Usability crap again?

For the last two weeks I was accidentally finding myself debatingusability questions in hardly conceived areas. I argued for licensefee by cellular carriers, against home video sets, in favour of cowboyhats and, surprisingly, about the computer software, especiallydifferent browsers.

I had never won the discussion, though I have yielded the impression of understanding what actually usability is. It is a little bit more, than simply a habit as I used to thing before.

Being using something, a person is always frustrating by someoccasional properties and enjoying others. Most of the above are noteven noticeable, but the ratio of the rest makes the whole impressionof the something. I got a point, that there are TATA things fighting with ATAT competitors. Intrigued?

TATA states for “Too Annoying Too Accept”, while ATATis “Attractive Truthfully And Tempting”. Operating the stuff, everybodymay record herself to plot the graph of impression during the stuffusage. Something like that:

• 1st second: Damn, how this cover opens?
• 5th second: Wow! An object-glass is great!
• 25th second: Where is flash gun button?
• 40th second: Hmmm, is a focus autoadjusting here?
• 50th second: I made a picture.

That's sine-like function with peaks at 1st second (for frustration) and at 5th second for childlike glee.

The nontrivial thing is that the other person can be recorded for absolutely other graph:

• 1st second: This cover is so pretty! That's leather! Wow!
• 5th second: An object-glass is definitely too huge, that's inconvenient in use.
• 25th second: Well, the flash gun button is OK.
• 40th second: Damn, a focus adjusts automatically, that's lame!
• 50th second: I made a picture.

And, amazingly enough, the graph is totally opposite to the first one.Namely, what was impressive for the person one became ebarassingfor the person two. That means, that there is no usability axiom over. There are usability theorems in different target axiomatics.

So what?

Let us turn back to the example with new-camera-shoting above. If we gonna found a brand new company, making cameras, we are to:

• make the cover, the object-class and the focus autoadjustment customizeable within a line of models;
• leave the flash button in the same design, but put it in other place over the camera.

But my point is that the written above is somehow wrong.

We don't actually need to think about all the emotions of the testedpersons. The flush button may easily be left intact. That's not a kingof TATAirritation (nor the temper as well), it's only a slight discontent.Nobody may get rid of all the reasons of discontent of allthe customers. No-bo-dy. We just need to labour at eliminating all the TATAs and bringing some ATATs on the top. That's it.

We have to think about making a possibility to switch focus autoadjusting off (to suppress TATA feeling of the second tester) and leave the cover leathered (for improving ATATs of the first).

I surely oversimplified the things, but you got the point.

Does it work in software?

Yes, it does. More than whereever. Because the software usersare addicted to be annoyed. No other industry leaders may take noneof care about customers irritations and still sell the productsuccessfully for decades.

The only thing is to be taken into account while creating new software is: put a lot of luxury and eliminate at least critical bugs. More luxury – more success in business. And, unfortunately, that thesis really works.