On 25 August 2010 19:15, pauric wrote:
> Danny & David, as Ixdesigners, you two should be taken out back and shot for
> suggesting the 'users are doing it wrong' (o;
Are you saying I've done something wrong?
User Experience Design, Brighton UK
+44 (0)7595 226 792
Dan: Are you saying I've done something wrong?
Yes and no, I think your approach to the problem is flawed. Let me state up front that I believe
a) Recruiters SHOULD follow specified proceedure
b) You, and others, are right to complain that you are being supplied undesired content.
However I think it's wrong to say that B is the fault of A not being followed. One of the basic tennents of IxD is Defensive design (error prevention, input forgiveness/flexibility). The root cause of this issue is the design, not the users.
User's of the new IxDA website are being punished enough already for supplying content (ooo emails, subscription to 'events', etc) and I think adding further punishment to recruiters (a subset of the userbase) for puting posts in the 'wrong' place is step in the wrong direction. It's simply bad design, user's should not be punished, the system should accomodate mistakes. 3 strikes and your out is a kneejerk approach to UX design and shortsighted.
So, my suggestion you and dave should be 'taken out back' was just a figure of speech. I was more than a little suprised to read two seasoned designers suggest that Recruiters need to be hit with a 3 strikes and your out rule for not reading the manual. That's not going to fix the problem, some users will never read the manual, some recruiters have a simplistic mental model of the list structure and as such they feel the workflow is 'mail job to ixda people', they are not being malicious, in fact they probably feel their doing us a service.
Punishing users for interacting with your system will change behaviour alright, they'll stop using it.
But, if we go down this route I'd like a 3 Strikes and your out for posts about; 'what is UCD?, 'what skills do I need?', 'what is design?'
> I was more than a little suprised to read two
seasoned designers suggest that Recruiters> need to be hit with a 3
strikes and your out rule for not reading the manual. [...]
> Punishing users for interacting with your system will change behaviour alright, they'll stop using it.
You say that as if that's a bad thing.
If punishing recruiters for entering a social space without informing themselves about its customs and mores makes those recruiters stop entering the space, I really do not see the problem. It'll be a great filter for high-quality recruiters that are engaged with the community they are recruiting from, instead od people who see it as UXMonster.
Pauric, no one has more experience managing this virtual community than I do. I think your presumptions are not based in data on several levels.
Observations from when I was moderating:
1. The rule was, no post goes through unless you've posted before. Meaning all noobs were moderated. This led to almost 90% catching of job postings that didn't follow the rules. When these moderated posts didn't follow the rules, I sent them back to people to fix. No one complained and everyone complied.
2. When the rules were broken it is 100% of the time by people who were not really part of the community. It was by people who come haphazardly and are spamming. Alternatively there were a few that were posts by people who were part of the community, but so passive with their engagement that you could barely tell the difference between them and the non-community members. What this passive, or absent behavior led to was people just forgetting what they were told the first time.
There is really no way around this. What I would do is send a message telling them the rules and they would apologize and 6 months later maybe about 50% of them got it and others got my correction email again. No 3-strikes, but definitely a sometimes less than gentle hand if I felt it became redundant.
What does this all mean? Well it means that a) there will always be this in&out people who are just not considerate of the community they are engaging with. It is these people whom I really am bothered by. We get enough postings from good and considerate people that these loners really are not worth my sympathy or empathy.
As I tried to suggest before. This is not a "design problem" but a "relationship problem". This is where the technology is really not the issue, but how people treat each other regardless of technology. It is about being considerate and social. Your use of UCD in this case is not really apt, IMHO.
Civics and politics and etiquette are not about design, but just about human beings.
Dave: (paraphrasing) 'these users are not worth empathy' and 'technology is not the issue'
No matter how stupid think these users are they are providing content the system is supposed to accept and you cannot redeisgn the users (excluding the rtfm workflow). Reading terminology like that I would say that you are coming at this problem from the perspective of a stakeholder who has been in the weeds for too long.
"This is where the technology is really not the issue", very true but technology can solve this problem, you are not going to change people's behaviour. And, I feel you are wrong to dismiss filtering. Gmail catches 99.999% of the spam to my inbox and that a much harder problem. You can support this basic with functionality to 'mark inappropriate content' on the webui with an hour or two delay before things go out on email. There are any number of solutions to this, but I feel you've got blinkers on because of your frustrations and past experience managing traffic.
I'm not syaing it is easy but giving up on technological solutions and falling back on 'you're doing it wrong' is not an approach I support.
As an aside, I'm thankful for this post-mortem of the issues being presented. There is debate on whether one designs better by making or learning from mistakes - I beleive it's a valuable method for improving experience. As a design community who has shipped a problematic design - there is a lot to be taken from the conan roll out.