Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Geoff Deering]

Mark Harris wrote:



While I'm sure that Craig and his team are operating with the best of 
intentions, I agree with Andreas that different users will do things 
in different ways.


I know I would not dare to put out a site with a "Certified Usable" 
branding, regardless of how usable I thought it was. Someone is sure 
to disagree with me.


Is PTG indemnifying clients against litigation when more than 10% of 
users find the site unusable? If not, what value does the 
certification have for the client?


How do you guarantee a site remains usable after the certification is 
awarded?


I don't know about Aus. or the rest of the world but, in New Zealand, 
if you hold that a product or service has a particular characteristic, 
you run afoul of consumer protection legislation if it does not for a 
significant number of consumers.


Interesting that someone is trying this - let's see how long it lasts.


cheers

mark 




Agree.

There are so many variables to attend to here.  If you are going to 
certify something I think you had better have done more than the stated 
usability testing.  That's just not good enough.  That's just a small 
part of the QA in the full SDLC.  Only a thorough process of all the 
stages of the SDLC can prepare a site to be any where near certified 
usable.  All the MA and PhD qualifications backing the HCI are no 
guarantee at all.


If you are going to certify a sites usability then that means writing 
complete and full test cases for each site and putting it through a 
strict SDLC.  Anything else is fudging the client.


So which devices are you going to certify the site as usable for?  All 
of them, or just a specific set of user agents?  So then you have to say 
"Uncertified for UA.X".


To which user configurations are you going to test and certify it for.  
My goodness, how many possibilities are there.


If you want to say "90% Certified Usable for UA.A B & C" well, maybe.

I too would not want to be on the help desk of any site that had 
certified usable on it.


--
Geoff Deering
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 2:41 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Certified Usable
> 
> On 06/03/20 03:31 Craig Errey apparently typed:
> 
> > I'm the managing director of PTG Global, and developed the 
> product.  
> > You can see my bio here 
> > 
> http://www.ptg-global.com/about-ptg/the-board/craig-errey/craig-errey_
> > home.cfm
> 
> I'd like to know how it's possible to find any web site 
> "certifiably usable" when your own site can't be bothered to 
> serve users the size text they want by default but instead 
> arbitrarily reduce it from whatever size they find most usable.

That is another good point, I believe. Accessibility of a Website is part of
its Usability. If blind users cannot understand the structure of a website,
there is no way it is usable for them. If a user with cognitive disability
cannot understand the content of a website, it is also not usable for
him/her.

By certifying usability you must therefore also certify accessibility. And
that is a huge statement, considering all the individual groups of users
with very specific needs that might access a website.  

Can anybody surely say: "This website is accessible to everybody no matter
what requirements they have"?

In particular "complex transaction sites and rich applications like internet
banking, online travel booking, ERP and CRM systems" cannot be made
accessible for everybody.



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Felix Miata]

On 06/03/20 03:31 Craig Errey apparently typed:

> I'm the managing director of PTG Global, and developed the product.  You can 
> see my bio here 
> http://www.ptg-global.com/about-ptg/the-board/craig-errey/craig-errey_home.cfm
>  

I'd like to know how it's possible to find any web site "certifiably
usable" when your own site can't be bothered to serve users the size
text they want by default but instead arbitrarily reduce it from
whatever size they find most usable.

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/ptgglobal1.jpg screenshot
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/showcase-ptgglobal.html SS setup source
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html Top Design Mistakes
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm What Size Users Prefer
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html Best Practice
-- 
"Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according
to the law of the Lord."Psalm 119:11 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Mark Harris]

Ah, usability - it's all good fun till someone gets sued.

While I'm sure that Craig and his team are operating with the best of 
intentions, I agree with Andreas that different users will do things in 
different ways.


I know I would not dare to put out a site with a "Certified Usable" 
branding, regardless of how usable I thought it was. Someone is sure to 
disagree with me.


Is PTG indemnifying clients against litigation when more than 10% of 
users find the site unusable? If not, what value does the certification 
have for the client?


