SCN: Stupidity

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

========================

(Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)---Usability opponents often complain that 
we user advocates are overly focused on stupid people. They 
commonly claim that:  

...We select stupid users for usability studies; our findings do not 
apply to smarter users. 

...Our recommendation to make simplicity a major design goal 
stems from our misguided view that all users are stupid. In reality, 
they claim, many users are capable of navigating complex sites.

...Some people are so stupid that technology is beyond their grasp; 
making websites easy enough for everyone to navigate is an 
unrealistic goal. 

I'll now address each of these claims, and then examine how 
attitudes about usability and user intelligence will impact business 
as the Internet population grows.

Typically, when project managers observe their design undergoing 
a usability test, their initial reaction is: Where did you find such 
stupid users? 

This is exactly what happened recently when I released a WAP 
usability study. The study concluded that using WAP (to access the 
Internet through mobile phones) is too difficult for most purposes. In 
response, a group of big WAP investors rejected the findings, 
issuing a press release that claimed that the study's outcome would 
have been different if we had tested experienced WAP users. 
Although this might be true, their response misses the point.  

First, it ignores the fact that users' initial experience with a new 
technology is crucial. People will never become experienced users 
unless they are capable of learning the technology in the first place.

Second, our study's participants used WAP phones for a week, and 
we tested them both at the beginning and the end of the period. If a 
full week of use is insufficient to learn a user interface, we are 
surely not talking about a mainstream consumer technology.

Usability lessons are not always easy to take. It is a painful 
experience to sit in the back room watching as a user clicks every 
button on the screen except the one button that "obviously" leads to 
the answer. 

The first time project members observe a usability study, they 
almost always lapse into denial about the true lessons of the 
experience. Until we bring in the second user. He or she typically 
has many of the same problems as the first user. Then the third 
user comes in, and again: many of the same problems. At this point, 
designers often start to soften to the users' plight. If not, the fourth 
or fifth user will do the trick.  

When people have problems using a design, it's not because they 
are stupid. It's because the design is too difficult.  

Enthusiasts sometimes defend bleeding-edge technology and 
complex designs with the claim that users actually like 
sophisticated websites. Users, they assert, are smart enough to 
handle complicated design. 

These enthusiasts labor under a miscomprehension about the 
Web's fundamental nature. It is not a question of whether users are 
capable of overcoming complexity and learning an advanced user 
interface. It is a question of whether they are willing to do so.  

I have conducted many usability studies with users who had 
immense computer experience, great aptitude for technology, and 
high levels of IQ and education. These users are just like anybody 
else: they just want to get their work done. They have neither the 
desire nor the time to learn the idiosyncrasies of individual 
websites.  

If you have doubts, run a test with network system administrators or 
international investment analysts, for example. What you'll discover 
is that they face plenty of complicated problems in their own work 
and they don't want to devote brain cells to your website or its 
design. They want to get in, get out, and move on with their own 
tasks.  

Design complexity is a barrier for users. While they certainly might 
be capable of jumping the barrier, why should they? The Web is 
about freedom of movement. Anything that stands in the way of 
immediate task completion will negatively impact the user's 
experience.  

Some people are smarter than others. Most readers of this column 
probably belong to the top 10% of the population in terms of 
intelligence. From such a vantage point, it is easy to think of other 
people as being stupid. But perhaps it is more fair and more 
accurate (not to mention more productive) to assume that the other 
90% of the population form the mainstream audience. Not that they 
are stupid. 

Nonetheless, it might be true that some people do not have enough 
intelligence to use sophisticated and advanced high-tech systems. 
But are they online? Not likely at this point.  

Even in the most wired societies like the United States and 
Scandinavia, only half the population is currently using the Internet. 
It continues to be quite an elitist medium. Thus, almost by definition 
at this point, anyone who is now using the Web is probably a fairly 
smart person. Given this, it makes no sense to blame users' 
difficulty with a site or design on stupidity. When current Web users 
have problems, it's because the design is too difficult.  

As the Internet keeps growing, it will reach ever-broader segments of 
the population. Five years from now we might in fact have people 
online who could be indelicately described as stupid. Whether or not 
such people should be included or excluded from the Web is a 
political and social question: What percentage of the population can 
we exclude from the new economy?  

>From my perspective, the answer is "very few." Politicians might 
say "zero," which is an honorable but unrealistic goal. Literacy 
offers a good analogy here: While all rich countries aim at zero 
illiteracy, there are always some children who don't learn to read. 
Nonetheless, we cannot accept high illiteracy rates and expect to 
maintain a prosperous society.  

As far as meeting the need for Internet usability, we have yet to 
scratch the surface. Very few websites are easy enough to continue 
supporting users when the Internet reaches 80% of the population. 
To serve 95% of the population (let alone 99%), substantial 
advances in usability will be required.  

Disregarding political and moral issues, the broadening user base 
poses a very simple business question: What percentage of your 
prospects will you turn away because they are not smart enough to 
use your website? Maybe 10% of your potential customers? Or 
perhaps 20%? That's a lot of dollars lost to an elitist attitude.  

And, even if you accept a 20% loss in customers because your site 
is too difficult, you still need a site easy enough for 80% of the 
population to use. Considering that most sites are too difficult for the 
50% of the population that is currently online, companies will have 
to substantially improve their usability to willingly abandon that 
"acceptable" 20%.  





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *