Bernhard Guillon wrote:

>> I tried to show you why in my previous mail.
>> I can only add that a developer plunking in a code change at
>> users' request and then let users' feedback sort it out
>> is the 'armpit of usability' (i.e. the worst possible). see:
> What is wrong about a high fidelity prototype? It is a central task of
> the usability engineering life cycle [Nielsen]. Adding it to master
> might be wrong but usertesting is not bad.

well, see here for my take on proper integration of usability:


it is a very fitting post for our current thread:
organisation, process, authority.

clarification: at the moment there is interaction design at GIMP
but no usability as defined in the post (empirical testing).
usability testing for GIMP is tricky, because it is a power tool
that has to be mastered. Discussing this a while ago with Ellen
Reitmayr (a fellow openUsabilty founder) it became clear that
any UI innovation has to be prototyped, let a group of users train
for a month with it, then perform tests focussing on ease (read:
speed) of use.

>> <>
> Improving Flexibility might help...

I am not sure what you want to say with this.

>> so walking through steps 2–5 with me (or soon my team) is
>> mandatory. yes, it is a 'UI maintainer' kind of thing.
> If you only do steps 2-6 you implement your mental model. Prototyping
> and user testing is not bad at all.

so back to your argument:

1) there is no value in usability testing random ideas, as were
implemented here. There are thousands of random ideas, with an
infinite number of combinations. there is value in testing UI designs
(step 2–5) to debug their concepts.

2) throwing out a prototype and getting some user feedback _is_ by
definition the armpit of usability. proper testing is a whole
other ball-game.


         founder + principal interaction architect
             man + machine interface works
 on interaction architecture

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to