For many issues you don't need more than a single observation of user frustration - if you can see an obvious improvement, implement it.
For other issues, you will indeed want to observe multiple users. However, in practice there is rarely any benefit in wanting to observe more than five users concering any particular issue.
If you got as far as testing and still have such obvious problems in the UI then maybe there are issues elsewhere in the development process:)
As for sample sizes, in my area the users have widely differing levels of PC literacy. I could very easily pick 5 people at random and get all good - or all poor, in the sample set. It depends on what you're doing.
... and in many cases, changes in the UI can be traded against providing better training for the users - you still need to do a cost benefit analysis.
They insist the users are just "too stupid" or just "don't get it" or just "aren't using it right". They fail to realize the whole idea of a good UI is to make sure users CAN'T use it wrong, and to make it as difficult as possible for the user to fail to understand.
"The customer did something wrong" is NEVER a reasonable excuse for a problem in a UI. If the customer did something wrong, it's YOUR fault for making it possible for the customer to do whatever it was he did wrong.
This is a nice 'ideal' to aim in the general direction of - but in reality it's unattainable.
If I insist on closing an application without saving any changes and refusing to hit the [save changes before exit] button on the popup warning - I *am* using it wrong.
The way you have to look at it is the same as for safety critical software. You have to way up the cost of making the system completely bullet-proof against the probability of the event happening and the impact it will have if it does. You *cannot* forsee and prevent all possible failure modes - and some which you can forsee are not worth the effort of preventing them.
Spending a significant amount of time and effort designing safeguards that will only be triggered by 0.001% of your user base is simply a waste of resources.
The mechanisms you outlined are all good practice - but you shouldn't take it to extremes.
He encourages simple, quick, and casual usability testing, something even the smallest firm could afford and from which they would could draw useful improvements.
If you pick the *wrong* users or watch users that haven't been fully trained on the system, "simple, quick, and casual usability testing" can easily lead to a large number of wasteful, unnecessary changes disguised as "useful improvements".
If users complain that they can't use the system because some functionality is 'missing' - and it turns out they haven't worked out how to use a scrollbar - do you spend significant time and effort redesigning the interface, or train the users to drive it properly?
You *need* larger scale, controlled tests to determine if a problem is *significant* before making any changes. Get it so that 90% can use it with no problems and give the rest more training - that's a more sensible approach than trying to make every application useable by the average brain donor.
The "quick, simple and casual" approach might be a good idea to get a feel as to where to target the main testing - but using it to drive useability requirements is probably not a great move.
>>> When was the last manned European space flight
>> You ever heard the term 'cosmonaut'?:)
> You ever heard of Russians? I don't believe they are a big part of ESA.
European space flight != ESA
Russia = Eastern Europe
ok... this is getting ridiculous... why should anyone that found a way to compromise security for a game be prosecuted in real life?!
Hmmm - maybe because it's not *just* a game. For the companies involved it's a business and this may harm their revenue streams. Why is this any different from any other business that gets disrupted (with potential loss of custom)?
At the same time though - it *is* funny - illegal, but funny:)
I agree 100% and make a comparison with Werner Von Braun, who undoubtedly caused the death of many hundreds of people as a result of his development of the V2 rocket in WW2, but also undoubtedly knew more about rockets than just about anyone anywhere. His past history certainly didn't stop the US Government from leveraging his skills to get to the moon (well, maybe;)
Von Braun didn't *directly* cause those deaths - he developed technology that was then exploited by other people to cause death. ... and when he went to the US he wasn't used to 'do good things to make up for his past' - he was there to do exactly the same as before - design rockets - for weapons initially and space exploration later.
If you're looking for a computer equivalent for Von Braun you should be comparing him to Bill Gates - a designer of 'enabling technology' that can be exploited for bad purposes i.e. OS's with all those security holes:)
The TIS-1 Gasdynamic Laser Weapon System will function as a result of gasdynamic thermal pumping of a 10%, 89% and 1% mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Helium gas respectively. Initially contained at a state of thermal equilibrium at a high temperature (2,173K) and pressure (272 atm) within a gas reservoir heated by a radioisotope power cell offering a high energy density, the gas mixture is permitted (upon release of the weapon trigger) to enter a restrictive nozzle throat annulus whereby the gas will achieve local sonic velocity (Mach 1.0). Exiting the annulus, the gas is permitted to enter a supersonic expansion nozzle, consisting of an inverted aerospike configuration.
