Dad With Teeth

Usability for Schmoes

One of the personal reactions I have when reading Kristin Zibell’s article on web design is that so much of this research is about following the money. My point here is that so much of the information we have digested is about usability in the marketplace; how can you get the most eyes on your website, and consequently, sell the most widgets? Commerce is the catalyst that has fueled the explosion of the web. Commerce is what pays for improved bandwidth and a more robust infrastructure. And certainly even my employer is all about commerce. And while we cannot ignore the web’s driving force, I have to believe we risk losing the real potential of the web.

For me, something gets lost in this push to dumb everything down to pre-digested web nuggets… already been chewed content that is easy to swallow. On the third page of her essay, Zibell goes on at length about reducing the intellectual load on the user. I am uncertain if this is deeply superficial or superficially deep. I am aware that her focus is on navigation and ease of use. But on another level this is about avoiding the risk of challenging a user’s brain for fear they will choose to disengage from your site, clicking on the back button. If the web is a primary source of information, what does it say about us as a culture if our intellectual horsepower is 5,000 miles wide and 2 inches deep? Why not create content and design that provokes and leverages critical thinking? Sure, Aunt Bessy in her double-wide trailer in Huntsville, Alabama may not read it, but should her clicks be the arbiter of intellectual and creative standards for the web? If so, it seems we have set the bar awfully low.

OK, I admit, it appears that I missed Zibell’s point. She is pushing the common sense idea that a web designer needs to be proactive in anticipating an audience’s wants and needs. Design needs to be clear, not overly clever with an understanding that a designer is designing an experience for the user. I understand the common sense rationale that if a user is confused or frustrated he rapidly becomes an ex-user. We have all been there; sifting through an overly clever web site where it looks like the developer was thinking less about why a user is visiting the site and more about how bored he is with the current state of web design. I certainly am no champion of that sort of onanistic exercise. In those instances my motivation is focused more on leaving their site than admiring their interminable flash movie.

It is just that I interpret much of Zibell’s perspective on writing as the notion that clear communication on the web is all about simplifying the words so any old schmoe can understand it. Well, hey, if the schmoe doesn’t get a particular word then they have access to this really cool invention. It is called a dictionary. It even lives on line. If a word conjures up the essence of a complicated thought, I say use it. I don’t really care that Aunt Bessy is confused by the word obfuscate or ameliorate.

Really the root of this rant is that too much of web design theory is more about the McDonaldization of the web, a sort of intellectual fast-food, and this depresses me. The definition of usability should not be determined by lazy people and middle managers (especially when that is one and the same.) There is more to an intellectual experience than just commerce. And good design is less about flashy graphics and more about balance of thought and intent. All too often, design and usability on the web looks like it was designed by committee. Probably because it was.

posted by Drew Keller @ Tuesday, May 23, 2006