Critique for Week 02 Day 3

Name: user wants
Type: Challenge
Discussion:  Section 3.1 discusses "user wants" as the "expectations and asiprations of the end-user".
Location: 3.1 first paragraph and following

- This asks designers to go beyond what users need to give them what they want. Doesn't this go beyond providing them access? How far does a designer have to go? Couldn't this lead to excessive demands on developers?

- This actually goes along with the component of usability (as per ISO 9241-11) relating to "user satisfaction". If a user is not satisfied to some extent, then the user is not likely to use the system. And, after all, you need for your application to at least be better than the competition. If you only focus on the basics of what users need, you will miss this. Better to get users to state their wildist dreams, and then later to sort out which are achievable, than it is to miss something that could be done easily but that could make a big difference.

Name: user needs vs. user wants
Type: Challenge
Discussion:  Section 3.1 introduces user wants and 3.2 discusses user needs. However, there is nothing in 3.2 or later that puts user wants together with user needs. The last time that "wants" appears in the paper is the third last paragraph in section 3.1.
Location: 3.1 and 3.2

- If user wants are important we need to treat them seriously.

- The author's definition of usability is deffective. The ISO 9241-11 definition of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction combines wants and needs as discussed in this paper. We can combine them by referring to usability requirements (or accessibility requirements) and recognizing that is is required to meet at least the most important user wants by meeting requirements related to user satisfaction. We should not discount satisfaction as less important than other aspects of usability. Because if a product is not usable - it doesn't matter why it is unusable - all that matters is that you make it usable.

Name: functional capabilities
Type: Challenge
Discussion:  This paragraph suggests that there is a "need to know the levels of functional capabilities of the users for all of the capabilities needed during the interaction process" which is the basis of extra dimensions that should be added to the analysis. However, this ASSUMEs a design model before doing the analysis.
Location: Section 4, paragraph 3

- Making assumptions about design before completing analysis, works to prejudice the analysis and its outcome. This is further reinforced by the stated objective of "when deciding which users to target" which is in oposition to the goals of universal design. This paragraph also makes these "extra" dimensions sound like extra work that is a burden to designers.

- This paragraph is very misleading. The following subsections provide greater detail about the range of user capabilities. It would better guidance at this point to suggest that the range of user capabilities should be determined (independently of potential designs) and that the designs should then be developed in a manner that meets the widest range of these capabilities.

Name: statistical significance
Type: Challenge
Discussion:  The discussion of sampling users by capability assumes that "statistical significance" is required.
Location: Section 4.3, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs

- While "statistical significance" may be demanded by reviewers of various scholarly publications, it often has very little practical significance in the real world. It also imposes excessive demands as noted in the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph. [A personal note: Thus, section 4.6 is not of general interest or pragmatic for typical "practitioners" and I will not waste my time critiqing it..]

- It is important to recognize what will have a significant impact on the design and ultimate accessibility. While the author goes on to identify other possible ways of "sampling users" he keeps looking for one best way of doing this. Like with accessibility one approach often DOES NOT fit all. What is needed is to identify both the borderline cases (as discussed in paragraph 6) AND the extreme cases (as discussed in paragraph 5)
- Since this deals with analysis, critique item 03 also applies. You should not make any assumptions about design at this point - thus the comment "It could also be argued that such users may reasonably be expected to make use of assistive technology to help access particular products", found at the end of paragraph 5, is totally inappropriate. [NOTE to students: this 2nd suggestion by itself is too close to critique item 03 to get separate marks for 04 as well as for 03]

Name: users in product assessments
Type: Challenge
Discussion:  "Having decided which types of users should be included in the product assessments,"
Location: Section 4.4

- What happened to the role of these users in determining wants and needs?

- "Typical" users with different capabilities should be involved in determining wants and needs to be met as well as in evaluating how well they have been met.

Name: coping strategies
Type: Opportunity
Discussion:  "Many people with functional impairments find strategies for compensating for their impairments"
Location: Section 4.5

- Coping strategies are very important to many users with disabilities. Unfortunately this author deals with them as if they are methods of cheating - rather than special capabilities that may be only possessed by select users.

- It is important to recognize that so-called "coping strategies" may suggest better ways to design. Instead of dismissing them, we can learn from them. By designing to use them, we may even help improve usability for otherwise "non-disabled" users.