This topic is near and dear to my heart and I find myself heavily invested in it, as it touches on my belief that technology should serve people and not the other way around.  I have been in contact with my local Conservative MP, Russ Hiebert, to express my concerns numerous times over the past few years (bill C-11 was originally known as bill C-32 years ago).  I find it disconcerting that politicians are making these decisions while ignoring input from specific parties or groups.  These parties vary from people involved in growing Canada’s technological prowess to pretty much every other political party in Canada.

I urge anyone concerned about copyright, digital locks, or content creation and protection in Canada to at least visit Michael Geist’s excellent blog on these matters.  If your hackles rise when you hear the details about how this legislation is going to be passed then please speak up to your MP as soon as possible.

Two months ago (yes 2 MONTHS) I wrote Mr Hiebert an email trying to frame my concerns in a way that any parent today could understand.  For those interested here is the conversation, including his response received today in the mail, and my latest email back to him.

March 16th, 2012 I wrote:

Dear Mr. Hiebert,

I hope I am not too late to voice my concerns about bill C-11.

I was heartened to hear that the review committee removed some of the more unwarranted restrictions contained in the bill.  However I am very concerned about the digital locks provisions contained in the bill.

Even though the part of the bill about digital locks is relatively small, the effect of the provision is huge – basically rendering any of the rights granted to consumers and artists as null and void should the producer choose to apply a digital lock.

The impact of this is not esoteric.  Here is an easy example you may be able to relate to as you have young children.  I often make copies of DVDs I purchase so that when they are inevitably scratched, broken, or chewed on by my children (who I love dearly), then I can simply make another copy and not invest in replacing the item.  Bill C-11 would make this illegal.  Practically speaking all DVDs have a digital lock applied to them, and making a copy of it requires “breaking” the digital lock.  In fact since I have chosen a non-Windows/Mac operating system I would be unable to play the DVDs legally, as the producers do not support Linux OS.

Let me state that again – I would not be able to play DVDs in my home legally due to the digital locks provision.  Imagine if your family suddenly was unable to watch DVDs legally.

I understand that this provision is contentious and I would like to reiterate that I do not, in any way, support bill C-11 with the digital lock provisions.  The entire bill is rendered pointless by its inclusion.

I strongly doubt that any of your constituents would support the bill if they knew the impact it would have on their everyday lives.  Consumers in general are largely unaware of DRM/digital locks and how they negatively impact their consuming experiences.  Over time this may change but this bill is coming into effect much sooner than a general education effort could support.

Please take a moment to think about this from a consumer’s point of view and not the business’s – Canadians deserve better than bill C-11.

I hope you give this some thought, poll your voters, and go back to your political party and suggest that they listen to the people they have been charged to represent, rather than corporate interests.

Sincerely,

Kirk Bridger

May 17th I received his reply, typed up and sent via mail.  I had invited him to reply via email but his office said he would reply in writing.  OK fine, it’s not my money they’re wasting …. oh wait.  Here’s a scan of his letter.

I sent my reply to him on May 17.  It is lengthy but if I only get to talk to him 6 times a year then I figure I get to say as much as I want to.

Dear Mr. Hiebert,

Thank you for your letter dated May 3, 2012, in reply to my email.

In it you state that “Consumers can choose to purchase products with digital locks or not.”

Frankly I believe this is false today and that passing bill C-11 will not accomplish this goal.

First it presumes a level of knowledge that is not present in today’s consumer base.  You are attempting to empower the consumer but you are not giving them the tools to help themselves and as a result they will be left to sink or swim in shark-infested waters – hardly a supportive approach to your constituents and to Canadians in general.

What kind of tools am I referring to?

The average consumer does not know what a “digital lock” is.  Nor are the content producers currently identifying in a meaningful way products that use a digital lock.  And to top it off, there are some products that are not available without a digital lock.

If you are going to take the stance that you want to empower the consumer then a few things need to be true:

1 – producers need to provide consumers with understandable information about the digital locks they opt to use and what products are locked with them
2 – non-locked versions of products need to be made available, possibly mandated in some cases

#2 is important to ensure that those consumer who wish to avoid digital locks are able to do so without sacrificing other aspects of their lives.  It is wrong to create a class of consumers that are unable to participate in any market they wish simply because they do not want to support producers using digital locks.  This is the opposite of empowering consumers.

This is not an abstract concept, but it is a complex one because digital locks are so poorly understood today.  If this bill passes then any Canadian not wanting to support digital locks will be unable to purchase and watch DVDs.  They will not be able to purchase mainstream music online.  How is this empowering the consumer?

