PDA

View Full Version : Attempting to communicate with IT Project Analysts


Lazarus and the Gimp
24-02-2006, 19:00:03
A genuine e-mail I received today.



An Expert Review or a Heuristic Evaluation is a usability engineering method for finding the usability problems in a user interface design so that they can be attended to as part of an iterative design process. Heuristic Evaluation involves having a usability engineer examine the interface and judge its compliance with recognized usability principles


The bastard keeps sending me crap like that.

Immortal Wombat
24-02-2006, 19:17:18
usability engineer :lol:

Spartak@CPH
24-02-2006, 19:21:21
tell him to fuck off of you will rip his head off and puke down his gullet.

Lazarus and the Gimp
24-02-2006, 19:21:59
I think I replied with "Is that good?".

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-02-2006, 19:31:32
Send them this:

"A GIMP (General IMpact assessment Procedure) Review is a process of meta evaluation of sublevel reviews like Expert reviews or Heuristic Evaluations to establich whether the sublevel reviews achieve their respective targets of finding the usability problems in a user interface design and to evaluate the examinations by usability engineers concerning compliance with recognized usability principles. As part of the GIMP review, I ask you to comply with LAZ best practice and expect your respective DIY reports at a date yet to be set by me."

devilmunchkin
24-02-2006, 19:55:47
he needs to go back to college and take a basic english course

LoD
24-02-2006, 20:42:41
I actually understand that babble :eek:.

Translation: it is when a guy who knows the guidelines of good user interface design checks whether those guidelines are fullfiled by a selected part of the program/program concept.

By the way, neither Heuristic Evaluation nor Expert Review are correct names for this. The guy needs to get back to college for more than an English course...

Dyl Ulenspiegel
24-02-2006, 21:01:35
I also understood it as a sort of compliancy check, so Expert Review may be ok, but "Heuristic Evaluation" is a bit bullshitting....

Venom
24-02-2006, 21:22:32
Recognized usability principles developed by big nerds and dorks who have no idea how to really use something.

Darkstar
24-02-2006, 22:09:10
I blame Management. They want labels for everything and they want stuff to sound good and all "buzz wordy".

Sounds like he is trying to say that a review is when you (or one of your staff that is expected to use the code) and one of their code monkeys sit down and review what your screens will look like. And getting ready to make excuses for them being plain and ugly, as anything else can interfere with the differently sensed/handi-capable from being able to properly utilize them.

Lazarus and the Gimp
24-02-2006, 22:34:02
Originally posted by LoD
I actually understand that babble :eek:.

Translation: it is when a guy who knows the guidelines of good user interface design checks whether those guidelines are fullfiled by a selected part of the program/program concept.



Better translarion: Bloke takes a look to see if it's OK.

LoD
25-02-2006, 02:05:41
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
I also understood it as a sort of compliancy check, so Expert Review may be ok, but "Heuristic Evaluation" is a bit bullshitting....

Expert review, in the propar software engineering terminology, is not it. A review in this context is usually done by several people, and, by the posted description, the "usability engineer" simply sits alone and analyzes the code (so this is IMHO not what DS said).

Those guidelines ("principles"), are called heuristics, since they have a form similar to "there should not be too buttons in a window". However, any red-blooded programmer would associate heuristics with a class of algorithms. And a "usability engineer" who is not a red-blooded programmer can only be, in my very humble opinion, shite.


Originally posted by Venom
Recognized usability principles developed by big nerds and dorks who have no idea how to really use something.

In defense, a lot of those heuristics are actually good, because, even if they are stating the obvious, a lot of programmers tend to forget, at least once, what "the obvious" is.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Better translarion: Bloke takes a look to see if it's OK.

More precise: Bloke takes a look to see if tech support won't be swamped with angry calls from users who can't get the darned thing running the way they want to.

Obviously, from the above definition, "usability engineering" is really a glorified part of QA.

Asher
25-02-2006, 03:30:20
The English was pretty poor, but it made sense to me.

LoD
25-02-2006, 09:27:28
That's because you're used to corporate newspeak.

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-02-2006, 10:52:01
Oh, I understood it. I just had to read it several times because I couldn't believe anyone would use five times as many words as necessary.

Cruddy
25-02-2006, 11:46:52
That's why he said it like that.

If you can't convince, confuse.

self biased
25-02-2006, 16:27:09
you should link this thread to him, laz.

Spartak@CPH
25-02-2006, 18:21:31
No he needs to rip his head off and puke down his gullet

devilmunchkin
26-02-2006, 05:15:15
you know, maybe he's not proof reading his emails before he shoots them off.

Spartak
26-02-2006, 07:08:15
really?

Lazarus and the Gimp
26-02-2006, 08:42:31
I think he probably is. It takes careful planning to write something so pathologically indigestible.

devilmunchkin
26-02-2006, 08:48:10
well, then, i guess it COULD be worse. He could be writing in all caps and in computer geek teenspeak ("ZOMG! I AM TEH UBER 1337!")

Vincent
26-02-2006, 09:32:40
It just means a guy tries to find errors and tries to fix it several times until the remainig errors are well hidden.

LoD
26-02-2006, 10:23:09
Vincent: Like I said, glorified QA.

Funko
27-02-2006, 09:33:08
Translation: We do this fancy evaluation so we can tell the users that what we've given them is what they need even if it's not what they want and impossible to use.