The Users' Perspective

The President's Corner

I recently received the announcement for the Usability Forum ’98 conference. The possibility of attending this conference appealed to me in many ways (not the least of which was a trip to London), but the professional appeal of this conference is the topic to be discussed here. This year’s theme is "Improving User Interface Design for Mobile Terminals." ("Mobile Terminals," in this case, means mostly mobile phones.) The subtitle of the conference is "Engaging Your Customer Through An Intuitive & Exciting Man-Machine Interface." Many of the major mobile phone manufacturers you probably have heard of are going to be attending, including Ericsson, Nokia, Philips, and Motorola, as well as companies like Psion, Alcatel, Nortel, Siemans, and others. Being something of a mobile phone snob myself, and interested in the usability of devices in general, I’m intrigued by some of the things I read in the announcement and the parallels I see between the state of the "mobile terminal" industry and the state of the personal computer industry.

The digital mobile phone industry, like the PC industry, is suffering from technical incompatibility problems (analog mobile phones being another story). Within the United States (but less so in the rest of the world), there are several competing standards for the type of phone you use. You can purchase a phone-based TDMA phones, CDMA phones, and GSM phones. And, although you do the same thing with each, the phones are not compatible. A TDMA phone won’t work with a CDMA service provider, GSM phones work only with CDMA service providers, etc. The technical battle rages between these three standards, providers of each are focused on obtaining more of the market and becoming the industry standard. The usability of the products, customer service, and the user’s needs will simply have to wait. This is not unlike the wars that existed (and still exist) between Apple, Microsoft, and the Unix world.

Another analogy struck me recently when I had an opportunity to try out two TDMA phones made by two different manufacturers. Knowing something of how the digital phone technology works, and how phones communicate with the cellular network to determine who you are, and how they determine when to hand you off to a new "cell’ in the network, and determine if you have mail or pages, I knew both phones were sophisticated pieces of computer equipment. And both phones were rugged and performed their basic tasks well. But Phone X was box shaped, had a character-based display (like an old DOS terminal), and had no "bells and whistles." Phone Y was contoured to fit in the hand, its display was graphically oriented with icons and multiple fonts, it had a clock, a calculator, a calendar, and even four video games built in. I couldn’t help but think of the difference in these phones the same way I felt when I first compared an old IBM PC to the early Macintosh.

Basic usability problems seem to exist in the mobile phone industry. I recently had an opportunity to try out two phones (one GSM and one TDMA) made by the same manufacturer. You would think the same company would use the same features on its phones, but the differences were amazing. Phone A has a clock and a calculator and allows the user to enter mixed-case characters for names in the phone directory. Phone B has neither a clock nor a calculator and all text is in upper case. (Phone B can display mixed-case letters, but the user can’t enter them.) But phone B allows you to turn off the phone ringer and use a vibration attachment to alert you to a call, and it warns you during a call that another minute is coming by beeping 10 seconds before the minute. Phone A disables the vibration attachment when you turn off the ringer and tells you that another minute has passed as the event occurs. Phone A automatically tells you who called if you missed a call. Phone B stores the information, but you have to go find it. Phone B has numbered menus. Phone A doesn’t. How could these differences exist in two phones from the same company? It could be that they’re trying out different things to see what works best, but designing a feature that alerts someone on the minute (and that you’ve just been charged another minute of call time) is like developing a radar detector that tells you that you’ve just been caught by the police. And using numbers (or letters) to quickly navigate a menu structure is a well known approach.

Speakers at the London conference go by many titles. Some have the ubiquitous title of "Business Manager," "Product Manager," and "Senior Staff Engineer." Others have the titles of "HCI Consultant," "User Interface Designer," and "User Interface Manager." One even has the title of "Creative Director," somewhat reminiscent of Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini’s title at Apple of "User Interface Evangelist." Topics at the conference include "Stimulating Creativity for MMI Design…," "Enhancing Ergonomic Design for Greater Appeal…," and "Capitalizing on Improved System Architecture to Design Better MMI…." Discussions are to include "customer-centered product design and development," "keeping user-centered product design," "balancing usability and technology for commercial success," and "presenting feature creep." A quarter page call out tries to entice the prospective attendee with the caption "What is the point of fantastic product features if your customer can’t use them?" and goes on to spin the familiar yarn that "you spend years researching and developing faster, smarter, smaller [devices]…but 90% of your customers will only use three or four of the features because they aren’t easy to use."