Your statement that the consumer can simply opt to not purchase products with digital locks misses the fact that digital locks are a key part of much of technology today.  A consumer not supporting digital locks is one who cannot participate in key consumer markets.  They are put at a disadvantage by their choice, and they become second-class citizens.  Producers have no interest in supporting locked as well as unlocked content, and there is no business reason to support consumers who don’t fall in line with digital locks.  Relying on businesses to do what’s right, to support a market they see no value in, is a naive and unrealistic way to see business entities.

If your government wants to empower Canadians, to create a level playing field where we are allowed to make informed decisions about our consumption, where we can support producers who opt out of using digital locks, then you will not pass this bill in its current form.  The escape clause that puts the digital lock as the epicentre of power does not create a level field.  It will allow producers to continue to force consumers into digital locks against their will as technology becomes vital to participating in the Canadian economy and living a lifestyle on par with the average Canadian.

I agree with you that producers have a right to “protect their right to make a living”, but I disagree that this right overrides that of Canadians to participate in a free and open economy.

If you believe that digital locks are required to protect software and products I suggest you look into the Open Source software development movement. You will find many companies developing and creating software and giving it away for free – and making a profit doing so.  Developers, testers, designers, etc all make a living creating a product that is given away, all without digital locks.  The product itself is not the primary driver for business.  The knowledge of the people involved are the true valuable assets.

This requires a change in thinking from the current model where the product created is the property of a business entity and anyone else wanting to contribute to it or use it must do so at a price.  It requires innovative corporate vision and direction.  It requires that businesses take a hard look at their business model and think carefully about how they can innovate and grow in this increasingly technical and open economy.

This legislation does not support this direction.  Instead it supports an old-fashioned and out-dated model of thinking, and passing it will not move Canada forward into the digital age.  Rather it will set us up to play catch-up all while fighting internally about legal rights, digital locks, and copyright in the court system.

Is the challenge before us entirely put at the feet of the consumer, or should the producer also own some of the responsibility to find a solution?  A digital lock is not a solution, it is a mechanism that will be used to avoid finding a solution to new problems.  It allows the producer to avoid challenging its thinking, to avoid evolving with technology.  It removes Canadian’s rights in order to allow the producers this luxury.  I believe there is a better answer than that.

I will sum this up with a simple challenge.  If you believe that “consumers can choose to purchase products with digital locks or not” I would ask you to show me where I can buy a DVD that does not have a digital lock on it.  Show me how this bill empowers Canadians to make informed decisions.

In the future I invite you to communicate via email.  Thankfully there are no digital locks on email technology so I can still use that technology as much as I wish. 

Sincerely,

Kirk Bridger

P.S. If you are unaware of Professor Michael Geist I would recommend reading his take on the bill and the choices your government is making – particularly towards proposed amendments from non-Conservative political parties.  He tends to present a very balanced and reasonable analysis of the state of things.  http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

Before settling on this service I did a little research on a number of free conference hosting services.  I ended up giving this service a real go and am completely thrilled with their service.  I’m not being paid for this endorsement, it comes from a genuine desire to share the benefits of this service with others who are looking.  So let’s get to the nitty gritty:

Benefits

• High call quality.  I have spent tens of hours on the service and have not once heard audio problems beyond those of the people calling in (e.g. mobile phone noise).  They claim it is high quality and I have to agree.
• Enterprise grade feature set.  Call recording, call hold, caller hold, broadcast mode, call playback number, Q&A queue, caller kicking, configurable entry/exit tones, host vs participant numbers, up to 1,000 callers, up to 6 hours of talk-time … I’m not sure there’s a feature that is lacking – certainly none that I need.
• Web management interface.  They offer a web interface where you can monitor who is connecting, place people on hold, initiate call recording, replay recorded calls, review call history, place call in broadcast mode … and more.  It is a very nice feature to be able to see the number of someone who joins instead of asking “Who just joined?”  Discussing senstivie topics?  Don’t guess who is on the line.
• International callers.  Some other services block Canadian numbers from calling in.  Why the hatin’ on the ‘Nucks?!  I’ve had people call in from Canada and the US without a hitch.
• Call reports.  After each call I get an email that lists out the participants and how long they were connected.  A nice memento of the call … kind of like a roll call without having to do it throughout the call.
• Price.  I can’t argue with free.
• Support.  I had some initial questions about the service and connected with their support team.  I was impressed with how quickly they connected with me and talked me through my questions.  I was seamlessly escalated to a technical support person once my questions became overly technical in nature.  The emails were timely, and the support rep followed up once things went quiet for too long.  Simply put, a great customer support experience.
• Free Skype calling to the conference number.  I put this one last because it really is the clincher for me.  Each conference number has an associated Skype contact created.  This allows me to add this “contact” and simply start a Skype voice call with it, and that will act as my dial in to the call.  This doesn’t use Skype credits or anything, this is the free Skype calling feature.  So I can call into my conference line from anywhere with Skype installed for free, no long distance.  Since I tend to live in Skype for team communication this feature is simply awesome.

