2 ms·
Fortunately I think this is changing: tools are coming out that make running quantitative UX studies easier. Services like Optimizely, GazeHawk (disclaimer: th
by bkrausz 16y ago
Fortunately I think this is changing: tools are coming out that make running quantitative UX studies easier. Services like Optimizely, GazeHawk (disclaimer: that was a shameless plug for my company), UserTesting.com, etc are becoming more commonplace, bringing the barrier to entry for a UX consultant who is actually useful down.
In the future I imagine there being plenty of UX consultants who, rather than having a strong education in the psychology of websites, instead is experienced with the tools necessary to evaluate a design and make recommendations. Then there will be graphic designers, marketers, etc who are actually qualified to work with usability.
- ant5 16y agoThe problem here is that good UX isn't borne of qualitative analysis -- you have to build something worth analyzing to begin with. Once you do start analyzing, what do you do with the results? You can try to make small tweaks -- it can be worthwhile if what you have is already good. If what you have is bad however, no amount of rigorous analysis is going to solve the artistic problem of coming up with a cohesive vision of something better.
- ahoyhere 16y agoYesss. The way I describe this to people is: "Usability science can only test a hypothesis. It doesn't give you a hypothesis to test." Not to mention the problem of hill-climbing… you may think your test results are amazing, but you can't tell if you're really at a peak or in a valley with a lot of mist obscuring a potentially even higher peak..