Re: How to demonstrate how well disabled people understand

[Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>]

Hi, Steve

OK.  Wasn't quite sure how you were using "arbitor".  One question is
whether a user can sort the options into an order. Probably varies
depending on the nature of the application, etc.

With regards to user input, you are correct that that you haven't made a
statement "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".  However,
other people within the disabled community have made statements about
valuing disabled experience over computer experience.  I do understand
for some members of the disabled community it is a knee jerk reaction.
However, I find it an annoying one and one which I hope will die out
with time.

One of my interests is trying raise the understanding of interface
issues.  My belief is that the more that people are aware of interface
issues, the better they can be in conveying to developers, etc, what
they need.  I believe that people can develop in this area though many
are resistant to putting in the effort needed to learn the issuues.  I
feel that while only a few users have a good grasp of the issues, users
need to be careful in the roles they are participating in.

One problem with developers is that most aren't HCI people.  (Some have
been known to look at users as those "viruses" on the other side of the
display screen.)  HCI people need to talk two languages, the developers'
and the psychologists'.  Developers often haven't developed user
empathy.  A strategy I have sometimes found useful is to tell a company
what to look for and then have them see if they find the same thing.

Some of what you might sense is frustration with users who are insistant
that they understand the issues.  It kind of doubles the work.  First,
the HCI person has to put the effort into doing the analysis.  Then the
HCI person has to put in the additional work of educating the user about
the problems that their choices are either overlooking or creating.  In
addition, the HCI person has to deal with developers who believe they
know everything they need to know about computer users.  A common view
of some developers is that there will be no problem as soon as the users
are fixed (rather than their software) to work the ways that users are
expected to work.  It's just a lot of work on the part of an HCI person.
He/she kind of gets resistance on both sides.

I believe the search for talented people can be hindered when there is a
lack of understanding about what should be looked for.  In the case of
searching for a talented HCI person, it is quite often true that neither
the users nor the developers (nor management) know what to look for in a
good HCI person.

Scott

PS  The natural versus synthetic speech was not related to voting machines,
but another project.  In this case, I had my opinion, but didn't express
it since I thought the blind users would know their preferences better.

> 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.