Detractors

• Web console uses Flash.  Boo Flash!  The (optional) web console requires the use of Flash in the web browser.  Bleh.  Please make the Flash pain stop – I’m ready for the HTML5 revolution!
• Proprietary product.  Imagine how cool it would be if this was a project that released its source code, or revealed the products they’re using underneath the Flash veneer?  Imagine how cool it would be if they opened up the service to allow user-created plugins?  This is all bits and bytes going on here and the Skype integration is a great first step – opening up the project to community contributions might accelerate the rate of feature development/data mashups.

Yes, those really are the only negatives I’ve found after a few months of use.

I am giving this service a strong recommendation to anyone looking for high quality, feature-rich conference call services – free or otherwise.

So back to the UI Golden Rules – there is no shortage of rules out there that have been concocted and created through a combination of common sense, user studies, and solid media persuasion.  I say persuasion because there are no real “UX Golden Rules” that everyone agrees on – design is too subjective for that.  I would argue that there are Golden Rules around best practices for gathering information and analysing it, but when it comes to actual design, the rules tend to be more about who has the loudest and most-listened-to voice at the moment.  What’s this all mean?  It means most designers tend to form their own Golden Rules and work from those.  Myself I tend to model my thinking along the lines of Ben Shneiderman‘s 8 Golden Rules.  But this post is about breaking rules for the betterment of design – let me tell you a story.

I was recently booking a rental car for travel.  I checked the Googles for local rental car shops and visited their websites to check out prices.  Now, White Rock is not a terribly large city so I only ended up looking at two websites.  During the research into car availability and pricing I encountered an example where one site followed the Golden Rule of Consistency, and the other one broke it.  And frankly the site that broke it was easier to use.

Go ahead, see which you find easier – try to specify a pickup time of 12 noon (don’t get me started on if noon is 12am or 12pm, because both are wrong)

Site 1

Site 1 focuses on using consistency by ensuring that all the time entries are uniform in appearance and format.  This is to allow quick scanning since you can mentally ignore some parts of the data, and jump around from top to bottom without worrying that the data is ordered differently.  The challenge with this design is that it is not easy to pick out any particular time – like noon.  I performed a kind of binary search by starting at the top time, skipping 3/4 of the way down and reading that time, then skipping half way back up, and then reading carefully to find the 12:00 PM entry.  This was a little slow because I had to scan over 12:30 and 11:30 to find 12:00.  Doing so allowed to me confirm that this was noon, and not midnight, since the previous timeslot is 11:30AM – but this might just be me with my overly-sensitive take on if noon is AM, PM, or neither.

So this dropdown used consistency to allow me to skip around to find a particular time, but once I started to narrow in on the particular data the consistency actually became an impedance as I then was forced to read each entry carefully to find the exact time I was looking for.

Site 2

Site 2 uses the same dropdown with one important difference: it spells out “noon” instead of 12:00.  This lack of consistency makes noon really stick out when scanning the times.  This makes it almost instant to find noon.  In fact it also would help if I were looking for other times as “noon” becomes a quick divider of the data – either the morning or the afternoon.  In this case then the consistency is broken but with greater usability being the result.

One could argue that this is an artefact of my specific use case – looking for the noon time.  That’s very true.  But it appears that this might be a fairly common use case, as one site has broken the rule of consistency to spell it out, making it quick to identify.  So the site has possibly optimized this dropdown for people finding noon.  I can’t imagine Budget customers pick up at noon more often than Avis customers (or vice versa), so without knowing more I suspect that my use case is a fairly common one, which means optimizing for it makes sense.

There is no single set of design rules that everyone should follow in UI design.  Site 1 used consistency to some success, but it served me less well when I started to actually read the data.  Site 2 mildly broke the rule for greater usability.  I still believe that having these basic tenets or Golden Rules in my design toolbelt results in greater usability for the designs I make.  However they are just tools, and ones that can be left in the toolbelt to great success.  The ultimate Golden Rule remains “test, test, test with real users, users, users.”

So how did it go?  Well, the short version is “not well”.  The longer version is worth a read if you want some insight into how ridiculous this whole thing is.

I budgeted 2 hours for the Visa application process.  I called the border agents a couple of days ahead of time to make sure I knew how to actually apply for the TN Visa, where to go, who to speak to, that kind of thing.  Basically you need to state you are applying for a Visa at the car kiosk and they send you inside to secondary inspection.  I pulled up to the kiosk around 12:15.  The agent seemed slightly taken aback when I stated I wanted to apply for a Visa.  He simply filled out the little orange ticket, slapped it on my windshield, and referred me inside.  So far so good.

Once inside I waited 5 or 10 minutes in line – the Nexus line is a separate line that the agents seem to call people from randomly.  My timing seemed good as the agent from the car kiosk came inside and called me over, apparently shifting to his desk job for a little while.  We went through the questions and I explained the various documents I had with me.  He set aside some of them as irrelevant and not necessary.  He then asked for my application.  I was a little stumped – nobody had mentioned an application form before.  Some references I had read hinted at it and I had searched online for any kind of form I could fill out ahead of time.  The only thing I could find was the full Visa application process that is done via an online tool that takes weeks to process.  Nobody had even hinted at using that kind of a system for a TN Visa so I had assumed I could fill out the application form once I arrived.  The agent clarified that there was no application form – just an application from me for the Visa stating why I thought I qualified.  I suggested that the letter of employment and my contract covered that information – what further information was required?  He shrugged and asked if all the documents I wanted to submit for my application were in his hands.  I said yes, to which he then said he had a little project for me to do while he copied all the documents.  He gave me 2 pieces of plain white paper and a pen, and asked me to write down why I needed to apply for a TN Visa, including what I would be doing while in the US.  He sent me to the bench where I started writing.  I consider this as a gesture of good will – seriously I do.

Basically I wrote what had already been covered in the letter of employment, but expanded on the fact that the contract and letter referenced all the tasks I might do for the company, not necessarily what I was going to do today.  I then described exactly what I was going to be doing in the US for this trip – business meetings, user observation, discussions with customers, that kind of thing.

20 minutes later he called me over and read over my letter.  He asked me to write in even greater detail what exactly I would be doing in the US, as in what would I be doing when I sat in a chair at the hospital.  I write down that I would observe users, talk with them about their challenges using the product, gather information, and then leave the country.  All further analysis, documentation, and work would be done from my home office in Canada.

He read it over and asked me to sit down again.  OK, the bench was barely cold from my last sitting session, and I was starting to feel at home in these offices.  It was my 5th time in 3 months I think – as I now have been marked as high risk and am shuttled into secondary inspection even if I’m going across the border to buy milk.

The agent returned some 10 minutes later or so and motioned me over.  He wanted more information on what exactly I would be doing during these meetings.  I described for him in great detail the kind of things I would be looking at, watching for, and discussing with users.  He nodded, paused a moment, and stated that I didn’t need a TN visa to do what I had described.

Deer in the headlights moment for me – I hadn’t seen that one coming.  I explained that in December I was under the same impression but that an agent felt otherwise, and hence the start of this long, sordid, and unwelcome story.  I was told quite clearly that I needed a TN Visa then.  He shrugged and said he wasn’t sure what happened in December, but if all I was doing was as I had described today, then I didn’t need a TN Visa.  He said he had to go back outside but that another office would be with me in 2 or 3 minutes to wrap things up.  It was now 1:30 and I was starting to feel a little hopeful I might make my 5pm meeting in Seattle.

I was left to my own thoughts for a little while.  OK, it was longer than that – I was called at around 2:15 by another officer.  He called me down to the end of the desks.  When I arrived he violently twisted his monitor around so I could see the screen.  ”What am I looking at?” I wondered. He slipped on his thick leather gloves and walked around to my side of the desk, throwing the mouse around the monitor with a loud bang.  He held my fingers to the finger print scanner one by one which felt strange as I had watched at least 30 other parties do this without the leather gloves and helping hands of an agent.  Once I was finger printed again (they took my prints in Dec), he twisted the monitor back to his side of the desk, walked around, looked me in the eye and said “You are being denied the TN Visa.”  He handed me my papers and asked if anything was missing.  Yes, my Nexus card was missing.  He walked off to find the card, radio crackling.

Denied?  Uh, another deer in the headlights moment.  When he returned I engaged in a bit of discussion, trying to understand what documentation I was missing now that I should have known about.  The agent clarified that he did not know anything about my case or documents, that he was just the one asked to tell me that my application was denied.  I expressed surprise as the other agent had said I didn’t actually need a TN Visa.  This agent said that I had come into the office applying for a TN Visa, and that my application was being denied.  I asked the obvious question … was I being denied because I didn’t need one?  He sighed a little bit and sat down, suddenly becoming a little nicer.  He started to ask me the same questions and I explained what exactly I was going to be doing in Seattle.  To that he said that I did not need a TN Visa to do those activities.  All I needed was a B1 Visa.  They’re meant for professionals who are going to the States for business meetings.  Why was I applying for a TN?  I explained the background again and he shrugged, saying all he knew was that I was being denied the TN.