It sounds like a good conference, and it sounds like a good area of business. We’ve long seen computers becoming more a part of our lives, and the prevalence of embedded computers in our daily lives becomes clearer as people look into the Y2K problem. I bring the subject up not to advertise the conference, but because the subject matter is interesting. I know no one in the local Chapter that’s into "mobile terminals" as a specialty, and my personal attempts to make a connection with one of the mobile phone manufacturers, despite an inside contact, were unsuccessful. In addition to being an interesting area, I’d like to suggest to anyone just starting out in our industry -- if the personal computer industry is not large enough, when considering an area to make into a career, do you know anyone who doesn’t own a phone?

Thanks for your support,

Bill Killam

Top of Newsletter

September Meeting Announcement

Meeting Date:

Wednesday, September 23, 1998

Time:

5:30-6:30 Executive Council Meeting

6:30-7:00 Social Half-Hour (Cash bar)

7:00 Dinner

Speaker thereafter

Location:

Devers Room, Ft. Myer Officers’ Club, Arlington, VA.

Speaker:

Dr. Astrid Schmidt-Nielsen, U.S. Naval Research Lab.

Topic:

"I Didn’t Recognize Your Telephone Voice! – Recognizing Talkers from Conversational Speech"

Cost, Dinner Included:

Members - $15.00

Students - $10.00

Non-Members - $20.00

Reservations:

We need a head count by COB, Friday, September 18. Please contact Debbie Park at UserWorks, Inc. by email at dpark@userworks.com, by phone at (301) 431-0500, or by fax at (301)-431-4834. If you respond by email or fax, you will receive a confirmation. If not, please call.

Menu:

Choice of entrees (Please indicate your preference when making reservation):

- Orange Roughy (Grand Marnier Almond Butter with parsley potatoes and seasonal vegetables)

- London Broil (Marinated, broiled flank steak with mushroom sauce, roasted potatoes and seasonal vegetables)

- Breast of Chicken Nancy (Almond and apple stuffing, served with garden rice and seasonal vegetables)

Mousse for dessert -- Choice of chocolate, strawberry, or cappuccino

Beverage

Cash bar

Directions:

From Route 66, take the Rosslyn exit; go to the second light and turn right onto Ft. Myer Dr; see below.

From Route 395, take the Ft. Myer exit; go 300 yds and take the off ramp to Ft. Myer; see below

From the 14^th St. Bridge; cross the bridge into VA and take the Washington Blvd. Exit; from Washington Blvd, take the Ft. Myers exit; see below

 

Take Ft. Myer Dr. to where it dead ends at the wall outside Arlington Cemetary. The gate to Ft. Myer will be within sight from there. You will need to show a photo ID to the guard at the gate. Proceed to the Officers' Club by driving up the hill, past the Parade Ground on the right, and then past the tennis courts on the right. Turn right into the parking lot just beyond the tennis courts. The Officers' Club is the building next to the swimming pool. We are meeting in the Devers Room.

Note – We have a standing offer to Student Members of the Chapter: Dinner at a monthly meeting FOR FREE if you write up a synopsis of the meeting for publication in the Newsletter. Contact the Newsletter Editor when interested.

Upcoming Chapter Meetings

The Chapter has not met during the summer months. Your Executive Council met in August. The announcement for the September meeting is above. We will not be meeting in October, in deference to the national society's conference. The other meetings for the next few months are as follows. Places and dates remain to be determined.

November, 1998 Dr. Hal Van Cott
December, 1998 A joint meeting with the local chapter of the IEEE.
January, 1999 A tour of the ARCH Lab at George Mason University hosted by Dr. Debbie Boehm-Davis.

Top of Newsletter

New Contact Info for Webmaster, President

The Chapter’s Webmaster, Penny Church, has changed jobs. Please note that her new contact information is as follows:

Phone: (703) 502-6748

E-mail: penny_church@datatel.com

Chapter President, Bill Killam, has a new email address: hkillam@drc.com

Top of Newsletter

Welcome New Members

The following new members and associates were approved at the 19 August meeting of the Executive Council of the HFESPOC:

Ms. Julie A. Bzostek (A)

Mr. Hideki Hada (M)

Ms. Eileen M. Hoekstra (A)

Dr. Mary M. Weltin (M)

Welcome to all. We look forward to your active participation in the Chapter.