How do you guarantee a site remains usable after the certification is 
awarded?


I don't know about Aus. or the rest of the world but, in New Zealand, if 
you hold that a product or service has a particular characteristic, you 
run afoul of consumer protection legislation if it does not for a 
significant number of consumers.


Interesting that someone is trying this - let's see how long it lasts.


cheers

mark
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Errey
> Sent: Monday, 20 March 2006 7:32 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Certified Usable
> 
> Firstly, to everyone that's taken the time to add a comment 
> to the thread - thank you - it seems we've created a bit of a stir.
> 
> Regarding what we're defining as usable, it is entirely task 
> driven.  It is strictly not designed for simple sites or 
> marketing sites, but can be used for them. Rather it is 
> geared at complex transaction sites and rich applications 
> like internet banking, online travel booking, ERP and CRM 
> systems.  In these sites, success rates and time taken (the 
> two primary measures) are easily measured.
> 

Hi Craig,

Thanks for replying to this post.

By saying PTG can "certify" the usability of websites you are claiming that
your team can pinpoint the moment at which the majority of tasks on a
specific website can be completed in a reasonable timeframe by a set number
of users. So we are dealing with three factors here:

1. Success Rate
2. Time taken
3. Number of Users

There are numbers behind each of these three factors. I would like to know
who has made the decision on what these numbers are?

I presume when you and your team sit down and analyse the usability of a
website, you have got a set formula, an expectation on what the success rate
should be, what the duration of task completion should be and what
percentage of users should fulfil tasks in the set time with the set success
rate.

Once all of these factors have been fulfilled, you certify the website as
usable.

Now what happens if the users have got different expectations to what your
team thinks is right or wrong? What if your team decides a task should be
completed in 5 minutes, yet a user is sick of it after 4 minutes and 30
seconds already? Maybe that user should trudge on for another 30 seconds
until he/she completes the task successfully, seeing that there is an icon
on the website certifying it as usable?

The notion of "certifying usability" is something very dangerous, I believe.
You give your customers the feeling that their website does not need further
improvement. In particular government bodies have probably waited for the
moment in which a company can certify that their websites are usable. Once
they get your blessing they can lean back and don't have to worry about
anything anymore. "PTG told us our website is usable, so there you go". If a
user calls them and tells them he cannot find information on their website,
they will just tell them: "Don't complain. This website is proven to be
usable. You must be not normal."

If you certify a website as usable, what this also means is that you would
have to conduct regular audits to ensure the website still complies with all
your set standards.

I am sorry, but I don't agree with this whole idea. Usability as it is
understood in Web Standards cannot be certified by anybody as it is a
subjective judgement, based on prior experiences, expectations and emotions
by the individual user.




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Absalom Media]

Craig Errey wrote:
> Certified Usable is backed by our Professional Indemnity insurance and as 
> such is a specifically name service on our policy.  For an industry that is 
> generally risk averse, they have audited what and how we're doing it and are 
> comfortable to include it, with no effect on our premium.

So is it a way for the corporate bean counters to "feel secure" with the
product, in that light ?

> Regarding the statement that essentially goes: '90% success, within x minutes 
> +/- 10%', we must use ranges like this because we cannot guarantee 100% 
> usability.  Because we use strong statistical methods in the process, we must 
> use confidence intervals and make our statements framed with such statistical 
> rigour and various caveats.  This is what gives our insurer confidence that 
> we are not doing things that cannot be done, and that would expose them to 
> risk.
> The process is being run by Psychologists (Registered in NSW) who have an 
> extensive understanding of testing design, rigour and statistical analysis to 
> ensure the process is run correctly and defensibly.  In fact, the ethics that 
> psychologists must abide by regarding testing procedures means that we are 
> fully accountable for what we do by the NSW State Government (specifically 
> Department of Health).  There is no pseudo-science here, and no illusion of 
> competency.  These staff have at least a Masters degree in Psychology and 5 - 
> 10 years experience in usability.