OK, time to think about how to move forward – I asked him if I could just line back up and apply for a B1 Visa.  He frowned a little, and went to speak with someone else.  When he returned he said that his supervisor had said that I would not qualify for a TN Visa as a Computer Systems Analyst, but that perhaps I should consider applying as a Management Consultant.  I clarified that I don’t actually manage anyone, and that I was unfamiliar with that profession’s qualifications.  ”I guess you have some reading to do then, don’t you.”  Sure I do.  But not qualifying as a Computer Systems Analyst? That floored me.  I probed about the B1 – could I just line up and apply for a B1?  He said that his supervisor had made it clear that if I wanted to apply for a B1 I would need to have some concrete documentation detailing what I would be doing during the meetings, probably from the company itself, so that they could ensure that I wasn’t a Management Consultant trying to sneak in under a B1.  The best suggestion he could offer was to seek legal counsel, or try for a B1 with more documentation (if it exists).

It was 2:30 and I was escorted back outside and got to drive up a really fancy ramp, leaving secondary inspection.  All I received was a white form that stated I had been denied in my application.  Sadly the large white box labelled “Reason for Denial” or some-such was left blank.  Not really helpful.  I headed home through Nexus into Canada, where the Nexus agent asked to give her the form, leaving me with nothing.  Well, not anything physical.  I know my record at the border is growing quite robustly, so that’s something right?

The idea that I don’t qualify as a Computer Systems Analyst is, frankly, mind boggling.  Here’s a description of what that profession does, taken from the NAFTA Handbook:

The legacy INS Manual for NAFTA applications defines a systems analyst as an information specialist who analyzes how data processing can be applied to the specific needs of users and who designs and implements computer-based processing systems. NAFTA Handbook (November 1999). A computer systems analyst studies an organization or business to identify its information needs and designs computer systems to meet those needs.

Thhhaaaattt’s pretty much verbatim what I stated I would be doing in Seattle.

So what’s the moral of this story?  I don’t know right now.  I can appreciate that they want to protect US jobs, but this is really beginning to feel like something is wrong – maybe they need a “Management Consultant” to come in and look at their processes and try to improve them.  In the meantime I may now have shown up on a national terrorist list what with all the denied entrances into the US.  Sure they’re our neighbours, but sometimes they don’t act very neighbourly.

As a Canadian I was concerned about taking on US-based consulting customers as I wasn’t clear on what that meant from a Visa standpoint.  So I researched the heck out of this, including looking at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency, and the US Visa Service websites.  I spoke with an expert cross-border accountant to ensure I understood the tax situation too.  I thought I had my bases covered.

Earlier this month I collected my documents together as I was travelling into the US for business and wanted to make sure I wouldn’t have any problems at the airport.  I ensured I had a copy of my contract as I knew from experience that if they get really picky then being able to review the contract itself was very helpful.  I knew I was going to be crossing under the NAFTA agreement and I felt I had everything I needed.

You know those moments in your life when a small decision results in a schism in your life?  I had one of those moments when I walked up to the front of the CBA security line.  Two kiosks emptied out at the same time, and both agents called me over.  I decided to go right and thanked the agent on the left.  I wonder what would have happened in I had gone left ….

The CBA agent felt that since I would be earning money in the US I needed a Visa, which meant I needed to go into secondary containment.  No problem, I’ve had this happen before and came out the other side.  I had planned ahead and had over 1.5 hours before my flight was due to leave, so I wasn’t too concerned.  After waiting for 15 or 20 minutes I was called into the interview room and told that I did not have a Visa so I would not be entering the US today.  I was, to put it plainly, floored.  I explained that I was going to do a meet and greet and not actually do productive work.  “Doesn’t matter,” he said, “If a US company is paying you and a US company is benefiting from your activities, you need a Visa.”  OK, can we proceed with getting the Visa then, here is my contract showing the terms of my employment, just like the online resources explained.  “No good,” he said, “it is not on official company letterhead.”

I’m sorry?  What?

“Yeah, it has the same information but it has to be phrased as a request addressed to the CBA, and has to be on official company letterhead.”

The CBA agent carefully explained that I needed to call and make an appointment ahead of time, to pay the application fee, and to bring along all the documents including the letterhead one so I could properly apply for a Visa.

Well you can’t really argue your way into a foreign country so I took careful notes of what was expected according to him.  I then spent 1.5 hours being questioned about the details of my life, my family, and my desire to enter the country; was digitally fingerprinted; and finally escorted by armed guard outside the airport’s secure area.  Good day!