Top of Newsletter

Note from the Membership Chair

Some people might be receiving both email notices of the availability of the Newsletter on the Chapter’s website and printed versions of the newsletter. As a precautionary measure I wanted to be sure that you were happy with the electronic format before relinquishing the printed format. If you are happy with the electronic version, please contact me at dkgriffith@erols.com or (703) 528-5250 x4120, and I will remove you from the printed mailing list. It is beneficial to the chapter if you do not receive the printed version, as the electronic version reduces our copying and mailing costs.

Doug Griffith

Top of Newsletter

Emeritus Members Can Now Hold Office

For some reason, the category of Emeritus Membership had the restriction that such members could not hold office. As it is foolish not to take advantage of the experience of our senior members, the Executive Council voted to remove this restriction. Now Emeritus Members can hold office. To be President of the HFESPOC, however, you must also be a member of the national HFES.

Top of Newsletter

The Usability Professional's Dilemma

By Kent Norman

It is really all an issue of purpose and objective. The purpose of the usability professional is to aid in the production of easy to use systems, and the objective is to reduce user frustration and error. Ultimately, the goal is to save demonstrably large amounts of money for both the software producer and the user and/or the employer of the end user.

Oddly enough, the problem of usability has been one of visibility. Managers of companies who should know, simply don't realize how much they are losing due to unusable software and how much they could save through usability testing. The message is just not getting out. So what do we do: cost/benefit analyses or outrage? In Ben Shneiderman's terms, "logic or passion?"

But if it is passion, whose? The professional usability engineer's or the real end user's? Clearly, the actual user is the real stake holder and the one on the chopping block either as an employee getting burned by the system or as a consumer getting ripped off.

What we need is a vocal group of outraged users. We need an angry mob of users threatening to storm the castles of the software giants. Instead of self-concerned user groups in denial, we need user activist groups empowered for change and demanding their rights.

But where is the war cry of the user on the war path? Why do we hear only the whimper of a few users on technical support lines? There are a number of reasons why the mass of disenfranchised users are silent. I have tried to list a number of reasons for this strange state of affairs below.

1. From the very beginning, users have been mesmerized by the impressive bells and whistles of new applications. They are so impressed by power and complexity that they ignore poor usability and interface design. They are intimated by software companies, their programmers, and even their sales and technical staff. They have been more impressed by the power of the computer than by its ease of use. In fact, it is often framed that the more powerful the computer and/or software, the harder it is to use. Then by inverse logic, users incorrectly assume that if it is hard to use, it must be powerful!

2. Rather than complain, users often opt simply to not use the software. It is silently put to rest on the hard disk and its manuals on the shelves next to dozens of other unusable software packages. To complain or to try to get one's money back, would be to admit that one was either too stupid to figure it out or was stupid for buying the software in the first place.

3. Buyers of software have been intimidated, cheated, and duped by license agreements and disclaimers. Users have felt that as soon as they break the seal on the software or click "ACCEPT AGREEMENT" on the pop-up windows, they have signed away all their rights, and they use the software at their own risk. In a court of law, they are left without a leg to stand on.

4. Historically, the first computer users were computer programmers. When this was the case, poor usability was clearly the user/programmer's fault. Today, most users have had nothing to do with the programming of the application. Nevertheless, they have been lured into believing they are still the source of the problem rather than the victims. Users perceive themselves as a part of the system rather than as consumers of a product. Thus, if something doesn't work, they feel partially at fault, even though users did not program the system.

5. Even as users, they have a hard time knowing what they did to cause the problem versus what was inherently wrong with the system that caused the problem. As food consumers, we know that it is not our fault if there is a stone in the can of beans, and we quickly call the 1-800 number to complain. On the other hand, we know that it is our fault if we spill them. But if a software function does not seem to work right on the computer, as users we tend to think it is our fault, and we spend hours trying to figure it out or fix it.

6. Users have been led to perceive themselves as users rather than as consumers. As users, poor usability IS PARTIALLY the fault of the user, and it can be overcome by training and expertise. If users were to consider themselves as consumers, the problem of poor usability would reside in the software product.

7. Many professionals have promoted what we call "user-centered" design. In doing so, we have misled users into thinking that we have solved the usability problem for them and that they do not need to speak up for themselves. By focusing on user-centered design, we have circumvented "product-centered" anger.

