Editorials

back  To Overview of Editorials

Editorials 2008

Editorials 2007

Editorials 2006

Editorials 2005

Editorials 2004

Editorials 2003

Editorials 2002

Editorials 2001

Editorials 2000

 

A Walk Through Some Buzzwords

By Gerd Waloszek, SAP User Experience, SAP AG – 08/08/2008

In my summer editorial for 2008, I would like to take my readers on a tour of many of the buzzwords that have been used for our profession of designing usable software applications. Do not expect me to be objective, complete, fair, or politically correct in my observations. This is just a subjective tour of some buzzwords that I have encountered, and I will share my personal opinions and, finally, my personal favorite.

 

Ergonomics, Human Factors

Photo of Gerd WaloszekWhen I started working at SAP at the beginning of 1993, I became a member of the "Ergonomiegruppe," or "ergonomics group." This term is closely related to what are called "human factors" (or "Arbeitswissenschaften" in German). There is even a consultancy, Human Factors International (led by Eric Schaffer), which still has this term in its name.

When graphical designers quarrel with usability people – which they do from time to time – some of them like to refer to World War II as the origin of the "human factors" profession in order to discredit them. Well, I suppose that graphic design has its origins in war, too. Think of the warriors in the Stone Age, dancing around a fire to prepare themselves for the next fight and painting their faces and bodies to frighten their enemies. The remainder of the paint was then used for cave paintings, such as those in Altamira and Lascaux (not Lascaux II, of course). OK, I hope that settles it – at least with regard to that debate.

 

Usability

In the 1990s, there was already another term in use for my profession: "usability." Thus, we were also the "usability group." Soon, we became the "usability engineering center" so that we had a more up-to-date group name. By the way, "usability" translates as the German word "Gebrauchstauglichkeit," a word that nobody would use ordinarily – it's simply not usable! Interestingly, the term "usability" has always been primarily associated with testing activities, thus putting usability activities at the end of the software development process and making them more or less a quality gate that comes too late for any serious revisions. In this interpretation, the design aspect, particularly the involvement of UI professionals in the development process right from the start is completely excluded.

 

User Interface Design (UI Design)

Maybe because of this obvious oversight, the term "user interface design" has become popular. Here, the design aspect is highlighted. On the other hand, the usability aspect has vanished completely. One might rightfully assume that anybody can design a user interface, provided he or she knows the UI controls well – usability knowledge does not seem to be relevant or required. As a consequence, many people viewed and still view UI design as "putting controls on the screen," an activity that anyone can do, so why not a developer?

 

Interaction Design

The term "user interface design" has another drawback: It seems to neglect the dynamic aspects of human-computer and human-system interaction in general. To emphasize the importance of dynamics, many UI designers and designers in general called themselves interaction designers, with Alan Cooper probably the most prominent example in the UI design field. (Initially, he named his consultancy Cooper Interaction Design, but now it's only called Cooper.) Also, designers who create dynamic installations for museums or events, or who build physical gadgets call themselves interaction designers, regarding UI design only as a subset of interaction design.

 

User Experience Design, Experience Design

In the recent past, a new buzzword, "(user) experience design" has surfaced, and many UI design teams, including ours at SAP, renamed themselves "User Experience." I do not know who actually invented this term: if it were for the number of citations, it must have been Don Norman. On the other hand, a number of authors, typically interaction designers, such as John McCarthy and Peter Wright in their book Technology as Experience (read the review), deny that it is possible to "design" rich user experiences. In their opinion, this is up to the users and beyond the scope of designers. As is often the case, the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. Personally, I like the term "user experience" because of its openness. While most people associate it with a positive user experience, there is no law that requires this to be the case. In fact, a user experience can be very devastating – but it's nevertheless an experience. Now, I can imagine that many readers associate these negative instances with certain software companies. I can assure you that I have also had a lot of negative experiences with the products of software companies that are usually praised for their UI design – which can be even more disappointing!

 

User-Centered Design, Participatory Design, Goal-Directed Design

These terms all denote facets of promoting the idea of assigning users a fundamental role in design. The first term puts the user "at the center of the design process." One might, however, wonder whether the designers are just the users' advocates or whether they include them in the process. The second term just focuses on this aspect, namely the users' involvement in the design process. The last term gives priority to the users' goal, exemplified by personas as archetypal users and scenarios that might be regarded as "archetypal contexts of use." Alan Cooper seems to have invented it and found it so valuable that he even registered it as a trademark.

 

User Productivity

For a little more than a year, our UI design team at SAP was called "User Productivity." Among all the terms that I walked through in this editorial, this may be one of the least fanciest, but in my opinion it comes closest to our professional work as UI designers (usability engineers, user experience designers, or whatever you name it) in a company developing enterprise software. Of course, our customers want their employees to be productive with our software. And the users also want to be productive – nobody wants to be impeded by tools. Productivity also implies that the software is usable. A positive user experience makes it even more usable, because it increases the users' motivation and thus in turn their productivity.

 

Conclusions

I must admit that I have never cared much about whatever the current name of our profession might be. Maybe that's because I worked as a physicist among psychologists and learned to avoid debates about the name of what I was doing. In my current profession, I want users to be productive, their tools to recede into the background and not present any obstacles for them, and their overall "user experience" to be a satisfying one. As designers of enterprise software, our primary aim isn't to create "great user experiences" – we have to leave that pursuit to the designers of installations at museums and events. But, of course, we want to provide our users with a working environment that motivates them and is enjoyable to work with. Among other reasons, that's why SAP also invested in the "candy" and developed the new Signature visual design.

Finally, one thing I have got out of my tour is a warning – namely the awareness that all of the terms mentioned above fall short in describing what our profession actually comprises. They only focus on one aspect and may lead people to assume that other aspects are not relevant – which is not the case at all.

 

References

 

top top