I have since called the appropriate people for clarification because the websites say things like

When a citizen of Canada requests to be a TN with an application for admission, the applicant must present a letter or similar statement signed by the employer indicating the position, salary, employment location, and requested length of employment. (CBP Website)

See that “similar statement” part there?  Yeah, ignore that – simply not reliable.

So the Consular office cleared things up for me.  They said that if I were to go through the application process as suggested by the CBA agent, here is how it would go:

1. Pay $140 application fee
2. Attend office for appointment
3. Wait in waiting room with all the other applicants
4. Periodically someone will come out and ask all Canadians to raise their hands
5. Everyone raising their hands would be sent home – they don’t give Visas to Canadians.  Stop wasting their time.

This made sense and jived with statements on their website like:

Canadian citizens usually do not need a visa as a NAFTA Professional.

So where does this leave me?  Simple – I need to bring all these documents with me (letter of employment on original letterhead with authentic signature, my contract, my university degree (not a copy, the original), etc) and present myself at the airport CBA again, on the day of travel, requesting to be granted access with a TN Visa.  I will then go through the evaluation and the CBA agent will decide if I receive a Visa or not.  There is no guarantee, nor is there anything I can do ahead of time (beyond gathering these documents) to help my chances of getting in.

So the moral of the story?  Speaking with someone on the phone is still a better way to understand Visa requirements than reading their FAQs, online resources, and all that other junk.

Another moral (can a story have two morals?!?): Sometimes one person’s bad day can spill over into your own – don’t soak up that negative energy!  A setback is only as influential as you make it.

Take for example this job posted on craigslist for a “User Experience Business Analyst“.  I actually came across this job opportunity through another avenue, though that avenue did not let me know that Fujitsu was involved, nor that the domain was related to transit.  It is not that rare to come across relatively secretive postings on one site only to be able to find additional details about the job on another site.  Sometimes the parallels are relatively obvious like specific position names or the wording of the position’s responsibilities. Other times the positions just “feel” the same. You develop a sense for these things after a while, I suspect.

This position sounds right up my alley – UX is a key component of business analysis. It is nice to see the overt combination of responsibilities in a single role. So how is this an example of a “flag” posting? What about it makes me say “Meh, too bad”, and move on?  Let me quote the posting … there’s something important right down there at the bottom.

Please address all email inquiries in .doc or .docx (WORD) format…

If your company only accepts applications that require the use of proprietary and expensive software, that in the end does not assure me that my resume, cover letter, and portfolio will look exactly the same on your monitor as it does on mine … well … that actually speaks deeply to a corporate culture that I am not interested in participating in.

Too bad, it looked like an interesting contract ….

• Word Smart (verbal linguistic) – capacity to use words effectively in speaking and writing
• Number Smart (logical-mathematical) – capability to use numbers effectively and reason well
• Picture Smart (spatial) – thinking in pictures and images and the ability to perceive, transform and recreate different aspects of the visual-spatial world
• Body Smart (bodily-kinesthetic) – expertise in controlling one’s body movements and handling objects skillfully
• Music Smart (musical) – capacity to perceive, appreciate and produce rhythms and melodies
• People Smart (interpersonal) – ability to understand and work with other people
• Self Smart (intrapersonal) – self-knowledge and the ability to use that self-understanding to enrich and guide one’s life
• Nature Smart (naturalist) – sensitivity to and understanding of the natural world

There have been additional areas proposed since Howard Gardner, Harvard psychologist, developed this theory of “multiple intelligences” almost 30 years ago. They include spirituality, humour, and creativity. The theory has not been well received and has not been clinically proven to be true.

So why am I writing about it? Well, I think it is an interesting take on intelligence and emphasizes the need to accommodate different ways of learning. And this naturally leads me to discuss learnability – see how I did that? It really does make sense in the end!

A key element of a usable and intuitively-used software product is that it is easily learnable by its target users. Often the target users are roughly defined as generalized roles and other times they are more thoroughly defined via archetypes or personas. Oftentimes a persona will include some description of the persona’s level of comfort and familiarity with technology and computers, to try to outline for the project team just how learnable the product has to be. If the target user is an advanced computer user who likes keyboard shortcuts then the team should design it differently than if the target user is a novice user who is uncomfortable with technology overall.

This is where the multiple intelligences comes in, or more accurately the multiple means of learning. When designing a product to be extremely learnable and easy to use, are we falsely assuming a particular kind of intelligence is used by the user? Are we, for example, assuming that all novice users learn in a manner consistent with a person with a high “word smart” intelligence? Are we imagining that clear, concise, and plain words in the instructions will help the user learn how to use the interface? I’m sure anyone familiar with user testing can relate a story or two where the user simply refused to look at the text on the screen when trying to figure out how to accomplish their task. Are these people then simply not highly “word smart”? Another example may be that we assume that including large pictures and diagrams in the interface will help the user learn how best to get their work done. We’ve all seen those “Quick Start” guides that come with new electronic products nowadays – are they a panacea or are they simply catering to people with a high degree of “picture smarts”?

