Database Reference
In-Depth Information
Making Trade-Offs
Let's go back to those roles of flight attendant, sportscaster, and scientist. When various situations
arise in usability tests, it's often helpful to frame the situation in terms of a trade-off between two of the
roles. Usually the flight attendant role has the top priority, but there are times when you might decide to
let the sportscaster or scientist have their way. Thinking in terms of roles may help you understand the
opposing forces at work so that you can make the best decision for each situation. Following are
several examples.
Situation: Users are stuck on a problem you haven't seen before.
This common situation is a flight attendant/sportscaster conflict. The sports-caster wants the
development team to get as much information as possible about the issue, including everything that's
going on in the users' heads, but the flight attendant wants to make sure that the users don't feel stupid
or embarrassed. Usually it's okay to wait and see if they can get past the difficulty on their own, but the
flight attendant should provide reassurance and be prepared to intervene if necessary. (If your users
are familiar with the game show Wheel of Fortune, you might ask, "Would you like to buy a vowel?" A
bit of gentle humor can diffuse tension, and it's also a subtle reminder that the user is in charge.) Later
in this chapter, I provide more tips on getting users unstuck.
Situation: Users are stuck on a problem that also came up in the last two tests.
Naturally, the flight attendant is concerned and should remain vigilant, but this is primarily a
sportscaster/scientist trade-off. The main question to ask is, "How much data do we need about this
problem?" If the team is already painfully aware of the issue, there's little point in spending valuable test
time covering the same ground again. In this case, the scientist might give the users a hint to get them
over the difficulty, noting the fact that he or she has done so. But if not all of the observers were
present at the previous tests or there's no consensus about the severity of the problem, the
sportscaster might overrule the scientist to let the observers get more information about the problem.
Situation: Two users working together disagree on what to do next.
The sportscaster might want the users to go down the wrong path first because it will likely be more
interesting to watch them realize the error and recover from it—one hallmark of a usable interface is
that it helps users get back on track. But the flight attendant must approve because it would be
detrimental to foster conflict among the users and facilitator. One way to direct the users is by saying
something like, "You guys have different ideas about how to proceed, which is fine because people do
things differently. Why don't you try what John suggested, and if that doesn't do what you wanted, you
can switch to Mary's approach." The scientist notes that the users were given this instruction (I call it a
"nudge") about which way to go first. However, if time is short and there's additional ground to cover,
the scientist may overrule the sportscaster by suggesting that the users take the correct path.
Situation: The team has redesigned a screen, but the users don't take the path that will lead them
to it.
This is another situation in which the sportscaster will probably take priority over the scientist, although
not immediately. The sportscaster knows that the team is eager to find out how their revised screen
works, but the scientist first wants to establish whether the users would have gotten there on their own.
So the scientist will avoid taking the users to the redesigned screen at first, until it's reasonably clear
that they won't go there. Then the scientist can step aside in favor of the sportscaster, who directs the
users to the new screen to find out how they react to it.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search