为什么可用性评估方法很少被采用？
在软件开发的历史中已经开发出了许多可用性评估技术。 但在我看来，它们在实践中很少被使用。
为什么可用性评估工具和方法实际使用不多？
还是它们的使用量比我想象的要多？
There are many usability evaluation techniques that have been developed over the history of software development. But it seems to me that they are rarely used in practice.
Why aren't usability evaluation tools and methods actually used much?
Or are they used more than I've been led to believe?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（7）
“未来已经到来。只是分布不均匀。”
可用性评估工具和方法一直被使用......但在某些领域比其他领域使用得更多。 在我的整个职业生涯中，我一直是一名用户体验 (UX) 专家 - 从我目前的立场来看，不使用这些工具和方法是更不寻常的。
电子商务网站已广泛采用可用性和可扩展性。 用户体验研究。 为什么？ 因为可用性和创收之间存在非常直接的联系。
其他行业就没那么幸运了，因为这种联系并不那么直接。 当购买者和用户之间存在差距时，就没有动力在以用户为中心的设计（UCD）上花钱。 例如，企业软件主要根据功能列表出售给实际上不需要每天使用该软件的人。 因此，这些应用程序的可用性可能非常令人震惊。 当然，在企业软件中建立良好的可用性（降低培训成本、提高任务完成时间、提高员工士气等）是有充分理由的，但由于它不影响销售的成败，可用性不知何故就被半途而废了。 （这种情况将来会改变，但目前这个利基市场的可用性军备竞赛还没有完全开始）。
当然，只需要一家企业提供商开始生产具有出色可用性的产品，竞争格局就会发生变化。 成为第一需要勇气和金钱。 这都是关于行为经济学的。
不管怎样，听起来你碰巧在一个不关注用户体验的利基市场工作。 您应该将其视为一个机会。
顺便说一句，那些说用户体验研究不必昂贵的人 - 这是一个流行的论点，但在我看来，这不是一个好的论点。 无论您花费 10,000 英镑（是的，这确实是成本）外包 10 个用户的一轮可用性测试，还是您在内部几乎不花钱进行测试，项目时间表都必须延长以适应这种情况。 测试后，需求规格出现问题，然后您必须做出决策并实施更改。 如果变化较大，则需要重新测试。 这不可避免地很耗时，而且本身就很昂贵。 让您的组织专注于用户体验的一个更好的论据是不进行研究的代价。 这可能是灾难性的。 大多数组织都经历过一两次事故，在启动后发现可用性很差，从而毁掉了一个本来很好的项目。 找到你的火车残骸并强调这一点。
"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed."
Usability evaluation tools and methods are used all the time... but more in some niches than others. I've been a User Experience (UX) specialist for my whole career - from where I'm standing, not using these tools and methods is more unusual.
Ecommerce sites have widely adopted usability & UX research. Why? Because there's a very direct link between usability and revenue generation.
Other industries are not so lucky because the link is not so immediate. When there is a gap between the purchaser and the user, there is little motivation to spend money on User-Centered Design (UCD). Enterprise software, for example, is mainly sold on the basis of feature lists to people who don’t actually have to use the software on a daily basis. Usability can therefore be pretty shocking in these apps. Of course there is a perfectly good argument for building great usability into enterprise software (reduced training costs, improved task completion times, staff morale, etc), but since it doesn't make or break the sale, usability somehow slips by the wayside. (This will change in the future but for now the usability arms race has not quite begun in this niche).
Of course, all it will take is one enterprise provider to start making products with outstanding usability, and the competitive landscape will shift. Being the first takes guts and money. It’s all about behavioural economics.
Anyway, it sounds like you happen to work in a niche that doesn't focus on UX. You should see it as an opportunity.
By the way, those of you who say that UX research needn't be expensive - this is a popular argument, but in my opinion, it isn't a good one. Whether you outsource one round of usability testing of 10 users for £10,000 (yes, that’s how much it costs, really), or whether you do it internally for next to nothing, the project timescales have to stretch out to accommodate this. After testing, requirement specs are thrown into question, then you have to make decisions and implement changes. If the changes are big, you will have to test again. It’s inevitably time-consuming and this in itself is expensive. A better argument for getting your organization to focus on UX is the price of not doing research. This can be catastrophic. Most organizations have had a train wreck or two where poor usability has been discovered post-launch and scuppered an otherwise good project. Find your train wrecks and hammer the point home.
