On the one hand I'm a big believer that, to get benefit from any usability assessment, criteria for success should be sensitively applied according to a 'deep-as-possible' understanding of the nature and circumstance of the likely users. Creating blanket statements like "Navigation menus should appear on the top and left of a page" is not only redundant but fails to recognise the value of non-standard layout for achieving a site's goals in some circumstances (such as a innovative new product line for a web-aware audience group).
On the other hand we have applicability. This organisation tests intranets around the world, from the UK government to Microsoft, and the member expect to be benchmarked against other intranets according to stable and repeatable criteria. Some members even tie staff bonuses to year-on-year scores, so the metrics need to be incredibly consistent.
Applied Usability
The crossroads between 'best' and 'useful' approaches to interface design and testing is a common sticking point, and one where I think UX needs be a bit more honest as a community. More than once I have heard Project Managers and Dev teams bemoan a predecessor who, while undoubtedly committed, creative and right, failed to provide workable solutions for the team. While we of course always start for the ideal circumstance for a user, what we often need to achieve is an 'optimum' circumstance - one that support the user in the best way possible given the technology, skills, budget, time and other pressures.
That said, creating a list of 25 criteria for a successful intranet interface was a pretty uncomfortable experience. I've learned a lot. Not just about how to craft a metric to include enough scope to fairly and comparatively assess vastly different interfaces for vastly different users and organisations. (Some intranets are deeply embedded and include social networking, 3rd party applications and services: Others are barely filled HTML and placeholder images). I've learned a lot about how the work we do as UX professionals is used out there in the world.
Users as customers
When I first started working with organsiations, intranets, and interfaces the main driver was to meet external standards. It was about box-ticking for the stakeholders, and they wanted little more that for me to be aware of an interpret those boxes with as little disruption as possible. Intranets (and the staff who used them) were seen as 'have-to-have' extensions of the IT network, and in particular broadcast channels for the senior management and internal communications teams. Consulting with members of the Intranet Benchmarking Forum (IBF), it becomes clear that intranets are now 'must-have's'. Users are seen as customers of the intranet, and the teams responsible for the infrastructure (site seems to poor a word for some of the systems) are expected to serve their users as they would their customers. Content creation is mostly devolved to business units, service providers and teams.
Service and opportunity
Which in a way makes creating universal metrics easier. By focusing on the concepts of good and accessible service (with detail for assessors on what constitutes best-practice), the set of metrics operate as a sort of standard service level agreement between the intranet providers and the users. Instead of identifying specific solutions (e.g. "your site should have a blog") the metrics rate the ease of use of features and facilities, the inclusiveness of support and content and the coherency of the content and services through the use of design.
Intranets make for a fascinating microcosm of digital interaction - with a massive level of user participation, diversity and engagement. Whereas the internet users will always be driven by some notion of choice, intranet users are faced with only 2 options: use it or not. It's exciting to see corporate stakeholders picking up the challenges of intranet usability and I expect to see a big shift in UX work toward these internal markets over the next 5 years.
http://www.ibforum.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment