Challis Hodge’s UXblog

Peter Merholz writes an interesting piece over on Peterme.com about lab-based usability testing. Knowing Peter as I do I find it hard to believe that he meant to write yhis as I perceived it.

Case in point: I recently finished a project where we were going to develop a product to help people remember the important dates and events in their lives. A fairly standard process would have involved prototyping of this product, and then bringing people in to “test” the prototype. What we did, however, was field research. We went into 12 homes, and saw how people currently managed their stuff. And, believe me, it’s messy and complex. One participant used: a church address book, a week-at-a-glance, a Palm-style PDA, a simple address-storing-PDA, and an Access database to manage this task. Had we brought her in to test our prototype, we could have found out all kinds of stuff about how she used this prototype in isolation and away from her tools. But we would have learned nothing about how this tool could possibly have integrated itself into his complex web.

What peter seems to be suggesting is that lab-based usability testing and field-based user research are one in the same.

In my view, we need to be in the field (in the context of use) in the early stages of problem solving. We need to understand the user in context. As we begin to formulate solutions we need to put them back in front of the user to help uis identify our successes and failures. It is precisely at this point that usability testing comes into play. Perhaps this is where Peter is suggesting we get out of the labs and into the context of work/life? If so, I think he might be on to something.

The problem described here is not unlike that which confronts scientists and doctors working to develop vaccines or medical cures. Obviously they can’t head straight out to the public making injections and observing the consequences–even though this might be the fastest path to a solution or cure. Nor can they afford to hole up in a lab iterating over years to ultimately arrive at a solution with minimal risk along the way. Their challenge is to find balance between time and safety. They must start with research, followed by lab testing, and trials on humans ultimately reaching public release in a safe and timely manner.

Some folks in Amsterdam are running an interesting experiment this month. They’re calling it FOOD FACILITY. Food Facility is a working prototype restaurant where the central kitchen is replaced by kitchens of existing take-out restaurants in the area. You are invited to make a choice of the food available from these take-outs and consume your order at Food Facility.

FOOD HOSTESS: In a comfortable and social ambiance a food hostess will advise you on the quality and estimated delivery time of the different take-out dinners available and will place the order for you.

FOOD DJ: A food dj receives the order from the scoooter delivery boys and will do away with the abundance of wrapping materials before the food hostess will serve it to you at your table.

FOOD SERENDIPITY: Food Facility is a real restaurant but it�s also an experiment and a performance . We invite you to participate, enjoy yourself, and research the possibilities this concept may have. With a little negotiating with other guests it should be possible to have Tom Ka Ka as a starter, spareribs as a main course and Tiramisu for dessert. Although naturally it is impossible to forecast exactly what possibilities the evening may present.

While there doesn’t appear to be a business model, one may well arise from this experiement.

Jessica Helfand over at DesignObserver recently wrote an interesting piece on design reform. It reminded me a great deal of a piece I wrote in 2003 Design is Broken and Needs to be Fixed.

Jessica raises an interesting point:

There are many factors contributing to Design Reform, beginning with the economics framing the design professions. Statistically, there is every reason to expect that design will become more democratized � and certainly more decentralized � by mid-century, with advances in telecommunications and technology enabling citizen non-designers (read “civillians”) to produce designed things without designers.

She goes on to add:

to the degree that society is changing, it seems fair to suggest that our role in society must change, too.

I’m not entirely sure where she is going with this but it suggests to me that now is the time for designers to step forward, to impact society and government in positive ways.
Read the article and decide for yourself.

The BlackBerry service for checking e-mail on the go will be available on a non-BlackBerry device for the first time in the United States with the November launch of the Nokia smart phone by Cingular Wireless.

Cingular is charging $350 for the Nokia 9300 device - $50 less for customers who commit for two years - and $45 per month for unlimited e-mail usage. That’s the same rate Cingular charges for BlackBerry service on a BlackBerry device. The Nokia 9300 runs on the Symbian operating system, a best-selling platform in Europe and other overseas markets.