I’ll be presenting a full-day tutorial on how to create data-driven personas and use them for more than just design on Tuesday, June 12th at this year’s UPA conference in Austin, TX.
Usability
As a practitioner, one of the things that drives me bonkers is how behind the times much of the usability field is. It seems that so many of the usability practitioners I speak to today are stuck in the 70s in their lab coats running lab tests. And I’m not alone. In the past few months, I’ve had a number of conversations with companies who are looking for usability firms and are frustrated with their inability to “get it.” Here’s a quote from a recent conversation I had from a fellow UPA member:
“They don’t understand the business side of things.”
Yes, we have our usability methods and measurements. But what good is something that’s technically usable if it negatively impacts the business bottom line? That’s like saying technically Apache is working even if it isn’t displaying web pages. It might be technically running on the server, but I want to see the pages. Technically and theoretically doesn’t cut it.
We need to get out in the field. We need to do more ethnographic-based testing and research. We need to get out of the labs and into the streets.
I’m continually in search of quality resources to enhance my education. Colour theory and typography are at the heart of something I’m keenly interested in. There’s a series on colour theory over at UXMatters. One of the articles, Applying Color Theory to Digital Displays, makes some good theoretical points. But that’s what I take issue with–theory that doesn’t test well, or that is outdated.
As a design researcher, I can’t help but continually question any research that’s done. I look at how the research was performed (methodology is key) and how long ago it was performed. Especially in today’s digital world, trends and technologies are continually changing.
The article on UXMatters references a study that was done in 2003, which in turn references a number of other studies, none of which is more recent than 7-8 years. That calls for a re-evaluation of the data in my book.
From the UXMatters article:
Many studies recommend using black text on a white background for maximal contrast and legibility. An article in the Journal of Design Communication, “The Effect of Color Contrast on Message Legibility” (Laura Bix, Hugh Lockhart, Fernando Cardoso, and Susan Selke, Spring 2003) cites several usability studies:
“Not surprisingly, black text on a white background was the most legible contrast combination for all age groups. This is consistent with the findings and recommendations of others that recommend dark text on a light background as the most legible (Arnold, 1972; Bradley et al., 1994; Food and Drug Administration, February 27, 1997; Food and Drug Administration, March 17, 1999; Institute of Grocery Distribution, 1994; Sorg, 1985).”
This study from 2003 references studies that are at least 7-8 years old. In the digital world, that’s centuries ago. It’s time to revisit these studies and re-evaluate their validity.
Speaking from experience, having been doing design research for over 15 years, run too many usability tests to remember, on a variety of products and variety of mediums (e.g. TV, Mobile, Handheld, Web, Desktop), black (#000) text on white (#FFF) background is not the easiest to read – it’s actually rather harsh. High contrast is best, as the article points out, but that doesn’t mean black on white. Charcoal gray (#333, or #444) is easier to read on a white background, based on my experience of a few hundred participants plus.
What are your thoughts? I’m considering writing my own series of articles on colour theory for the digital world. Would you guys be interested?