Another question: are there areas of intelligence that we are ignoring, and if so what would that mean? Would it mean that no matter how pretty our design and how clear our words, some users just won’t understand how to use the system because they learn by doing (i.e. high body smarts)?  Should we look at self-guided tutorials then?

It might be interesting to look through the areas of intelligence and try to look at the product’s design from that point of view, to see if it is learnable from numerous points of view.

It might also be interesting to incorporate and expand on this idea when defining personas or users. For example we could focus more on mental models than on comfort levels with technology in order to capture learnability requirements. What if we began creating new types of intelligences that were specific to our product or software development – is there value in that? For example:

• Exploration Smart (curiosity) – eager to explore new ideas without fear of failure
• Domain Smart (subject matter expert) – very knowledgeable about the domain
• Interconnection Smart (integration) – easily grasps how things fit and work together to accomplish a greater goal

In the end this post is about looking at how we measure, design for, and evaluate learnability in our products. I suspect many would agree that a single approach does not seem to be robust enough to rely on 100% of the time. Perhaps there are new ways of looking at learnability and capturing this knowledge in our user definitions. Or perhaps Howard Gardner was a nut and this whole idea is out to lunch. If that’s the case then we should fall back on the universally-accepted theory of learning styles. Oh wait, that article alone lists at least 5 “models” – I don’t think people have figured this stuff out yet. So no harm in trying it out to see how it works – right?  I guess I would be highly “Exploration Smart”.

Last month I came across a cautionary tale related to consistency. If you create one way of doing something, there is a strong lure to re-use that way whenever possible. This reduces development costs and design costs – both good things to reduce when it makes sense. However this leads to times where your re-used design may be applied in places where it doesn’t quite fit. In fact it might even be applied in places that result in poor usability. This can be particularly true when you’re near the end of a project and “good enough” has become the best you can expect.

How do you avoid this? Ensure that your design is well tested by real users. It is an old refrain but it is a good one – test, test, and test again. If you find that design re-use is resulting in bad experiences, poor performance of the interface, or seems challenging to the user then you have some very strong arguments for updating the design. Without the testing you’re left with a bad feeling and perhaps some alternative designs that will be “looked at in the next release”.

Frankly the scam came on pretty hard and was fairly convincing.  I only have one computer running Windows in my house and it runs Windows 7 which I’m not terribly familiar with.  That sneaking doubt came into my mind as I listened to this fellow’s claims that it was infected.  In my first call I ended up sussing out the claim and found the faults that indicated that it was a scam.  I sent a message to a variety of places and the Peace Arch News contacted me and ran an article about my experiences.

Since then, I have been called a couple of times by the same scam artists.  This last time I decided to push back and see just what the deal was.  I also happened to record part of my conversation.  I spent some minutes with the initial call and then asked to be escalated to their manager.  That’s where the video picks up.

This scam is fairly insidious and convincing.  It also can be horribly damaging as you are giving them complete access and control to your computer.  I just wish there was a way to track these companies down to stop them permanently.

I’d like to take a closer look at these two options, and propose a few solutions for future project teams to consider.

Round 1 – Scope Wins
A product can almost never reach its full potential when it is first released, nor upon successive releases.  The truth of the matter is that people can envision the next cool or useful feature much quicker than anyone can code and test it.  In fact your competitors are most likely putting those cool features into their next version while you are trying to put out the latest version of software designed to hit feature parity in the market.  Not only does your product’s next version need the blinking lights and rounded corners – it needs to differentiate itself in the market.

So the idea of removing planned features, of putting out a product that actually offers less functionality than the competition is seemingly a hard one to get behind.  This is the wall that usability efforts often come up against.  Almost everyone agrees that having a usable and intuitive product is a good idea, if not a great idea.  However it is difficult to quantify the value of “usable” and “intuitive” for many UX teams.  The product is late, the existing customers are tired of waiting for enhancements, and the market seems to be moving too fast to keep up.  So naturally scope wins here – you want to put out a product with features, and no bugs (keeps those support costs down).  Best efforts will be done to incorporate usability efforts, but only when there’s time and resources available.

