In one sentence:

I never said anyone should ignore usability heuristics and go with their hearts!

I never said people should not observe people using their software in the wild.

I said software has to EVOKE emotion, not that software designers should RELY on emotion.

I said that mechanical “usability” should not not the height of a software designer’s aspirations.

I said that mechanical usability science is, in fact, not a science — which is true. It’s a load of observations pretending to be a science. Treating like a science is a disservice to everynoe.

Can you please stop blaming me for other people’s arguments, and actually read mine?

Thanks!

I’m getting bored of this rather shallow, strawman meme. Its been rehashed so many times in the UX field that I’m surprised we are back here again. That whole “evil, cold, scientists versus warm, fuzzy, humanist designer” thing. I mean, haven’t we done this one already? 

As I read it, you’re claiming that designers should ignore boring, cold, rational, science-y “evidence” about whether or not people can actually use the products they design, in favour of whimsical, cuddly and cute designs that will “charm” (some) users.  Basically, you imply we should ignore anyone who suggests that our awesome creativity might not actually serve the needs of the people who, y’know…. actually pay our wages? Nice. 

You’re preaching form over function. That’s a  design non-starter in my book. Ever seen anyone actually use Phillippe Starck’s rocket “objet” to make orange juice? Me neither. Looks charming, though. But doesn’t a beautiful, useless object fall into the category of “art” not design?

Truth is, if we lived in a world where all software was already designed in a way that was 100% usable and useful then maybe I might have some patience with your argument that what we need is more curlicues and digital cuddles.  But since I’m typing this rant on the iPhone’s appalling keyboard, well, I’d trade a better input method for any number of warm fuzzy Jobs flourishes, I assure you. (In fact my irate tone would likely be a lot less irate if the tool I’m forced to use wasn’t so bad at doing what I paid for it to do - letting me type what i want to say without endless corrections and backspaces. How human does that make the iPhone’s design?) 

Perhaps what you need is a better understanding of what user-centred design actually is. The simplification of ”usability” is a mistake. Nobody really just does “usability” any more – any more than anyone really uses eyetracking or scrolling stats to make decisions. If that’s as far as your knowledge of UX today goes, I’m not surprised you’re disappointed.

How about a different phrase? I like to talk about ”evidence-based design”. In other words, gathering evidence from users in a reasonably controlled, unbiased way, so as to help designers make better design decisions – rather than basing those decisions on opinion and ego. Would you disagree that listening and learning from users is a Good Thing? So why not include it in your design toolbox?  

And the reason why it’s a good idea to employ specialists to help you listen to users (even people like Jakob Nielsen) is that they are unbiased. They will not allow you to screen out the evidence you don’t want to hear. (The notorious “ugly baby” problem). I find it interesting and very revealing that you choose to use the love letters you get about Freckle as evidence that there are no usability problems with your product. Hmmm. That’s known as ”selection bias” - a recognised phenomenon in the field of social science – that same cold, rational ”pseudoscience” which you seem to hold in such contempt).

So: by all means let’s use our creativity to create cheerful, warm, fun experiences. But let’s start by building products that actually work the way that users need them to. And let’s do this by getting out there and understanding real people in the real world, not sitting godlike in front of our Macbooks, bemoaning those silly users and clients who ‘just don’t get it.’

Rant over.

http://iancollingwood.com  

Please read “Emotional Design” by Don Norman. I take great issue with the person he later went into business with (Nielsen), but Don’s book puts the lie to what you’re saying.

It’s also been out for years so there’s no excuse for being a professional designer, usability engineer, interaction expert, blah de blah whatever, without reading it.

He cites several studies that show that things that elicit an emotional reaction, or are even just plain pretty, see greater use and are even perceived to “work better”.

More importantly, you can look around you everywhere and find that people choose things that elicit emotional reactions (e.g. Ferraris, iPhones, the infamous Alessi juicer, metal-handled knives, fancy designer shoes/chairs) while having serious functional limitations, or are just flat-out difficult.

Ever sat in the seat of a Ferrari? They’re actually damnably uncomfortable.

And yet…

You say: “Emotion, subjective enjoyment, are more important than ‘usability’”

In my experience, there is pretty much no difference between the two. People are happy when they feel in control. They feel in control when something is usable, when they can correctly predict what will happen when they do something, and when they can figure out how to reach their goal quickly and easily.

Only a usable application can be enjoyable. Of course, you can make a usable application more enjoyable by using tools outside of the realm of usability, but you can never make a non-usable application enjoyable. People will never enjoy your application if they are unable to print their document, and they will never enjoy your website if they can’t find the information they’re looking for.

That’s more like it. Plus:

3) Emotion, subjective enjoyment, are more important than ‘usability’

Freckle, for example, bucks the ‘usability’ gospel in many places. But our customers write us love letters.

Okay, I read the text again, I think I misunderstood. If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is:

1) Don’t blindly follow Nielsen’s “rules”, but

2) Do run usability tests with your own designs.

I totally agree with that.

But: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Much of the web-design world is still the kingdom of the blind, sad to say, and in my experience the inhabitants would be well advised to follow one-eyed Jakob Nielsen instead of their own random ideas.