about with many posts, so I gave it a shot. It was harder than you might think. Much of my writing is free-form and conversational, especially here. Sub-headers do offer much value to a reader, even in this “freestyle” form — it’s just that at times is hard to come up with an appropriate header.
This is an example where usability (readability in specific) theory butts up against real world practice, and it’s a big reason why many can’t focus on users. Resources, goals and all of that weigh in mightily on how much you can do.
I’m committed to making this site as best an experience as possible and I do think this is a spot where I’ve come up short, so I’m going to try to take it on. If you have any comments or suggestions on how I can make Asterisk better for you — please let me know!
Filed under: IA and Usability
Comments
1. Simon Jessey said:
After all this time, you’d have thought computers would be a lot more user-friendly by now. Decades have passed since the first personal computers were available, yet we are still stuck with typing and reading, when we should be talking and listening to them. I long for the day when I can tell my computer what to do in plain English (or whatever), and then have it report back plain English if I so choose.
When you consider that for many of us, the browser is the gateway to everything, it is a pretty horrid user interface.
Perhaps I’ve been a Star Trek fan for too long…
Posted on May 4, 2004 11:20 AM | #
2. Jennifer Grucza said:
Hmm, I think I’d rather type and read than speak and listen, since (1) typing and reading are both a lot faster and (2) they’re both a lot more private and quiet.
Posted on May 4, 2004 12:05 PM | #
3. Paul G said:
Unfortunately, it seems that the usability of the web has declined exponentially in the past several years, mainly due to overmarketing, spammers of every ilk, and unscrupulous scammers. The signal is getting drowned out in the noise. Google is making a fortune because they are the best at filtering off some of the noise.
I remember when it didn’t take hours of wading through one awful or irrelevant site to find the information I wanted. I used to be able to find nearly everything I wanted within minutes. Now I rarely use the web to search for anything but textual information. It has become an exercise in patience and frustration, because I know that I will have to slog through scores of “top 50” sites that only link to other “top 50” sites, sites that just take your search term and programatically place it into a page filled with ads, pop-ups (less of a problem since I switched to FireFox), registration forms(DIEDIEDIEDIE!!!), spyware, adware, sales pitches, etc., ad nauseum.
I’m disinclined to even try anymore, I’d rather contact people I know personally to get information, or get on Kazaa to find files I’m looking for. It’s a shame that the web has degraded so much, but when you have thousands of people actively dumping noise as fast as they can into the datastream, I suppose it’s not surprising that it’s gotten so polluted.
P.S. No, I’m not talking about searching for porn, you sick little puppies. That’s easy to find on the web. Hell, it shows up in my inbox whether I want it or not. Talk about user-centric, eh? You don’t have to search for it, it finds you…
Posted on May 4, 2004 12:20 PM | #
4. Mike P. said:
You nailed it at first there Keith, and then lost it after the ‘but’.
I’ve had to learn to hold back from doing the *ahem* ‘perfect’ job when the client won’t buck up for it, and many of them don’t want to or can’t afford it.
I’ve worked too many late nights to continue giving away minutes of my days in order to offer a better user experience.
The web is going to continue to have usability potholes as long as that holds true, but therein lies the opportunity for those clients who want to do it right. Bring ‘em on, I say.
Some people buy cars for safety and ease of use and to help them with their lives (automatic sliding doors, video to keep the kids quiet etc.).
Others buy inexpensive transportation that will get the job done.
The web is no different.
(by the way, your ‘preview’ form kept dropping my url when I went from the post page to the preview page.)
Posted on May 4, 2004 02:16 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Mike – your point is well taken, however, I think if we wait for the clients to do it right we could end up with a real mess.
Then again, it all depends on where you sit I guess. I definately put much more user-focused effort into my day job than I do with my freelance work, for the very reasons you site. Then again I at least try and do my best – as I’m sure you do.
That’s all I’m really asking of folks. Do what you can, when you can. I think there are benefits outside of user, client and good karma. Design for the user and you just might become a better designer…could pay off in duckets down the road, you never know!
(sorry about the preview thing, I just put that in last night and will fix it today)
Posted on May 4, 2004 02:58 PM | #
6. Ian said:
Your post makes light of some interesting issues and problems that plague the computer industry, usability, while different companies are taking a different approach, a unified effort might make it easier overall but, if the system is easy to use and the end user, us, doesn’t need help, companies who make bundles of money on customer support would be out of business. I see however, where you are going with your arguement.
Another thing, I would like to point out is that this user advocacy is battle is parallel to the human condition, we as a society have advanced from the 1950’s heck, we even advanced from slavery but, not everyone is a favorite of progressive thought and some people don’t like to move out of their comfort zone, so in terms of things moving along to the “future” we are still a ways off. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine (18), we might start to see some changes in terms of operability.
Posted on May 4, 2004 03:37 PM | #
7. Thomas Baekdal said:
Ian said:
Now that would be a good thing for many reasons.
1: We would get rid of companies making of profit on making other people having a hard time. A vulture is a word that comes to mind.
2: IBM would be out of business :)
The worst companies I know are those who insist that you subscribe to a service agreement in order to buy their products. That is a very clear sign to me that it is not a good product. I do understand that when you buy a car it needs service from time to time - it wears down. But a software product with no moving parts? How does that need service?
