Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
When asked who was responsible for usability in the end product, two companies
cited the client. This is interesting considering the fact that these companies never ex-
plicitly discuss usability with the client, so it is difficult to see to what degree they are
responsible. Although all companies demonstrated a degree of collaboration with the
client during Requirements Analysis, only one company sought approval from the client
on the final set of requirements. The most interesting observation was that none of the
companies openly discussed usability requirements with their clients but incorporated it
into the task requirements. This suggests that companies expect their clients to be able
to represent their usability needs without having explicitly referred to usability.
The lack of UCD practices was apparent across all of the case studies, regardless of
whether they developed bespoke applications or software for sale to multiple custom-
ers. The findings revealed that the three companies developing bespoke software were
the only ones who claimed to gather usability requirements. However, the evidence
on overall usability practices in this sample size did not suggest that the nature of
applications being developed had any bearing on the level of UCD techniques being
practiced.
Analysis of the development process has shown that three of the companies are fol-
lowing an iterative process, which is encouraged by UCD experts as a critical factor
in ensuring good usability in the end product. But during their iterative design phase,
only two companies provide early prototypes to the clients for analysis. Evidence
shows that finding usability issues at the end of a project life cycle is the most ineffi-
cient way to resolve them. For this reason, it is worrying that most of the companies
are not involving their users from the early stages of the design process. It appears
that between Requirements Analysis and Acceptance Testing, there is very little inter-
action between the client and the development team.
It should also be noted that there was almost no distinction in any company be-
tween client and end user. One company noted that the client might review the re-
quirements despite the fact that they are not necessarily knowledgeable about the end
user's needs. It was clear that these companies recognised the fact that they had to
please the client first and foremost. But this assumes that the client will represent the
end users needs and if the end user is not happy with the end product, it is unlikely
that the client will take responsibility.
The evidence suggests that meeting usability needs is considered by companies to
be a part of good functional and U.I design, rather than a set of independent tasks.
These companies have not adopted specific usability techniques in their development
process. This supports the evidence that UCD techniques as criticized as unsuitable
due to the fact that they were developed outside the field of software development.
Despite not using usability techniques, most of these companies demonstrated a belief
that they are supporting the usability needs of the user through good task analysis.
[21] believe that web-based applications place increased emphasis on user interac-
tions. It suggests that the nature of web applications means that there is already more
focus on the user experience compared to developing traditional applications.
4.4 Product Usability
All of the companies believed that usability was very important for attracting new
customers. They unanimously claimed that the usability of their product was very