Usability ? As in human cognitive development or HCI or both ?

Which ?

> Regarding what we're defining as usable, it is entirely task driven.  It is 
> strictly not designed for simple sites or marketing sites, but can be used 
> for them. Rather it is geared at complex transaction sites and rich 
> applications like internet banking, online travel booking, ERP and CRM 
> systems.  In these sites, success rates and time taken (the two primary 
> measures) are easily measured.

So if the task is quick and achieves a "success", even if the work flow
doesn't make intuitive sense, it's "Certified Usable" ?

(This is related to the perils of some CMS solutions I've had the
pleasure of working with. What may be usable to a software engineer may
not be usable elsewhere. Go read Jeffrey Veen at length on this..)

> Regarding setting the standard and testing for it, because the process is 
> task driven, and relies on user testing, the evidence for task success or 
> failure, or time taken is observable and can be independently verified.  It's 
> a bit like Standards Australia providing consulting on ISO 9000 and then 
> auditing you for compliance.  Although they did not necessarily set the 
> original standard, there is independent proof of whether a company complies 
> or not and it is not their opinion, even though they may have set up the ISO 
> process in the organisation.  Pass or fail is independently verifiable and 
> another testing group would come to the same conclusion.

Task driven solutions sometimes do not make intuitive sense, no matter
how fast they are. Which gets into the whole field of "self-fulfilling
prophecy" in that the "product" works efficiently "because it does".

> In the case of Certified Usable, we set a tough benchmark, usually at a 
> minimum 90% success.  We do not use an easy target, such as 50% success rate. 
>  There would be no point as real world performance would not match the claim 
> of Certified Usable.

Yet from what it looks like at first glance, CU is simply a way for the
corporate bean counters to "feel secure" about a product so that
they/you have a potential inside run against the multitude of CMS
solutions out there.

> There is no conflict of interest because the measurement of achieving the set 
> standard is transparent.  It is not our opinion because it is based on 
> observable behaviour - someone's success is usually binary, and the time take 
> is finite.  As psychologists, we are good at observing and documenting 
> behaviour and doing it in a way that is accurate and repeatable.

So where's the associated peer reviewed psychological studies of such
things ?

Transparency should mean that others who likewise have studied human
cognitive behaviour within the workplace can test whether your tools
actually do the job. (And yes, I'd be one of them : that is my only
caveat within this discussion, acknowledging the potential for conflict
of interest)

What may be usable to a deaf user may not be usable to a blind user or
vice versa, to paraphrase of the team leaders I've been working with in
terms of accessible CMS solutions in the last few years.

lawrence

-- 
Lawrence Meckan

Absalom Media
Mob: (04) 1047 9633
ABN: 49 286 495 792
http://www.absalom.biz
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Jonothan Stribling]

Valid Code may not necessarily equal a usable system.

According to the ISO usablity is:

The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to
achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction in a specified context of use.

Everybody's favourite Jakob Nielson defines usability as:

Usability is defined by five quality components:

* Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks
the first time they encounter the design?
* Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can
they perform tasks?
* Memorability: When users return to the design after a period of
not using it, how easily can they reestablish proficiency?
* Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these
errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?
* Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design?

Having valid HTML, CSS may improve the efficiency of a web system but
it does not improve it's usability.