Anyway, In terms of usability on the web we still have a long way to go. One thing we need in particular is to improve consistency within a site, and equally important between sites. One of the advantages of other products is that they are somewhat consistent and people can build a mental image of how it is used.
That does not mean I want every site to look the same - but I do want it to work the same way. If you look at a Ford and a BMW they each have their own distinct look, but they are basically driven the same way. A BMW driver can easily drive a Ford, and it is the same the other way around.
We need this on the web. We need consistency so that people can create a mental image - thus being able to use every site easily.
Posted on May 4, 2004 04:39 PM | #
8. Rimantas said:
Oh, I can imagine a bunch of programers chatting with their PCs…. God forbid. I’ll better stick to typing and put some good music to listen on…
Posted on May 5, 2004 02:53 AM | #
9. Tom said:
You what Paul G. says clicks with me. Particularly the “Top 50” thing. People have become very adept at getting pseudo-portal and the like type pages ranked on Google (and other engines).
Case in point. I own a Tudor style house (exterior anyway.) Once again yesterday I tried (for about the 4th time) to search google and come up with some photos and information on how to design/style our house in that style.
I tried harder than I had before, spending about 30 minutes searching and reading results.
The things that came up most were:
1. Some form of real estate listing.
2. Constant links to a site or sites that have more links to similar sites that sell books on home decorating. VERY frustrating.
3. Information on the English Tudor family - not the same thing.
I found only ONE useful site, a company that makes Tudor style furniture in England. There must me a heck of a lot more info out there but I can’t find it.
I’ve noticed that searching Google lately has become more and more like this. Maybe the above topic is too specialized I don’t know. But sometimes I end up finding too many *pointers* to the information - but not the info itself.
I think I’m rambling.
Tom
Posted on May 5, 2004 11:36 AM | #
10. Chris Hester said:
One may start by definining unfamiliar acronyms. :-)
Posted on May 5, 2004 01:57 PM | #
11. Paul G said:
By way of expounding on my previous comment, I wrote a much longer article/rant:
The Web is Backwards
(a.k.a. “Internet considered harmful” :P)
Posted on May 5, 2004 02:34 PM | #
12. Scrivs said:
I just wrote something along the same lines as you (guess I should read your stuff first from now on). In any case, I find it humorous that a designer would even think about focusing his design on the users because we all wish to create successful sites, yet its hard to do so without thinking about the user.
If our little community was the only one responsible for building websites then I think we would have a much better web. The problem is the people who don’t participate in the standards community are the ones who get their websites splattered all over the place.
One of the hardest things about VCRs was setting the clock. DVD players replaced the VCRs and got rid of the clock so there was no more difficulty. Maybe the web is waiting for a new technology. Who knows (and who knows why in the hell I even thought of that analogy).
Posted on May 6, 2004 10:24 AM | #
13. Matt Van Horn said:
Chris Hester:
If English is your native language, and ROI is unfamiliar to you, then I really pity anyone who pays you to work for them.
ROI stands for ‘Return On Investment’ and clients expect a decent ROI for every dollar they spend. Otherwise, why should they spend the money?
Posted on May 6, 2004 03:15 PM | #
14. Jennifer Grucza said:
Man, give him a break - not everyone goes around talking in acronyms all the time. Knowing what ROI stands for is a lot different from being able to deliver it. In fact, I would say that they are completely independent of each other.
Personally, I don’t remember seeing that acronym until after I graduated from college, though I was familiar with the phrase “Return on Investment.” And I don’t think anyone who knows me would question that English is my native language.
Posted on May 6, 2004 03:37 PM | #
15. Keith said:
Yeah, that ROI bit was my bad. I just didn’t think about it and assumed everyone would know what it meant. I did add a definition and a link to a little essay on usability and ROI. Hopefully that is a bit more helpful to folks!
Sorry about that one folks.
Posted on May 6, 2004 04:13 PM | #
16. opened said:
http://processors.acholipeace.org/493806450/ anybodychancedawn
Posted on September 3, 2005 06:04 AM | #
17. plead said:
http://eschool.mvoicesfl.org countyensconcedundeveloped
Posted on September 6, 2005 05:58 PM | #
18. skipped said:
http://pharmacy.naturotheque.org/594093041/ afterwardsexcusepunishing
Posted on September 11, 2005 07:38 AM | #
19. layer said:
http://promovies.dyndsl.com/girls-peeing/israeli/japanese_piss_post.html remarksshovesslapped
Posted on September 24, 2005 06:49 AM | #
20. bloodstream said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/matures/6613057/old_woman_sex.html clearlyheavedscrewing
Posted on October 17, 2005 09:24 AM | #
21. fumbling said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/andrepe/rtstp6w/ shruggedstandswimming
Posted on October 21, 2005 04:43 PM | #
22. smiles said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/movisex/tqvbieiddr0/ gripedthroatworked
Posted on October 23, 2005 12:10 PM | #
23. flaying said:
http://shemales.anzwers.net/shemaleone/vu7/hero.html sightstickysubmit
Posted on October 24, 2005 08:14 PM | #
24. motioned said:
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/retrogir/6194147/ hipsribssides
Posted on October 26, 2005 09:34 PM | #
Comments are now closed