<html>
<font size=3>Dear Danny: Thank you for the prompt and thoughtful
response to the CFP. Since you replied to the AIR list, I hope you
won't mind if I respond in the same forum. <br><br>
My intent is not to denounce usability, as I hope other portions of my
CFP make clear, but to advance the very dialogue between the traditions
of humanities-based writing/design and the science of usability which
your own experiences seems to embody. I hope you'll consider
contributing an abstract to the collection. In compiling it, I
certainly don't intend to favor of one side or the other since the point
is ultimately to move forward.<br><br>
If I didn't find usability so useful , I wouldn't feel compelled to try
to reconcile it--or at least to try dialogically to engage it with--the
creative/expressive assumptions of my own experiences in the humanities
(rhetoric/comp, creative writing, computer-assisted composition, literary
studies, publishing, online education, etc.). I'm more interested
in the energy of the dialogue than in any final resting place
"beyond." <br><br>
You're right that I _am_ very familiar with Jacob Nielsen, whose work I
assign in my classes. Each semester, my students and I learn much
from his work while having a lively debate with him. I can tell you
he holds his own. I acknowledge that parts of my CFP may have
borrowed from the style of his broad brush, which seems fair and even
necessary. <br><br>
Best wishes, - Craig<br><br>
At 02:35 PM 8/21/02 +1200, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>In my view, this CFP is a severe
misreading of usability discourse. I wonder<br>
whether the author of this CFP has read anything other than Nielsen
(whose<br>
autocratic approach is well known) in the field of usability? A brief
look<br>
at scholarly work in the HCI field, or the broader area of web
design<br>
(Shredoff, Veen) would show the lie of the "common wisdom"
straw man of<br>
usability hegemony this CFP constructs.<br><br>
Most contemporary usability discourse *relies* on a profound recognition
of<br>
content/ form preferences of different audiences, backed by
specific<br>
ethnographic fieldwork. It *encourages* diverse ways of engaging
with<br>
material - from full-screen shockwave presentations to methods that
provide<br>
a satisfying experience for a sight-impaired person using a reader over
a<br>
slow modem. Usability discourse in the ethnographic mode is often ignored
by<br>
companies and individuals *precisely* because it requests a facility in
the<br>
design for different modes of expression - which most people put in the
too<br>
hard basket. Whole languages like XML/XSLT are constructed to
encourage<br>
diversity in presentation.<br><br>
"Beyond Usability" is the same kind of title as "Beyond
politics" - it fails<br>
to do the basic background reading on the various uses of usability in
Human<br>
Computer Interaction, instead writing off the discipline as it promotes
its<br>
own *particular* approach to HCI as some kind of intellectually
superior<br>
framework.<br><br>
Sorry to sound so cross, but I work primarily in the humanities, and
come<br>
from a design background. I put a lot of work into trying to emphasise
the<br>
relevance of humanities disciplines to design students. The<br>
self-congratulatory tendency of humanities theoreticians to speak
with<br>
authority on stuff they know nothing about is depressingly obvious in
this<br>
CFP, and the reiteration of the art/science divide ignores all the
great<br>
work people are doing in this area.<br><br>
Danny<br><br>
craig stroupe wrote on 21/8/02 7:31 AM:<br><br>
> More than a common-sense focus on writing or designing for an
intended user,<br>
> usability is founded on a narrowly instrumentalist view of language
and<br>
> design. That is, the form of a site, from a usability
perspective, is merely<br>
> a neutral container for the content, which always carries the same
meaning<br>
> regardless of the presentation, expression or performance. In
usability<br>
> terms, writing or design that calls attention to itself is bad
writing/design<br>
> because it fails to convey the message transparently.<br><br>
> CONTEXT:<br>
> <br>
> Since usability guru Jacob Nielsen declared the "end of web
design" in a July<br>
> 2000 column--see
<<a href="http://www. <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.
<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html</a>><br>
> useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html
<<a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html</a>><br>
common wisdom has held that the age of experimentation and exploration in
Web<br>
design is over, and that the practices of digital communication now
require a<br>
very high degree of standardization, conventionalization, and
predictability<br>
> >-<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Air-l mailing list<br>
Air-l@aoir.org<br>
<a href="http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l" eudora="autourl">http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l</a>
</font></blockquote></html>