Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!csa3.lbl.gov!jtchew
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: rules of thumb
Summary: God is in the details (but so is Satan)
Message-ID: <14695@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 29 Jun 91 16:30:29 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.092540@axion.bt.co.uk> <1991Jun26.132555.18427@potomac.ads.com>
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Lines: 21
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
X-Local-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 08:42:03 PDT

>I have found that starting at a VERY macro view and considering where the
>system-to-be-developed fits in has been quite helpful.  

Bingo.  At the risk of incurring the wrath of Dr. J.  vis-a-vis
the purpose of this group :) I'd like to endorse a broad definition of
user friendliness.  It includes everything from the picky details of
command wording and mouse dynamics up to the level of product definition.
The most treasured compliment anybody ever paid me during my human-
factors dabbling was "you have a good systems head," meaning a feel
for process flow, feature sets, and user scenarios.

You DO have to get down to those picky details, though (regardless of
whether or not they are appropriate for discussion here).  A product
is no friendlier than the sum of its petty aggravations.

For somebody whose role is "user advocate,"  I'd even go so far as to
include robustness and freedom from bugs, although that is getting more
into ethics and corporate politics than human factors.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"