Jon


On 3/20/06, Mark Stanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disclaimer: my company Gruden, is partnered with PTG. We've enjoyed
> working with them for a number of years and I think the results have
> been good. Anyway enough of that rubbish.
>
> I don't really know much about Certified Usable so I won't way into
> that debate - maybe someone from PTG could jump on and answer any
> questions about that. I do however know about their site as I was
> involved in putting it together.
>
> Robbie: Yes the drop down level nav requires Javascript, however you
> can access every page on the site without Javascript. Click a top
> level item in the header and you get the sub items down the left.
>
> Steve: Link is fixed.
>
> Kay & Steve: Yup guilty on the validation stuff. However I am going to
> blame the CMS. The site is currently running Shado 6 which has some
> glitches such as:
> - limited access to the head section (hence  in the body & bodgy
> XHTML on some meta elements),
> - the insertion of proprietary elements () and
> - issues with the WYSIWYG editor (s, image attributes, etc..).
>
> We've been pestering Straker (the makers of Shado) about this for
> years and to their credit they have listened - there is a more recent
> version of Shado (version 7) which fixes these issues. We are planning
> on upgrading the PTG site to this version some time in the next 3 to 6
> months.
>
> Disclaimer 2: Gruden are also Shado partners.
>
>
> On 3/20/06, Kay Smoljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/20/06, Steve Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker
> > > Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be
> > > nearly impossible for their own web site.
> >
> > Just a quick note: I've played a little with Shado CMS and I'm fairly
> > certain that it allows you to create your templates however you wish -
> > I'd be willing to bet that this is one case where the problems
> > *cannot* be blamed on the CMS.
> >
> > --
> > Kay Smoljak
> > http://kay.zombiecoder.com/
> > **
> > The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >
> >  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> >  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > **
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark Stanton
> Gruden Pty Ltd
> http://www.gruden.com
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Craig Errey]

Firstly, to everyone that's taken the time to add a comment to the thread - 
thank you - it seems we've created a bit of a stir.

 

I'm the managing director of PTG Global, and developed the product.  You can 
see my bio here 
http://www.ptg-global.com/about-ptg/the-board/craig-errey/craig-errey_home.cfm 

 

 

I'd like to address some of the concerns raised in the thread because I don't 
want people to get the wrong idea about what we're doing, or thinking that it's 
like the '100% Australian Beef' thing.  The post is a bit long in order to 
address the issues, so please bear with me.

 

 

Certified Usable is backed by our Professional Indemnity insurance and as such 
is a specifically name service on our policy.  For an industry that is 
generally risk averse, they have audited what and how we're doing it and are 
comfortable to include it, with no effect on our premium.

 

Regarding the statement that essentially goes: '90% success, within x minutes 
+/- 10%', we must use ranges like this because we cannot guarantee 100% 
usability.  Because we use strong statistical methods in the process, we must 
use confidence intervals and make our statements framed with such statistical 
rigour and various caveats.  This is what gives our insurer confidence that we 
are not doing things that cannot be done, and that would expose them to risk.

 

 

The process is being run by Psychologists (Registered in NSW) who have an 
extensive understanding of testing design, rigour and statistical analysis to 
ensure the process is run correctly and defensibly.  In fact, the ethics that 
psychologists must abide by regarding testing procedures means that we are 
fully accountable for what we do by the NSW State Government (specifically 
Department of Health).  There is no pseudo-science here, and no illusion of 
competency.  These staff have at least a Masters degree in Psychology and 5 - 
10 years experience in usability.

 

Regarding what we're defining as usable, it is entirely task driven.  It is 
strictly not designed for simple sites or marketing sites, but can be used for 
them. Rather it is geared at complex transaction sites and rich applications 
like internet banking, online travel booking, ERP and CRM systems.  In these 
sites, success rates and time taken (the two primary measures) are easily 
measured.

 

Regarding setting the standard and testing for it, because the process is task 
driven, and relies on user testing, the evidence for task success or failure, 
or time taken is observable and can be independently verified.  It's a bit like 
Standards Australia providing consulting on ISO 9000 and then auditing you for 
compliance.  Although they did not necessarily set the original standard, there 
is independent proof of whether a company complies or not and it is not their 
opinion, even though they may have set up the ISO process in the organisation.  
Pass or fail is independently verifiable and another testing group would come 
to the same conclusion.

In the case of Certified Usable, we set a tough benchmark, usually at a minimum 
90% success.  We do not use an easy target, such as 50% success rate.  There 
would be no point as real world performance would not match the claim of 
Certified Usable.

