Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 5 May 2001 09:15:19 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Rodney Fuller wrote:
> B) They want to do user testing to find out why "Johnny can't find
> the
> button" and "Sally can't understand search." Their test results may
> result in small improvements that will decay rapidly over time. It is
> also *very* hard to justify the cost of this testing--but that is a
> separate discussion.
>
> C) They want to improve the customer experience and do user testing to
> determine "What do Johnny and Sally want, and how do they want it?"
> These people have a good chance to change a bad business model, or
> make a good one better. But VERY few are doing this. Money is
> tight, but not that tight--people have it but they are using it to
> maintain current functions not explore new ones.
>
> The most interesting questions I have after the last 6 months are:
>
> 1. Why do usability-only test results/findings decay so rapidly
> over time?
Isn't this because nothing fundamental is actually changed in this
case? I think the main difference between type B and type C testing is
that with type C there is a good chance that the people running the
site have changed. New changes to the site will be put in within that
changed framework. With type B people are less likely to change, and
thus new changes to the site will be put in within the old framework,
introducing new usability problems.
Hans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
About CHI-WEB: http://www.sigchi.org/web/chi-web.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|