Round 2 – Usability Wins
People love great software. Today most computer users are drenched in software. They are inundated with new applications on a daily basis via appStores, product reviews, software suggestions from friends, and any number of online software repositories such as SourceForge and GitHub. So how do your users determine which software they will continue to use? There’s a strong hint in Apple’s AppStore – a random sampling of 5 applications is almost guaranteed to include 4 applications that claim to be “intuitive” or “simple”. The truth is that people aren’t looking for an application – they’re looking for a solution to their problem. And guess what? People want to solve problems, but they’re oftentimes not willing to work very hard at it. In other words, your software must be something the user will actually use. Call it intuitive, call it low barrier to entry, short learning curve – whatever. If your users aren’t enjoying using your software they will find ways to not use it – simple as that. And what do you call users that don’t use your software? That’s right – potential users a.k.a. “Back to Square 1″.

So where does usability come in here? In a general sense, usability helps to ensure that your users will find your software useful. If you aren’t running usability tests with neophyte users you’ve probably missing out on the fact that there’s a major problem with a part of your software that will result in the user getting frustrated and returning to other alternatives. If you’re not ensuring that the user’s goal is satisfied in the software then you can stuff as many features into it as you want but people still won’t use it. Features are important, but only if done right.

So Now What?
The two descriptions above paint a rather ominous picture. Don’t despair though – its not as bad as it seems. There are some things that can be done to avoid having to make the call between these two idea(l)s.

1. Bake in usability. When doing your project planning you need to figure out the scope of the project, the effort required to attain the milestones – all that good stuff.  It is extremely important that you also consult with a usability expert to find out how much effort is required from a usability standpoint to bring the project to a successful end.  Ensure that sufficient time is planned to allow for usability testing, design exploration, user consultations, survey – whatever is needed in your project.  Include that time in your project planning – they are vital project activities.
2. Take usability seriously – it is a skill. Don’t just assume that your Visual Designer will be providing a usable interface. Ensure that you get effort estimates and planning input from someone with both knowledge and skills in interaction design and usability.  This could very well be your Visual Designer, but don’t make the assumption that anyone working in the “UI” understands and applies usability and user-centered development best practices.
3. Incorporate usability into your requirements.  Requirements are a key part of software development.  They help guide the team towards the desired end point by describing the problem to be solved and how to solve it.  Should the requirements not also describe who is going to use the end product, in what setting, to achieve what goals?  ISO seems to think so.  Consider documenting interaction and usability-related requirements as part of your business and software requirements.
4. Leverage testing. Testing your software is an accepted and often required practice.  Leverage the fact that someone is going to be “touching” almost every part of your code while testing it.  Can you find users to help validate your software while also verifying it?  Sure it works as specified, but does it work as intended and as needed by actual users?  What is your release criteria for the end product?  Does it incorporate the idea of validating the end product?  Would your testing uncover a critical usability issue and can you hold up release until it is fixed?

But My Project Is Already Underway!

The ideas above are most helpful when planning a project, and fall somewhat short of helpful if you’re already enmeshed in the day-to-day grind of a project.  So is all lost for those projects that weren’t able to give some early thought to usability?  Not at all, but my advice gets a little less straight forward in these situations.  A few thoughts to consider:

1. What does success mean anyways? Look at what are the success criteria set forth by the key project stakeholders.  If the product were to come out with all its scoped-in features but fell flat in front of users as too complex or obtuse, would the project still be a success?  This is not a glib question – the answer will be yes for some of you.  There’s always release 2, as some say.  But often it can be possible to look back at those initial success criteria set out for the product and argue that some features could be moved to the next release in order to ensure that the first release is successful enough.  Hopefully successful enough to merit a second release.
2. Get some outside help. Don’t tell the UX union I said this, but I think it is SOMETIMES possible to bolt on usability, just a little bit.  That little bit is better than nothing and can often go a long way towards a better product.  Look into getting a limited engagement with a UX expert, perhaps just a simple heuristic evaluation could help.  Perhaps the team just needs some rough personas to help galvanize and focus their thinking about the user’s needs.  UX doesn’t have to be glitzy and involve fireworks – sometimes little bits help and the slush fund could be put to good use.
3. Involve UX in scope decisions. Your UX team should have the best grasp on what the user’s interaction needs are.  Your BAs (if a separate team) will know the user’s needs.  Together these two skillsets and knowledge bases should be used to help make the right scope decisions.  If a feature must be included UX may be able to figure out a quick and easy way to get it “good enough”.  It may not be the dreamt-of vision but it will get the job done, ensuring your users get their job done.  UX may also identify some features as being high risk in terms of design and usability.  Use this to help refine scope as you go.  Choose your risk rather than finding out once the product is released that you unknowingly gambled on uncertain design decisions.

Scope and usability are two competing ideas, but they are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both, given appropriate planning and determination.