The worst interface of all

I've been writing on 'poor usability' for over ten years now.

When I first created Usability by Design (a UK usability consultancy) I wrote something called the Wooden Spoon awards, in a reference to the wooden spoon they award to the worst performing sports teams in some countries. Each month we'd report on a site that we (or visitors to our site) had experienced the pain of, and would describe our pain in great detail - in the fervent hope that someone somewhere would read it, be embarrassed, and perhaps try to make amends. Once or twice, they did.

On a much more frequent basis I've reviewed and written on various sites, mobile phones and software applications, generally on behalf of clients. Some were good, some were okay, some were poor and every now and then I'd find one that should have been shot at birth.

But in all those ten years and of all the interfaces I've dealt with, the one I've been batting my head against this week is by far the worst and by far the most evil.

Imagine an interface controlled by voice - yet where almost every single word you speak seems to be misinterpreted and mistaken. You have to repeat everything you say to it multiple times before you even get a response - and you can guarantee the response you get isn't the one you expected.

There are no instructions, no help, no guidelines. Errors, when they occur, cause screaming fits and tantrums within the interface. It's expensive, incredibly so, and incompatible with almost everything else you are bound to have installed. Oh, and it comes loaded with malware too.

The interface is, of course, the teenager. I've always struggled to communicate with this one, but it's not until you evaluate the relationship in terms of good usability that you realise just how doomed - as a parent - you are.

Time to re-read 'Don't make me think'....

Usability testing software

I've been working on improving the AURA testing software for some time, and recently I've been thinking of merging it with a new approach I've been working on for emotive testing.

For anyone who's not aware of the term, emotive testing - or persuasive testing, or PET (Persuasion Emotion Trust) is all about measuring the users emotive response and experience. Basically, think of it like this: Usability is about making something easy to use, but we sometimes also want to evoke certain emotional responses, or to provide certain experiences. A game, for example, could be designed to be easy and usable - but you wouldn't necessarily buy and play it.

Sometimes that emotional experience is relatively simple to envision; for example on a corporate website, you probably want to engender trust and confidence. At other times it can be quite complex; a game may want to intrigue at first, then frustrate and pleasure in equal measures until the final pay-off.

On top of this there is a brand value angle. Even on that corporate website, different corporations will have different brand values, and may want to promote some at different times and in different markets. Canon may want to promote the values of trust, stability and know-how in their investor section, but may want to come across as cutting edge and funky on their newest camera pages.

So I've been working on a methodology to try and capture and measure the emotive experience, and to help with that I'm thinking of embedding it into the AURA software I've created for user testing.

Could be interesting times ahead..!

Welcome!

Okay, I know, it's a blog.

But I figure you're not here unless you're interested in what I have to say, so that being the case I'm going to be posting information on high spots and low spots in usability and design, best (and worst) practice, and possibly some advice and guidance.

Keep watching..!