Power Tools and UCD
Donald Norman makes the point in a recent ACM article that user-centered design has various drawbacks. This is mild heresy in some corners today, where "user-centered design" is the latest buzzword. But he makes a convincing argument for activity-centered design (rather than UCD) in certain cases. He notes, for example, that violins and pianos (and musical notation in general) would not pass muster of a UCD review. Having played both instruments for years and suffered accordingly, I can vouch for the truth of that assessment. But those instruments aren't designed to be easy to use, they're designed to perform a particular purpose, and to do it well. A violin which was comfortable to play would no doubt prevent virtuoso performances.
Tangentially--to what extent are the arts appreciated as such for precisely the fact that they are not easy to learn, perform, and master? In the past, both production and use of many goods took practice and skill. Today, everyone is working to remove skill from use and place the bulk of it in design, production, and marketing. And, overall, this is undoubtedly a benefit.
The key word is "overall". UCD undoubtedly makes products easier to use. This is often inaccurately referred to as making the products "better". Actually, they are better, but in a narrow sense: they are better products for the mass market (and they will hopefully sell better). They work more easily for most people. If sales and market share are your goal, then this is probably the route to take. But it's important to realize that this form of "better" doesn't mean that the product is better at doing what it does. On the contrary, it will often be worse: less efficient, less powerful, less flexible.
Of course it's not always this way. As Norman points out, good design doesn't allow methodology (regardless of particulars) to dictate outcome. It should be taken as input or suggestions, not law. And it may be that UCD is an excellent tool for iterative tweaking of ACD-conceived products. The happy reality is that today, individuals often have a choice: the market provides UCD tools as well as the more difficult power-user tools.
I'll bet you've never thought of a violin as a device for power users.
Tangentially--to what extent are the arts appreciated as such for precisely the fact that they are not easy to learn, perform, and master? In the past, both production and use of many goods took practice and skill. Today, everyone is working to remove skill from use and place the bulk of it in design, production, and marketing. And, overall, this is undoubtedly a benefit.
The key word is "overall". UCD undoubtedly makes products easier to use. This is often inaccurately referred to as making the products "better". Actually, they are better, but in a narrow sense: they are better products for the mass market (and they will hopefully sell better). They work more easily for most people. If sales and market share are your goal, then this is probably the route to take. But it's important to realize that this form of "better" doesn't mean that the product is better at doing what it does. On the contrary, it will often be worse: less efficient, less powerful, less flexible.
Of course it's not always this way. As Norman points out, good design doesn't allow methodology (regardless of particulars) to dictate outcome. It should be taken as input or suggestions, not law. And it may be that UCD is an excellent tool for iterative tweaking of ACD-conceived products. The happy reality is that today, individuals often have a choice: the market provides UCD tools as well as the more difficult power-user tools.
I'll bet you've never thought of a violin as a device for power users.
posted by Andrew at 3:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home