InformationWeek
Defining The Business Value Of Technology
September 6, 1999
Design Lucid Software With The User In Mind
By Charles Kreitzberg
In the past, software quality was equated with freedom from defects. The mantra for software quality assurance was "if it doesn't crash, it's OK." But in today's consumer-oriented Internet world, quality is more demanding. Software that's confusing, difficult to learn and use, inefficient to operate, or doesn't meet users' expectations is not high quality no matter how bug-free the code. Because of a thoughtless address-matching algorithm, I recently spent two days and eight phone calls completing what should have been a simple Internet purchase. I doubt I'll use that vendor again.
Perhaps one of the most telling aspects of our lack of attention to software usability is that we don't have a term to describe software that is well-designed from an interaction perspective. To meet this need, I've adopted the term "lucid software." The word lucid means clear and comprehensible--and that's exactly what quality software needs to be.
That's a lesson the industry has been slow to learn, and it's a time bomb. Bruce Gray, VP for business systems planning and measurement at Prudential Insurance Co. of America, says companies that ignore it are at serious risk. "Five years from now," Gray says, "companies that fail to design software that works for users may find themselves out of business."
Companies that are serious about creating lucid software must take three steps:
This includes careful study of how users work, early prototyping of the user interface, and design quality assurance through usability testing.
Most software design methodologies used today focus more on technical engineering than on interaction design. These methodologies need to be expanded to focus more on the user. A number of my colleagues and I have created a framework for lucid design that is intended to be integrated into more traditional software engineering methodologies.
Six Steps To Success
Because parts of this process sound like elements of engineering-oriented software development life cycles, there is a tendency for developers to believe they are performing the required tasks. Experience has shown that the words may sound the same, but the result is very different.
The Lucid Framework is gaining acceptance among organizations and has been integrated into the curriculum at the University of Maryland and Virginia Tech. Copies are available for download at www.cognetics.com/lucid. There is also an ISO standard (ISO 13407: Human-centered design process for interactive systems) that's gaining popularity in Europe.
All too often, software development is a chaotic process. Programmers, struggling with technology and deadlines, have little mind space for the niceties of interaction design. And that's too bad, because poor design wastes money and erodes business strategy and competitive advantage.
Charles Kreitzberg is president of Cognetics Corp., an interaction-design company in Princeton Junction, N.J. He can be reached at charlie@cognetics.com.
Illustration by Dennis Harms
e claim we care about productivity, but the software we build doesn't show it. Despite 50 years of development strategy, software is still hard to learn, cumbersome to use, and far too inflexible. To realize the payback on the huge investment in technology, we must learn how to combine technical engineering with user-centered design processes.
To inspire lucid software, we have devised the Lucid Framework. Based on accepted best practices, it's a six-step process built around the following elements:
Return to main story, "New Mantra: Usability"
Back to This Week's Issue