Googling for 'radioisotope power cell' gives several sites including:
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/amps.ht m
which describes such a cell to be used for NASA space missions. On that site:
Each cell will create about 6-8 watts of electrical power and be about 5 inches high and an inch and a half in diameter. Coming up from the bottom will be eight or nine white ceramic tubes wrapped in a metal called molybdenum.
Heat - supplied by plutonium -- is applied to the bottom of the cell. The heat vaporizes sodium metal at the bottom of the cell, the vapor then rising into the ceramic tubes. As the vapor reaches the ceramic surface, electrons are freed, which run along a wire that exits the cell, leads to the load and then re-enters the cell. As the electrons flow along the wire, a current is produced and power is delivered. The sodium vapor passes through the ceramic, is recombined with the electrons, hits a condenser and is turned back into a liquid. The liquid is sucked into a wick, returned back to the hot spot and reheated, starting the process all over. The sodium metal will be recycled through the process seven or eight times an hour.
So in order to produce ~2kW, the cells are going to be BIG - and before anyone points out the 15-25 years bit again, even THESE cells don't exist yet, they are still being developed.
Looking at Stavatti's claims - the gas reservoir is therefore going to contain plutonium, and gas at 2200K and 270+ atmospheres.
a) What are they going to make it out of - that can withstand that temp and pressure - and guarantee not to rupture, releasing the plutonium. Never mind the fact that the material will have to contain all of the heat - a 2000K temp gradient - how thick would that need to be ?
b) What sort of idiot is going to want to not only HOLD one of the things, but take it into an environment where it's likely to get damaged (and go BOOM) ?
There are much more sensible ideas out there that Defence cash could be wasted on.
If it was real ants there'd be none of this "You have the blue nodes and we'll have the red nodes" niceness.
The blue ants would be killing the red ants and vice versa - and the scent given off by the dying ants would attract more ants to the area until there was one hell of a war going on for territory (nodes). With the winners getting better connectivity for their network. And the ants would quickly specialise into scouts, soldiers and queens (to reinforce the army).
Come to think of it, that'd be much more interesting than plain old networking anyway:)
All this cuteness and collaboration all the time - do people not realise that the Mother in Mother Nature isn't mother as in 'caring nurturing type person' - it's mother as in M.O.A.B.:)
"The smells are almost subliminal so as not to create any conflicts with the wearer's personal perfumes," ICI added.
So you can't actually smell the smells - but they are there - honestly:)
1. Buy some cheap fabric
2. Get some clothes run up in a sweat shop
3. Advertise them as 'having Pheromones impregnated right into the fabric'.
4....
5. Profit!:)
"This online novel contains strong language and explicit violence. If you are under 21 years old, or easily offended, please leave."
Whenever I see something like that about a book or film, I always think: 'Wahey, this'll be worth watching/reading."
Does that make me twisted ?
Doh! I'm asking/.'ers if I'm normal....:)
How else can you do a major cost cutting exercise (only buying half the PC's you actually need) and at the same time con your geeks into believing that you are following the leading edge of software dev ?
I have enough trouble getting the video to record the right channel as it is - without having to worry about it grabbing random stuff off the net through it's electric plug.... and how long will it be before some script kiddie hacks into all my Windows(tm) powered appliances and takes over my whole house??:)
It was us that did the work:
QinetiQ
Wait, what am I thinking...
OMG - I just/.'ed my own company's server!!
Where's the delete option on this thing...
I got some spam this morning offering me an account with an ISP. They claimed they never shut down accounts due to spam complaints and they are also selling 'bulk e-mail software'.
It's somewhere in the US, as you need to phone a 1-845 number (or reply to an excite.com address) to apply.
Can ISP's really do this - I'd have thought they would get shut down pretty quick if they did.
Slashdot Mirror
As for sample sizes, in my area the users have widely differing levels of PC literacy. I could very easily pick 5 people at random and get all good - or all poor, in the sample set. It depends on what you're doing.
If I insist on closing an application without saving any changes and refusing to hit the [save changes before exit] button on the popup warning - I *am* using it wrong.
The way you have to look at it is the same as for safety critical software. You have to way up the cost of making the system completely bullet-proof against the probability of the event happening and the impact it will have if it does. You *cannot* forsee and prevent all possible failure modes - and some which you can forsee are not worth the effort of preventing them.
