<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Testing Testing Testing&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377</link>
	<description>Interaction Design, User Experience, and the World at Large</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jevnin</title>
		<link>http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator>jevnin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377#comment-507</guid>
		<description>While I agree that usability testing can't be done automatically (and &lt;i&gt;never, ever&lt;/i&gt; will be), I'm not sure it needs to be the sort of thing done at every build. Why would we need to look at it at that level? 

Analyzing logs and clickpaths also don't tell you where people are running into problems...and badly designed UIs tend not to hide bad usability at all, imho, that's why most people are constantly complaining that they're "not very good at doing things on computers."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I agree that usability testing can&#8217;t be done automatically (and <i>never, ever</i> will be), I&#8217;m not sure it needs to be the sort of thing done at every build. Why would we need to look at it at that level? </p>
<p>Analyzing logs and clickpaths also don&#8217;t tell you where people are running into problems&#8230;and badly designed UIs tend not to hide bad usability at all, imho, that&#8217;s why most people are constantly complaining that they&#8217;re &#8220;not very good at doing things on computers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlos Villela</title>
		<link>http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377/comment-page-1#comment-505</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos Villela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/377#comment-505</guid>
		<description>The 'ton of different ways to test software' you probably learned about were, probably, tons of ways to test software in an &lt;b&gt;automated&lt;/b&gt; fashion.

While usability testing or similar things under the same sort of umbrella certainly have lots of value, they can't yet be done automatically, at every build, and kind of rely heavily on human input and psychological factors.

That said, figuring out how your users/customers are using the software you're building is the easy bit, and can be done by analizing logs, clickpaths and such. The tricky bit is interpreting that information, as badly designed UIs tend to hide the fact that users are stumbling around a lot without getting much done.

For reference, try accomplishing somewhat simple tasks like searching for that e-mail you got from John Doe in November last year in Lotus Notes - a lot of clicking around, but not much getting done. Then try the same in, say, Outlook or GMail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8216;ton of different ways to test software&#8217; you probably learned about were, probably, tons of ways to test software in an <b>automated</b> fashion.</p>
<p>While usability testing or similar things under the same sort of umbrella certainly have lots of value, they can&#8217;t yet be done automatically, at every build, and kind of rely heavily on human input and psychological factors.</p>
<p>That said, figuring out how your users/customers are using the software you&#8217;re building is the easy bit, and can be done by analizing logs, clickpaths and such. The tricky bit is interpreting that information, as badly designed UIs tend to hide the fact that users are stumbling around a lot without getting much done.</p>
<p>For reference, try accomplishing somewhat simple tasks like searching for that e-mail you got from John Doe in November last year in Lotus Notes - a lot of clicking around, but not much getting done. Then try the same in, say, Outlook or GMail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