 

There is no conflict of interest because the measurement of achieving the set 
standard is transparent.  It is not our opinion because it is based on 
observable behaviour - someone's success is usually binary, and the time take 
is finite.  As psychologists, we are good at observing and documenting 
behaviour and doing it in a way that is accurate and repeatable.

 

Finally, our position as a company is that if we keep doing what everyone is 
doing, and maintain the status quo, then the industry will not advance.  We're 
making efforts towards standards in usability and this is one of the means of 
doing so.

 

I'd be happy to speak to anyone in detail about what we're doing, if you'd like 
to give me a call.

 

My main phone is +61 2 9251 4200, or email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

 

Thanks

 

Craig
 
<>

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Mark Stanton]

Disclaimer: my company Gruden, is partnered with PTG. We've enjoyed
working with them for a number of years and I think the results have
been good. Anyway enough of that rubbish.

I don't really know much about Certified Usable so I won't way into
that debate - maybe someone from PTG could jump on and answer any
questions about that. I do however know about their site as I was
involved in putting it together.

Robbie: Yes the drop down level nav requires Javascript, however you
can access every page on the site without Javascript. Click a top
level item in the header and you get the sub items down the left.

Steve: Link is fixed.

Kay & Steve: Yup guilty on the validation stuff. However I am going to
blame the CMS. The site is currently running Shado 6 which has some
glitches such as:
- limited access to the head section (hence  in the body & bodgy
XHTML on some meta elements),
- the insertion of proprietary elements () and
- issues with the WYSIWYG editor (s, image attributes, etc..).

We've been pestering Straker (the makers of Shado) about this for
years and to their credit they have listened - there is a more recent
version of Shado (version 7) which fixes these issues. We are planning
on upgrading the PTG site to this version some time in the next 3 to 6
months.

Disclaimer 2: Gruden are also Shado partners.


On 3/20/06, Kay Smoljak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/20/06, Steve Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker
> > Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be
> > nearly impossible for their own web site.
>
> Just a quick note: I've played a little with Shado CMS and I'm fairly
> certain that it allows you to create your templates however you wish -
> I'd be willing to bet that this is one case where the problems
> *cannot* be blamed on the CMS.
>
> --
> Kay Smoljak
> http://kay.zombiecoder.com/
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>


--
Mark Stanton
Gruden Pty Ltd
http://www.gruden.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Ray Cauchi]

Reminds me of McDonalds trademarking the '100% Australian Beef' thing...

did you trust them?


At 02:06 PM 20/03/2006, you wrote:

Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify
the usability of their websites:

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp

In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're
apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a
product is usable or not, and stand by that claim."
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755

To me that all sounds very dodgy. Nobody can guarantee the usability of
their website.

I mean, alright, let's define "Usability". If PTG are talking about the
ability of a user to open the homepage of the website, read the content and
click onto one of the sub-sections, fair enough, it's probably safe to say
that their sites are "usable". But then again, even my mum would be able to
create a website that is "usable" with the help of Microsoft Frontpage.

"User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion nobody can
guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the world.

Any thoughts?


Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant

Addictive Media
Phone: (03) 9386 8907
Mobile: (0411) 097 038
http://www.addictivemedia.com.au
Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



Best Regards

Ray Cauchi
Manager/Lead Developer


( T W E E K ! )

PO Box 15
Wentworth Falls
NSW Australia 2782

| p:+61 2 4757 1600
| f:+61 2 4757 3808
| m:0414 270 400
| e:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| w:www.tweek.com.au  



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Lachlan Hunt]

Steve Olive wrote:

On 20/03/2006, at 2:06 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can 
certify the usability of their websites:


http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp


I quickly validated their page with HTML Tidy (Firefox extension) and 
the page about "Certified Usable" has 2 errors and 44 warnings for 
""


That just shows how useless HTML Tidy is as a validator.  There are 
actually many more errors than that.  However, the article is talking 
about *usability*, not validity and their site may indeed be very 
usable; although I doubt it's very accessible.