8. In a similar vein, by adopting the label "usability professionals," we have sent a message to the user that they are not competent in assessing usability. Since users are not professional usability engineers, they ought to keep quiet until the professionals are called in with white lab coats and credentials and usability laboratories with video and performance recording equipment. Now, some people are even talking about board certification. This might even deem the user as legally incompetent to give testimony as to the usability of a system in a court of law! As a user, one could then be sued for making negative statements about a system that caused a loss in sales revenues. In this scenario, usability professionals would be the high priests in the temple of software, and users would be among the unwashed masses.

9. Typically, the client of the usability professional is NOT THE USER, but the abuser. Usability labs are not in the offices and homes of the end user, but in the bowels of the giants where they digest the users and their data to grow fatter and stronger themselves. As such, part of the job of the usability professional is to placate the user community and reduce their grumbling to the mere passing of gas. Basically it is not in the best interest of the usability professional to cause either blockage in the software development cycle or explosive problems with the user community.

10. Finally, users have been trained to be trained. The training industry has their own agenda. Even though they are the first to note the problems of usability, improved usability is not necessarily in the best interests of trainers, whose jobs are ensured by hard to use software. Furthermore, they foster the belief that training is the answer. If a system seems hard to use, the user should sign up for a training course.

The dilemma is now obvious -- we need angry users to raise the awareness of the usability problem, but at the same time we are compelled by obligation to our corporate customers to silence their voices. The problem is one of a conflict of interest.

Usability engineers are generally on the payroll of industry and government and not that of the actual end user or consumer. So what do we do?

Obviously, we can do nothing. But we can work covertly and indirectly on behalf of the user. Here's my proposal. Professional organizations such as the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and the Usability Professionals' Association should covertly fund two independent groups. The first group should be a users' rights activist group that would stir up users to blame the system rather than self. This group would let the users know (a) how and why computer systems are stupid, (b) that users have more rights than the companies who sell the software, and (c) that they should not be intimidated into buying blankety-blank books for dummies. The agenda for this group is beyond the scope of this short paper and should be written by them anyway.

The second group should be educators -- not trainers, but educators in K-12 and higher education. Teachers should be covertly funded to assess usability of systems by students. As a group, teachers and students should join together to take on the software giants, reinvent the interface for themselves, and reclaim the issue of who defines and measures usability. Finally, educators need to teach usability as a concept and cultivate awareness and critical thinking about interfaces among the students. These students will then become the next generation of informed computer consumers.

Finally, users should never again be referred to, or refer to themselves, as "users." The term is derogatory, debasing, and insulting. It, by implication, places the system first. It lumps together workers, consumers, students, lawyers, secretaries, etc., into one ill-defined mass of secondary citizens. People are not merely "users." We have a life; computer systems don't!

The future of the human factors profession is both exciting and problematic. As a profession, we need to further our vision of usability. We need to aid software producers to develop new and excellent interfaces; and we need to work with and for consumers. We need to do more than "fight for the user;" we need to arm and train consumers to fight for themselves.

Top of Newsletter

Job Opportunities

GE Information Services, Inc. - The User Interface group at GE Information Services, Inc. is seeking applicants for the position of User Interface Manager at our Rockville, Maryland headquarters. GE Information Services is a leading, worldwide provider of electronic commerce services such as Supply Chain Management, Logistics, and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The User Interface group consults to design, develop, and test user interfaces of commercial business products on various delivery platforms (e.g., web, Windows '95/'98, Macintosh, and Motif).

The User Interface Manager will lead the user interface group throughout the software development lifecycle. This individual will plan, secure, and strategically deploy resources to get the best coverage across products. In addition, he/she will work with product licensing and vendors to ensure an acceptable level of usability in out-sourced products. Furthermore, this individual will be required to champion user interface policies and procedures to reduce the number of defects, work with UI & develop cross-functional product teams to measure effectiveness of the UI process, and use data for process improvement.

Requirements

• Master's degree in Experimental or Cognitive Psychology, Human Factors Engineering or related field. Ph.D. preferred.
• 5-7 years experience with user interface activities.
• Understand software development lifecycle & how usability fits.
• Experience applying various platform UI guidelines (Windows 95, MAC, Motif, Web, etc) to product interface designs.
• Demonstrated Project Management and Project Planning skills.
• Excellent written and oral communications skills.
• Strong Leadership/Teaming skills.

