ErgonomiA.ca

Un modèle de révision d’articles scientifiques comme pour les billets de blogs, via commentaires en ligne des pairs, est-ce viable? crédible? La communauté scientifique n’a pas le choix de trouver comment incorporer une forme de reconnaissance des ‘nouveaux modes’ de diffusion de la connaissance, soit dans ses modalités, voire même dans ses formats de contenus acceptables.

Il ne peut être qu’intéressant de suivre les expériences des deux journaux qui l’expérimentent, PloS One et BioMedCentral. Voici l’intro de l’article de l’Agence Science-Presse:

Quand la science s’inspire des blogues

“Pendant qu’on observe attentivement l’évolution des blogues, une évolution parallèle se poursuit, beaucoup plus discrètement, au sein de la communauté scientifique. Des revues scientifiques ouvrent elles aussi la porte aux commentaires de leurs lecteurs —et aussi spécialisés que puissent être ces lecteurs, ils ne sont, à certains égards, pas si différents des “autres” internautes.

Depuis décembre 2006, la revue PLoS One expérimente ainsi une formule qui, il y a seulement cinq ans, aurait été jugée osée : plutôt que de se contenter d’un comité de révision par les pairs classique (deux ou trois experts du domaine relisent l’article et envoient leurs commentaires… des semaines plus tard), les articles, une fois approuvés par un éditeur de la revue, sont mis en ligne, où se fera la véritable révision par les pairs, grâce aux commentaires des visiteurs.”

Lire l’article intégral

Thx @jsmarsan, dont je vous invite à consulter son site perso

Je me souviens que j’étais tellement dans le rush cette semaine là que je ne pouvais pas y aller et que j’en ai même oublié de relayer l’annonce du premier 5 à 7 UX qui a eu lieu le 26 février à la Quincaillerie. Y a des semaines comme ça mais je me dis Shame on me pareil…:(

Je ne peux pas dire que je suis vraiment moins OQP mais bon, ça c’est normal et comme tout le monde, alors c’est clair que je ne ferai pas défaut une seconde fois à mes collègues du CE d’Utilisabilité Québec qui organisent l’événement, notamment Étienne Garbugli (Kotsego) qui en est l’initiateur. Merci Étienne!

Cela me fait d’autant plus plaisir d’en parler que c’est mon collègue Philippe Alengry avec qui je collabore sur différents projets, dont ceux de Voir.ca, qui présentera ce jeudi au Belmont, sur le thème bien d’actualité de “la Web Analytics: un complément à l’ergonomie?”.

Voici l’annonce intégrale du prochain 5 à 7 UX!

C’est avec plaisir que l’association Utilisabilité Québec vous invite le jeudi 30 avril prochain, de 17 h 30 à 20 h, à la deuxième édition du 5 à 7 UX. La rencontre d’avril portera sur la la thématique « Le Web Analytics : Un complément à l’ergonomie ? ». Philippe Alengry apportera son point de vue et proposera des utilisations dans le cadre d’une démarche ergonomique. Place ensuite à la discussion et au partage d’expériences.

5 à 7 UX (expérience utilisateur) – Avril 2009

Jeudi le 30 avril de 17 h 30 à 20 h au Belmont, situé au 4483, rue St-Laurent à Montréal, métro Mont-Royal (Afficher sur une carte).

Gratuit et accessible à tous – Places limitées

S.V.P., hâtez-vous de confirmer votre présence via l’invitation Facebook ou par courriel à 5a7@utilisabilitequebec.org Cette adresse email est protégée contre les robots des spammeurs, vous devez activer Javascript pour la voir. .

Profitez-en également pour joindre le groupe Facebook 5 à 7 UX et transférer l’invitation à vos amis et collègues.

Au plaisir de vous y voir.

L’exécutif d’Utilisabilité Québec

Une mention de l’événement de Fred Cavazza également sur SimpleWeb, en reprise d’un billet de Mikimya

On Saturday April the 4th, I have presented this research framework (pdf) at the 3rd Student Conference on Business Research (SCBR 2009) organized by HEC Montreal.

It extends the notion of feature fatigue to usability – that is when too many features add up to complexity – and it explores how the presence of affective quality features might compensate for such complexity.

I am not ashamed to say that I won the ‘Best paper‘ award in the marketing category at the SCBR 2009 for this paper!

