Chapter 8 stresses that there is no substitute for site testing in the development stage, due to the infinitesimal attributes of users idiosyncratic behavior when using the internet. (Or in general, as I will explain below.) Chapter 9 follows suit and explains how to test a site cheaply, timely, and with few people.
The odd thing in reading this chapter, it reminds me of why I am "a design person" and not a developer. And yet, ironically, I enjoy testing and troubleshooting logistics and functionality of websites (and other things, I'm a tinkerer too) way more than I do designing them. But this isn't about me. It proves Krug's point about testing via different sets of eyes and brains independently: one set of skills may overlook one aspect of a problem, while being able to identify and maybe even solve another. And these skills are not always obvious.
One guy might be "a design person" whose primary approach is visual, and conceptual, but that doesn't mean s/he designs a good site in the conception phase. It might be pretty, and yet basic and clunky. On the other hand, that person might be a problem solver, a tinkerer, seeing overlooked details of a set of problems, and not make the same assumptions or oversights during testing of a site as a developer might make, based off of his or her habits of "common sense" and lofty experience. So put variously-skilled persons in the test pilots chair and use their individual, perhaps surprising conclusions to gain multiple perspectives and insights.
Same reason to get a developer to tell you what s/he thinks of your pretty website...
3 Sites related to reading:
1. Daniel Smith
Seems like we should come up with examples of sites that need, or could have benefited from user testing. (As one would denote that any good site surely was already...) So I'm still picking on Daniel Smith: Aside from what Matt and I have already pointed out being areas that need help, 2 things I learned yesterday which sealed the deal were, 1) I found out they had a blog, which has no links to or from their main site. It even looks different, in terms of fonts, logos, and header and footer. Very weird. 2) Matt discovered, while we were prodding in the code for font colors, just how much of it there was. Even I, with my feeble memory of HTML 101, could see what he was talking about. For example, you could click on a large ad image, and it would be composed of 9 frames sets. Huge globs of redundant code, probably due to them sticking with their original site skeleton, which most likely employed the use of a basic site builder with templates and place holders and....ask Matt. They just kept adding to it, rather then overwriting with better code.
2. Cafe Intl.
Pardon the geekage, but this feels like a robot trying to woo me. (Older model Cylon with a Flash fetish?) Okay, if the reference isn't understood, open it. Let it try and make love to you. Then, run. Run like hell. What do they sell?
3. My (poor old) Website
I'm tired of picking on everybody else.
2 blind dogs could tell you, after testing my site for about 45 seconds, that it's old, it uses just enough flash (header) that makes it not fully show (in entirety) on smartphones and old browsers. The back buttons are in all different places (if at all), and the slide shows are actually different-sized single documents that scroll sideways. There's no About page. There's no resume. No bio. Check the copy-write. (2006, as I never updated it even when I made changes to the site. I seriously thought that meant you could see how long it's been up, and therefore means experience and safegaurding against early material/copy-write infringement!) It was a long time ago...
No comments:
Post a Comment