If you are interested in this position, please send your resume to:

David White
GE Information Services, Inc.
401 N. Washington St., MC03A
Rockville, MD 20850
FAX (301) 340-5223
EMAIL david.white@geis.ge.com

****************************************

UserWorks, Inc. expects opportunities for continued growth over the near-term and is looking for usability professionals AT ALL LEVELS who would be interested in joining us. UserWorks, Inc. is a Washington, D.C.-area human factors engineering firm specializing in user interface design, usability evaluation and human factors research. We also distribute Norm Wilcox Associates’ portable usability lab equipment and data logging software. For more info, please visit our web-site at www.userworks.com. Inquiries will be handled in confidence. Job qualifications are as follows:

• experience in user interface design and usability evaluation
• strong research background and quantitative skills
• strong presentation and technical writing skills
• software development and rapid prototyping skills are a definite plus

We are particularly interested in adding one or more PRINCIPAL- or SENIOR-LEVEL USABILITY PROFESSION-ALS. The right individual(s) should have:

• business development experience; existing contacts
• project management experience including working with software development teams
• good visibility in the CHI/HFES community
• a sense of where the field of usability engineering is going, who the players are, and what products and services are needed

We are looking for someone who is capable of functioning independently but who recognizes the value, and the fun, of working with a highly motivated group of kindred spirits.

Contact Dick Horst, President, at:
PHONE: 301-431-0500
FAX: 301-431-4834
EMAIL: dhorst@userworks.com

Top of Newsletter

Humor Me!

A magazine recently ran a "Dilbert Quotes" contest. They were looking for people to submit quotes from their real-life Dilbert-type managers. Here are some of the submissions:

1. As of tomorrow, employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards. Pictures will be taken next Wednesday and employees will receive their cards in two weeks. (This was the winning entry; Fred Dales at Microsoft Corporation)
2. What I need is a list of specific unknown problems we will encounter. (Lykes Lines Shipping)
3. How long is this Beta guy going to keep testing our stuff? (Programming intern, Microsoft IIS Development team)
4. E-mail is not to be used to pass on information or data. It should be used only for company business. (Accounting Mgr., Electric Boat Company)
5. This project is so important, we can't let things that are more important interfere with it. (Advertising/Mktg. Mgr., UPS)
6. Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule. No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them. (R&D Supervisor, 3M Corp.)
7. My boss spent the entire weekend retyping a 25-page proposal that only needed corrections. She claims the disk I gave her was damaged and she couldn't edit it. The disk I gave her was write-protected. (Dell Computers)
8. Quote from the boss: "Teamwork is a lot of people doing what ‘I’ say." (Mktg. Executive, Citrix Corporation)
9. My sister passed away and her funeral was scheduled for Monday. When I told my boss, he said she died so that I would have to miss work on the busiest day of the year. He then asked if we could change her burial to Friday. He said, "That would be better for me." (Shipping Executive, FTD Florists)
10. We know that communication is a problem, but the company is not going to discuss it with the employees. (AT&T Long Lines Division)
11. We recently received a memo from senior management saying, "This is to inform you that a memo will be issued today regarding the subject mentioned above." (Microsoft, Legal Affairs Division)
12. One day my boss asked me to submit a status report to him concerning a project I was working on. I asked him if tomorrow would be soon enough. He said, "If I wanted it tomorrow, I would have waited until tomorrow to ask for it!" (New Business Mgr., Hallmark Cards)
13. As director of communications, I was asked to prepare a memo reviewing our company's training programs and materials. In the body of the memo, one of the sentences mentioned the "pedagogical approach" used by one of the training manuals. The day after I routed the memo to the executive committee, I was called into the HR Director's office, and was told that the executive VP wanted me out of the building by lunch. When I asked why, I was told that she wouldn't stand for "perverts" (pedophiles?) working in her company. Finally he showed me her copy of the memo, with her demand that I be fired, with the word "pedagogical" circled in red. The HR Manager was fairly reasonable, and once he looked the word up in his dictionary and made a copy of the definition to send to my boss, he told me not to worry. He would take care of it. Two days later a memo to the entire staff came out, directing us that no words which could not be found in the local Sunday newspaper could be used in company memos. A month later, I resigned. In accordance with company policy, I created my resignation letter by pasting words together from the Sunday paper. (Taco Bell Corporation)
14. This gem is the closing paragraph of a nationally-circulated memo from a large communications company: "Lucent Technologies is endeavorily determined to promote constant attention on current procedures of transacting business focusing emphasis on innovative ways to better, if not supercede, the expectations of quality!"

Top of Newsletter

Top of Newsletter