Spending a significant amount of time and effort designing safeguards that will only be triggered by 0.001% of your user base is simply a waste of resources.
The mechanisms you outlined are all good practice - but you shouldn't take it to extremes.
If users complain that they can't use the system because some functionality is 'missing' - and it turns out they haven't worked out how to use a scrollbar - do you spend significant time and effort redesigning the interface, or train the users to drive it properly?
You *need* larger scale, controlled tests to determine if a problem is *significant* before making any changes. Get it so that 90% can use it with no problems and give the rest more training - that's a more sensible approach than trying to make every application useable by the average brain donor.
The "quick, simple and casual" approach might be a good idea to get a feel as to where to target the main testing - but using it to drive useability requirements is probably not a great move.
... the parent post is not the only one :)
The Kazaa strip.
Napster Highway.
"Read my summary for more details."
:)
I'd rather have less detail in a summary - thanks
British English ?!?! :)
;)
There's no such thing. It's ENGLISH - we invented the damned language, it's ours - ok?
There's English and a bastardised American dialect.
Trust me
Kids with spraypaint are gonna love that :)
>>> When was the last manned European space flight :)
>> You ever heard the term 'cosmonaut'?
> You ever heard of Russians? I don't believe they are a big part of ESA.
European space flight != ESA
Russia = Eastern Europe
You ever heard the term 'cosmonaut'? :)
7 registered and 721 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
:)
Maybe that should read 'slashdot users'
At the same time though - it *is* funny - illegal, but funny
If you're looking for a computer equivalent for Von Braun you should be comparing him to Bill Gates - a designer of 'enabling technology' that can be exploited for bad purposes i.e. OS's with all those security holes
Googling for 'radioisotope power cell' gives several sites including:
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/amps.h
which describes such a cell to be used for NASA space missions. On that site: So in order to produce ~2kW, the cells are going to be BIG - and before anyone points out the 15-25 years bit again, even THESE cells don't exist yet, they are still being developed.
Looking at Stavatti's claims - the gas reservoir is therefore going to contain plutonium, and gas at 2200K and 270+ atmospheres.
a) What are they going to make it out of - that can withstand that temp and pressure - and guarantee not to rupture, releasing the plutonium. Never mind the fact that the material will have to contain all of the heat - a 2000K temp gradient - how thick would that need to be ?
b) What sort of idiot is going to want to not only HOLD one of the things, but take it into an environment where it's likely to get damaged (and go BOOM) ?
There are much more sensible ideas out there that Defence cash could be wasted on.
If it was real ants there'd be none of this "You have the blue nodes and we'll have the red nodes" niceness.
:)
:)
The blue ants would be killing the red ants and vice versa - and the scent given off by the dying ants would attract more ants to the area until there was one hell of a war going on for territory (nodes). With the winners getting better connectivity for their network. And the ants would quickly specialise into scouts, soldiers and queens (to reinforce the army).
Come to think of it, that'd be much more interesting than plain old networking anyway
All this cuteness and collaboration all the time - do people not realise that the Mother in Mother Nature isn't mother as in 'caring nurturing type person' - it's mother as in M.O.A.B.
There's gonna be some "strong language and explicit violence" here in a minute if my browser doesn't stop crashing on me.
/.'ers for dupes .... :)
Sorry about the repeat post - didn't think the first one had gone out.
Doh! Now I'm apologising to
Does that make me twisted ?
Doh! I'm asking
Should I be pleased or insulted ??
My first ever 5-mod - but it was modded Insightful - when IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE **FUNNY**
Bah - back to comedy school for me.
How else can you do a major cost cutting exercise (only buying half the PC's you actually need) and at the same time con your geeks into believing that you are following the leading edge of software dev ?
I have enough trouble getting the video to record the right channel as it is - without having to worry about it grabbing random stuff off the net through it's electric plug. ... and how long will it be before some script kiddie hacks into all my Windows(tm) powered appliances and takes over my whole house?? :)
It was us that did the work: QinetiQ ...
OMG - I just /.'ed my own company's server!!
Where's the delete option on this thing ...
Wait, what am I thinking
I got some spam this morning offering me an account with an ISP. They claimed they never shut down accounts due to spam complaints and they are also selling 'bulk e-mail software'.
It's somewhere in the US, as you need to phone a 1-845 number (or reply to an excite.com address) to apply.
Can ISP's really do this - I'd have thought they would get shut down pretty quick if they did.