(after getting past the 100 odd empty lines) with upper and lower case tags.


There's nothing wrong with using uppercase tags in HTML, although given 
that they use an HTML 4 DOCTYPE that triggers quirks mode, an xmlns 
attribute and XML empty element syntax, they really haven't got a clue 
what they're doing with markup.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Kay Smoljak]

On 3/20/06, Steve Olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker
> Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be
> nearly impossible for their own web site.

Just a quick note: I've played a little with Shado CMS and I'm fairly
certain that it allows you to create your templates however you wish -
I'd be willing to bet that this is one case where the problems
*cannot* be blamed on the CMS.

--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.zombiecoder.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Steve Olive]

On 20/03/2006, at 2:06 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:

Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can  
certify

the usability of their websites:

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp

"User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion  
nobody can
guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the  
world.


Sorry for troll response/rant

I think it is just a marketing ploy in association with http:// 
www.aimia.com.au trying to make the AIMIA sound official and  
important - sorry if you think it is.


I quickly validated their page with HTML Tidy (Firefox extension) and  
the page about "Certified Usable" has 2 errors and 44 warnings for "DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">" (after  
getting past the 100 odd empty lines) with upper and lower case tags.  
Their page is generated from the "Shado CMS built by Straker  
Interactive Ltd" so I assume getting real WAI validation would be  
nearly impossible for their own web site.


Their link from this page "http://www.ptg-global.com/products/get-it- 
right-the-first-time/get-it-right-the-first-time_home.cfm" to the  
"Certified Usable" goes to the "XPEyetrack" page.


If this is the most useable page from AIMIA members I wouldn't want  
them designing web pages for me.


Steve Olive
Bathurst Computer Solutions
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: 0407 224 251
Web: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au
 _
... (0)>
... / /\
.. / / .)
.. V_/_
Linux Powered!


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Mike Brown]

Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:

Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify
the usability of their websites:

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp

In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're
apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a
product is usable or not, and stand by that claim."
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755


Bleh! Little more than a company tyring to gain market share by dubious 
means.


Certification and peusdo-science ("90% of the sample of end users can 
complete 90% of key tasks" and "x minutes +/- 10%") provide the illusion 
of competency and rigour - it you need it to sell yourself, I inherently 
distrust you.


Creating a certification and then being the one who decides on it? As a 
commerical venture? Conflict of interest anyone?



Mike
(feeling more cynical than usual)
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Certified Usable

[Robbie Shepherd]

its got the foetid, rotting stench of "marketing ploy" all over it.

The front page of their site contains 20 validation errors.

The image link in the left sidebar doesn't have title attributes
(thought that would have been required? or at least best practice for
100% usable site?)

Disabling _javascript_ means their drop-down menu at the top only displays "a-Level" navigation.

If their own website isn't usable...how can they proclaim others to be (or not).

'nuff said.

[WSG] Certified Usable

[Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]]

Sydney-based Usability company PTG has made the claim that they can certify
the usability of their websites:

http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article3005.asp

In an article on the AIMIA website, Craig Errey, manager of PTG, says "we're
apparently the first group, worldwide, who can confidently state whether a
product is usable or not, and stand by that claim."
http://www.aimia.com.au/i-cms?page=1755

To me that all sounds very dodgy. Nobody can guarantee the usability of
their website. 

I mean, alright, let's define "Usability". If PTG are talking about the
ability of a user to open the homepage of the website, read the content and
click onto one of the sub-sections, fair enough, it's probably safe to say
that their sites are "usable". But then again, even my mum would be able to
create a website that is "usable" with the help of Microsoft Frontpage. 

"User-friendly", that's something different. And in my opinion nobody can
guarantee the user-friendlyness of a website to all users in the world. 

Any thoughts?


Andreas Boehmer
User Experience Consultant

Addictive Media
Phone: (03) 9386 8907
Mobile: (0411) 097 038
http://www.addictivemedia.com.au
Consulting | Accessibility | Usability | Development 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**