Re: How to demonstrate how well disabled people understand

["Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson@visi.com>]

Scott,

The word "arbitor" is one I pulled out of the air when I replied to
you, it is not meant to be a term that will live beyond this
discussion.  The idea I was attempting to describe was that in some
cases, the role of the consumer is to sort and perhaps choose between
options that have all been created by experts.  The user or consumer is
not defining the options in that case but using indirectly the
expertise that exists.  If you tell me what the word "arbitor" implies
that troubles you, I can address whether it was intended.

Do users have the right to make final decisions in business? 
Indirectly we do as do all consumers, by exercising care when we make
purchases.  You used the word "right," though, and I don't know that I
have ever said that involvement of consumers is exactly a "right," at
least in a legal sense.  We're living in a complex society, and I
believe it is difficult to apply hard and fast rules as to how a given
outcome is to be achieved.  Government projects, for example, give both
consumers and experts a chance to be involved in the development of
solutions, the result of which can affect the development of products
and solutions by business.  Business must sometimes react quickly and
make their best guess at how to deal with a given problem.  I would
dare say that some decisions have to be made in less time than we have
been discussing this subject.  {grin}  However, sometimes the ability
of business to implement something without a lot of red tape in a
timely manner benefits us by providing approaches that may not
otherwise have been tried.

I don't really know what else to say on this subject, and I sense that
others are probably getting bored with this.  <smile>  I can only say
that I have seen genuine experts disagree, and I have seen experts
exclude factors unintentionally that affected an outcome because it was
outside their area of expertise.  I don't feel that either of these
points diminishes the value or need for expertise in any given area. 
It only points out that expertise alone may not be enough to resolve a
problem, and that reliance on a single expert, such as yourself, may
not be the best operating procedure.  It is probably also fair to say
that relying on a single consumer or even consumer input alone is not a
good operating procedure. 

I also feel that you tend to define user or consumer input in a way
that increases the validity of the points you are making.  For example,
I know of no statement that I or anyone else has made that would imply
that a consumer picked at random off a street or exhibit hall floor
will have the grasp of computer interfaces that someone would who has
used a computer for fifteen years.  The role each plays would depend
some on what kind of input is sought, who is the  market for the
product, and this has to be done in conjunction with persons who
understand user interfaces and product development cycles.  I would
hope that part of your role as an expert would be to raise our
knowledge and awareness of interface issues so we can make more
informed decisions when we are called upon to do so rather than trying
to convince us that we should not play that role.  I do not mean that
your job is to give us the equivelent of your education, but rather,
play a role in helping us sort out issues.  For example, there might be
a good deal of general interest here in understanding the issues you
briefly mentioned that arose with respect to natural versus synthetic
speech in voting machines.  I can't imagine that anyone would say they
prefer synthetic speech based solely on listenability, but I can see a
whole series of other factors that might make the decision less
obvious.  Yet, you seemed to imply that the choice was simple once your
input was sought.  There would be value in understanding that situation
and why it was simple.  You have stated that a company after hearing
input from users at an NFB convention and hearing your input changed
their direction.  I would have been very surprised if someone with your
background couldn't better speak the developers language than persons
without your background, but you and user's need not necessarily have
an adversarial relationship.  My discomfort is that you consistently
seem to take pride in "changing the direction" from input supplied from
users or "getting access to decision makers."  I feel that if you have
this kind of power, this gives you an added burden to help bridge the
gap between consumers and developers rather than widening it, although
that might be a bit harsh.  I don't think we're all that far apart in
our thinking regarding the role of consumers and experts, it's just
that we're not always going to get talented people working together
with an optimum process as is your preference, but we still have to
find a way to make those situations work.
  
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 20:22:48 -0800, Scott Luebking wrote:

>Hi, Steve
>
>Perhaps the word "arbitor" is causing some trouble.  Is there another
>word you could use to clarify what you mean?
>
>Experts defining options and consumers making final decisions can work
>in some situations.  Depends on both the experts and the consumers.
>I've seen experts offer poorly analyzed options and consumers make some
>very "off the wall" decisions.
>
>My feeling is that a good process with poorly equipped users and experts
>will often produce mediocre results.  Similarly a poor process with
>talented people will also often produce less than great results.  The
>optimum combination is a good process with talented people.
>
>Experts need to understand what their skills and strengths are and also
>identify what their weaknesses are.  In my processes, when I reach some
>decisions, I always try to find "lead users" to pass my decisions by to
>get feedback.  Since spring, I've been identifying lead users through
>various mechanisms, e.g. corresponding with people I've met through the
>blind programmers mailing list, referrals by organizations, etc.  I
>think that listening to views of uninformed consumers can be beneficial
>in order to have a better grasp of the range of user skills in the
>world, etc.  However, there is the trade-off between time expended
>versus knowledge gained.
>
>A challenge is how can a user evaluate an expert.  A user often may not
>know what are the right questions to ask for evaluating an expert.  I've
>seen some amazing examples of people passing themselves off as qualified
>developers to unsuspecting clients who don't know what to look for.
>Just in the bay area disabled community I've seen disabled organizations
>make poor choices of web developers because they didn't know what
>questions to ask.
>
>Scott
>
>PS  Just to add another thought.  In the current business structure,
>do users in general have the right to make final decisions on
>products or services?
>
>> Scott,
>> 
>> I still feel that you and I are comparing apples to oranges.  You seem
>> to be inferring that the user as the final arbitor means that the user
>> is defining the guidelines.  In the ideal world, the only way the user
>> could make mistakes as the final arbitor is if he or she chose an
>> option from an expert that was faulty.  As I see it, the user as the
>> final arbitor is quite a bit different than accepting input from
>> non-technical users as the only input, which is not at all what I am
>> advocating.  
>> 
>> Further, I readily admit that this whole process is never a completely
>> ideal one.  Some decisions are made by business needs and sometimes
>> neither experts or users play a very active role.  Sometimes this
>> approach works well and sometimes not.  There are certainly flaws in
>> the doctor patient parallel, and I stated that in my original note. 
>> However, it was one example and there are many others where the experts
>> define the options and are involved with the consumer in making the
>> final decision.
>> 
>> You asked a fair question as to how I think the final decisions should
>> be made.  It is not necessary, in my opinion, to develop a hard and
>> fast set of guidelines.  I believe the answer is for experts to develop
>> a relationship with users that is based on trust and respect.  This is
>> where the doctor patient analogy is accurate.  I don't need to
>> understand everything that an expert understands if I have respect for,
>> and at least some trust in, that expert.  On the other hand, I believe
>> it is obvious that we, as users or consumers, need to seek information
>> to make choices, and to recognize where are strengths and weaknesses
>> lie.  We're not always going to do a perfect job of this, but experts
>> don't always draw perfect conclusions, either.  We live in an imperfect
>> world, and if the fact that we make mistakes is grounds for
>> disqualification, then we're all going to be disqualified, users and
>> experts alike.  Experts will make fewer mistakes as a result of
>> listening to the views of consumers, even when those views may be
>> uninformed, by decreasing the chance that their conclusion is affected
>> by factors outside their area of expertise.  Users or consumers will
>> make fewer mistakes in supporting a given recommendation if we have
>> been able to use information from experts to increase our understanding
>> and if we rely on experts who have a good track record thereby earning
>> our trust and respect.  That doesn't seem to me to be a great deal to
>> ask.
>