可用性测试（或我们中一些人所知的用户研究）必须涉及大量的前期成本，这是一个谬论。 当然，如果您“正式”进行测试并进城进行测试和后续分析，则可能会花费大量费用。 但与继续沿着错误的道路进行开发并且稍后必须重新进行开发相比，该成本要小得多。
与许多技术一样，有很多方法可以让您以较低的成本从用户研究中获得优质、相关且快速的信息。 即使您只采访少数人，您也会得到关键问题的评论。 您可以在同一次会议上与所有利益相关者一起快速讨论输出，而不是进行正式分析，尤其是当您的研究专注于特定目标时。 您可以通过采访更大的产品团队（技术作家、销售人员、培训师等）而不是用户本身来获得良好的反馈。
即使发现的问题没有得到解决，至少它们是公开的。
It's a fallacy that Usability testing (or User Research as some of us know it) has to involve significant up-front costs. Sure, if you do it 'formally' and go to town with both the testing and the follow-up analysis, it can cost significant amounts. But that cost would be far smaller than if the development had continued down an incorrect path and had to be re-worked later.
As with many techniques, there are plenty of approaches that will get you good, relevant and fast information from user research, at a lower cost. You will get key issue comments even if you only interview a handful of people. Rather than formal analysis, you can workshop the outputs very quickly with all stakeholders in the same meeting, especially if your research is focused on specific goals. You can get good feedback by interviewing the larger product team (technical writers, sales, trainers etc) rather than the users themselves.
And even if the issues found are not fixed, at least they are out in the open.
可用性分析（特别是用户测试）需要大量的前期成本，包括时间和金钱。 它通常还会揭示一大堆需要修复的问题，而人们宁愿忽略这些问题......
Usability analysis (in particular user testing) has a significant up-front cost, both time and money. It also typically unveils a whole batch of things to fix that people would rather ignore...
这可能有点离题，但据我所知，最好的可用性建议的两个来源是 Steve Krug 和 Kathy Sierra。
遗憾的是，Kathy 不再写博客了，但您可以在她的博客存档中看到多年的观察，“创建热情的用户”。
Steve Krug 的书 “Don't Make Me Think” 可能是有史以来最好的可用性圣经之一（他花费了大量时间讨论可用性测试工具和策略）。
This may be a bit of a tangent, but two of the best sources of good usability advice I know of are Steve Krug and Kathy Sierra.
Sadly Kathy doesn't blog any longer, but you can see years of observations in the archive of her blog, "Creating Passionate Users".
Steve Krug's book "Don't Make Me Think" may be one of the best usability bibles ever (and he spends a fair amount of time discussing usability testing tools and strategies).
这个问题主要源于这样一个事实：大多数制作软件的公司永远不会停下来问“我怎样才能使这个用户界面更易于使用？”，而是大多数时候只是问“用户是否能够使用该界面做XYZ？” 。
通常，公司只会问“如果用户知道我们所做的一切，用户可以使用此界面执行 XYZ 操作吗？” 更糟糕的是。
The problem mainly stems from the fact that most companies that makes software never stops and ask "How could I make this user interface easier to use?", but instead most often just asks "Is the user able to do XYZ with the interface?".
Often, the company will just ask "If the user knows everything we do, can the user do XYZ with this inteface?" which is even worse.
通常，可用性方法不会被应用，因为做出购买决定的人不会为可用性付费。
我有个人经验的一个领域是会议管理软件（例如 CyberChair、START 以及其他上百万种软件）。 这些东西一定很容易写，因为它们太多了，但我发誓大多数写它们的人从未观察过裁判或程序主席在工作中。 回到为什么的问题，在这种情况下，项目主席和委员会成员在空间上高度分散——开发人员很难找到一个人并观察他或她的工作情况。 模拟工作流程需要大量的设置成本，并且在任何一个城镇中，可能很少有人有资格成为可用性研究的受试者，而他们的时间是宝贵的。 而且没有足够的利润来证明可用性的合理性。 我的专业协会 SIGPLAN 最近签约在其会议中使用劣质软件，因为人们认为劣质产品比备受推崇的竞争对手便宜十倍。 志愿者使用该产品的时间一如既往地为零。
另一个战争故事，我会闭嘴：当我在电话公司工作时，一个开发小组实际上有一位可用性专家。 但他是唯一被允许与客户互动的人。 我认为很多商店的管理层都不敢让开发商和顾客直接互动。 这种态度使得可用性方法的应用变得困难。
那些底线取决于可用性的人进行研究。 eBay 就是一个很好的例子。 我曾经成为他们的主题，花了 90 分钟的时间，非常疲惫，只是想卖一些书。 他们派了 2 位训练有素的工程师带着视频设备到我家，这些人非常专业。 当我感到沮丧时，他们并没有拯救我，直到研究结束，他们才告诉我，我经历如此糟糕的经历的原因是因为我绊倒了他们软件中的一个错误。 哦，他们为我 90 分钟的时间支付了 200 美元。 eBay 显然相信，让在他们的网站上销售变得容易可以让他们获得更多利润，并且他们愿意花真钱来找出真正的用户在哪里遇到麻烦。
Often usability methods are not applied because people making buying decisions will not pay for usability.
One area where I have personal experience is conference-management software (things like CyberChair, START, and a million others). These things must be fairly easy to write, because there are so many of them, but I swear most of the people who write them have never observed a referee or a program chair at work. And to return to the question of why, in this case program chairs and committee members are highly distributed in space---it would be very difficult for a developer to find one and watch him or her at work. Simulating the workflow requires a large setup cost, and in any one town there area probably very few individuals who are qualified to be subjects in a usability study, and their time is valuable. And there is not enough profit to justify usability. SIGPLAN, my professional society, recently contracted to use inferior software for its conferences because the inferior product was perceived to be ten times cheaper than a highly regarded competitor. The time of the volunteers who use the product was, as always, valued at zero.
Another war story and I'll shut up: when I worked for the phone companies one developer group actually had a usability specialist. But he was the only one allowed to interact with customers. I think in a lot of shops management is afraid to let developers and customers interact directly. This attitude makes it hard to apply usability methods.
People whose bottom line depends on usability do the studies. eBay is a good case in point. I was a subject for them once for an incredibly exhausting 90 minutes, just trying to sell some books. They sent 2 trained engineers with video equipment to my home, and these guys were incredibly professional. They did not bail me out when I became frustrated, and not until the study was over did they tell me that the reason I had such a bad experience was because I had tripped a bug in their software. Oh, and they paid me $200 for 90 minutes of my time. eBay obviously believes that making it easy to sell on their site makes them more profitable, and they are willing to spend real money to find out where real users get into trouble.
它们很少见，HCI 是 IT 领域的一个专业领域。 我对此几乎一无所知，但我的一个朋友是一名 HCI 工程师，她可以背诵大量有关该主题的数据、展示网站、小组、学术论文等。HCI
仍然是一个（不值得）很少受到关注的领域，可能是因为它被认为对销售软件业务不太重要 - 收缩包装软件是根据营销声明出售的，而不是根据其实际可用性出售的，因此为软件开发付费的人也没有动力为 HCI 付费。
如果你想了解更多（这很好，你应该鼓励使用它 - 我使用了太多蹩脚的界面，尽管我尝试更好地开发，但我经常没有机会真正为我的用户改进东西），请尝试此网站/书籍。
They are rare, HCI is a specialist area in IT. I know next to nothing about it, but a friend of mine was a HCI engineer and she could recite reams of data about the topic, show websites, groups, academic papers, etc.
HCI is still an area that (undeservedly) gets little attention, probably because its seen as less important to the business of selling software - shrinkwrapped software is sold on marketing claims, not actual usability of it, so there is little incentive for the people who pay for the software development to pay for HCI too.
If you want to learn more (and its good you should encourage its use - I've used too many crappy interfaces, and though I try to develop better I often don't get the chance to really improve things for my users), try this website/book.