Here is the paper’s abstract:

“The more the better” goes as a saying. Resorting to this quantity heuristic, consumers tend to decide on products which present more features than less, forgetting that features quantity comes with product complexity and less satisfaction in its use. In this paper we extend the construct of feature fatigue (Thompson, Hamilton and Rust, 2005), which derives from the cognitive complexity of a product with too many features, to Web sites usability. So far, previous research has investigated the impact of Web site quality as a key determinant to online success focusing on what makes a site “better than another” in general or for some type of industries. It has identified a large number of factors that have been found to influence the online experience satisfaction such as visual design, quality and quantity of information, personalization and last but not least: usability. Based on a literature review in marketing and human-computer interaction about affect and its interplay with cognition, we develop a model that link the affective dimension of a product and features quantity to satisfaction. The model is suggesting that perceived ease of use mediates the combined effect of the affective dimension and features quantity. We propose to test whether a task-related set of features would positively impact satisfaction via perceived ease of use when the features possess an affective quality, and if it would hold true even in a perceived case of complexity. In the proposed research framework, we would test whether a task-related set of features would positively impact satisfaction via perceived ease of use when the features possess an affective quality, and if it would hold true even in a perceived case of complexity. Hence, the purpose of this conceptual paper is to contribute to the field of electronic service quality product evaluation by incorporating both the affective and cognitive dimensions of evaluation in a single research model that could be empirically tested in the very specific context of a goal-oriented task and its related set of functionalities.

Here are the Rising Sun Start-up Rally finalists!

Here is from Mashable: The Social Media Guide, Ben Parr’s excellent post (04/05/2009) introduction to start with:

“Silicon Valley isn’t the only place that’s a hotbed for social media and web entrepreneurship: Europe is filled with skilled entrepreneurs and successful startups.

Today, Mashable is exclusively announcing the 19 finalists in a European startup competition, selected by a panel including Amazon CTO Werner Vogels.

It’s all part of the 2009 Next Web Conference in Amsterdam this month, which gathers together Europe’s tech community and brings it some well-deserved international attention.

One element of the conference is the Rising Sun Startup Rally, giving the very best startups a chance to make their pitches to the audience (most will also launch at the conference, so their products are not yet publicly accessible). Four more startups will be chosen to present through a public voting process.

So without further ado, the 19 web startups to watch this year…“

Étude sur l’utilisation des médias sociaux au Canada auprès de plus de 1500 consommateurs et professionnels de relations publiques, réalisée par le CNW Group et Léger Marketing:

Voici un “Sneak preview” des résultats, ou pour avoir accès au rapport complet, on peut s’inscrire à un Webinar le 29 avril 2009

“The user experience scene will soon experience a paradigm shift from consultant services to software for do-it-yourselfers”

Sounds too good to be true? Well, I wish I had read this article’s statement today amidst the other “UN moving from NY to Montreal” and the akin jokes posted on the Web for April’s fool…Even though I clearly understand what is meant by this type of bold statement and can foresee the tendency in our industry, I cannot help but feel annoyed and only partly agree with such stance which you can read often and more lately…and which resonance goes beyond an April 1st joke…

A tool can consist of a software solution or a methodological approach in the scientific sense of the mesuring tool (the survey for instance), it still remains just a tool though. Tools are instruments, they are means not brains, no matter how much built-in intelligence can be considered in some cases… Computers are undoubtedly useful but haven’t replaced the need for people to use them to achieve their various professional and personal goals.

“To what purpose?“, “How to optimize the tool’s use?” or “How to exploit the results obtained?” are still crucial questions which answers require saavy professionals with background experience in their activity domain, combining Art and Science approaching/reasoning modes in a creative process that no software can mimick. “Because that’s how information is – it’s all just bits – and the software can’t make those decisions for us“, to quote Lew McCreary, even though his comment concerned more specifically information and Privacy (What was Privacy?, HBR, October 2008).

As far as automated user testing is concerned for instance, I definitely believe that sofware-based solutions can solidly assist us in our day-to-day work as usability consultants: Camtasia Morae and Uservue solutions from Techsmith have been incorporated in our toolbox for a while now and there is no turning back, except maybe switching for quasi-equivalent software solutions which are now available to download for free…

But to go any further than that with automated tools and claiming a paradigm shift in usability implying consultancy retirement is clearly prematured, not to say oversimplistic (or unrealistic). It is underestimating how in parallel, user experience is a phenomemon that keeps getting more and more complex, with a growing number of electronic channels (e.g.; computer, tv, mobile) to be synchronized in order to harmonize all the customer touch points. A little try-out of automated solutions shows us that simple and complex testing case scenarios should be distinguished before announcing retirement…

The economic downturn surely comes with budget restrictions at all levels and is accompanied by a demand decrease in consultancy services. This strained situation spurs opportunities for consulting firms with creative solutions, and even if the usability paradigm shift announcement does not alarm me yet, I find it very interesting to keep an eye on these innovations and trials…Here is a new one I just heard of for instance:

“A New Zealand company called Optimal Workshop is trying to disrupt the usability space by offering free software that replaces consultants. Instead of hiring someone, you can use Optimal’s web-based products to test mockups, usability, navigation, and site architecture”.

Challmark and Treejack are the 2 web-based usability tools they are offering for free, but for a limited time period of 2 months only.. so go download them and check out how much they can replace “you”…;-).

Read the full article on Optimal Workhop tools.

Related previous posts (in French) about: 14 free tools that reveal why people abandon your site and Speed testing.