Firstly, YOU (actually you, Brooks) don’t get a FAIL, nor do I think you foolish, naive nor arrogant (well, arrogant maybe, but aren’t we all?). The idea that rethinking usability based on the scenario presented by Steve (looks like it was actually in the comments further down) is narrow. Equally narrow is the notion that we have to take the alien dissection approach in every instance of usability testing.

I don’t assume that I’m fundamentally different than any other human. But I’ve learned over a great deal of painful professional experiences that when it comes to the stuff I create, I often have more insight going into the experience as a user of my works than others do. Whatever gaps there are in usability or context, I’m compensating for them in the experience — especially in the “now;” while it’s fresh. It’s pretty funny to look at older sites or applications of mine. I look at some things I did and wonder — “why the f*ck did I do THAT?” I’m at a point where my Google-addled mind is so fragmented I can’t remember how to admin some of the ad-hoc admin tools I created years ago. Not that I need to… I’m just saying that with a fresh pair of eyes, I can’t recognize some of my own work.

And if I’m like that, I’m making a safe bet that lots of people are like that, too. It’s like reading a personal blog. You can follow the daily anecdotes of some stranger, but without the history or the context, you might not get the humor. Usability, when you’re doing it on your own, is just like that — that’s what I’m arguing against.

You and I are arguing about the way in which to go about doing usability testing — but that’s already stating we’re actually DOING something about usability. I’m still struggling to get my organization to understand why usability, tested amongst a small group of developers or broadly, is important to them at all.

I got nothin’ but love for you, Brooks.

VOLLEY FOR SERVE

Too often user experience / usability asks us to throw everything out and study people like they’re aliens. I’m not saying there’s not some value in that. I am saying it stunts your ability to understand others. I’m not an alien. I understand people at a much deeper level than an alien ever will because I’m human and I share characteristics with other humans.

Do I still get a FAIL? Am I still foolish, naive and arrogant because I think looking inward is the first step? I’m probably all of those things to some degree, but maybe just maybe there’s enough there to merit a valuable exchange. ;-)

Normally I almost completely agree with you, but you couldn’t be more wrong. The fatal flaw in this positioning is the total disregard for the producer’s built-in context.

You (the Royal You) build it? You understand it? Well good for YOU — except it’s not about you, is it. Most of the time we talk about usability, it’s because other people need to understand or use what you’ve done, too. And YOU should be able to use the content/app/system/function YOU built…. but that doesn’t mean other people will “get it” just because you know what you’re talking about.

That’s why you have to test. If you’re just building stuff for yourself, and that’s the primary goal of the exercise, then Steve’s logic here makes sense. Otherwise, this logic is FAIL.

You want to argue about how one goes about performing usability testing, that’s a good discussion. But the notion that just because you know how your own system works that the rest of the humans who will interface with your creation is foolish, naive, arrogant and… well, give me time and I’ll throw on some more adjectives. You may choose to not care about how other people are using your creation — and that’s different than saying usability testing is a bunch of crap.