- Saila said...
- "I also disagree with your opinion about the Difficulty of evaluation challenge. The reason of why it has been a challenge is not in the lengthy evaluation process itself but the challenges of collecting data in the field from "real users". When software is still under construction, it can be tried out easily e.g. in the lab and that is enough "evaluation" for single user software. When the software is meant for groups, you need to collect field data from the actual experiences with the software since usually it is impossible to simulate the real world circumstances in the lab. If they did not adopt it, can you explain why they did not use it, and will the bad experiences then result in improvements in the software so that the next field trial will succeed? There are so many contextual factors involved in each case, many of which are not related to the software itself but to the actual processes and ways of working in the group."
- Let's see what Grudin thought as the main facts that make evaluating groupware applications more difficult.
- - "Scheduling a test is logistical challenge"
- - "Groupware is affected by factors such as group members backgrounds and personalities"
- - "Evaluation takes longer"
- - "Groupware evaluation methods are less precise"
- - "Generalizing from experience is risky"
- The way I see it, saying the test takes longer or that it is a logistical challenge, is not relevant. Sure, it might lengthen the development process of the application, but if that is the way tests need to be done, why should we see the extra time taken as a negative matter. At the same time it also gives us better and more precise results and meanwhile gives the rest of the development team a chance to polish the application.
- Also, saying that the it is too difficult to take all the different factors affecting the results into account, is not the right way to approach the testing situation. Just because we lack certain skills, doesn't mean it can't be done. Similar tests which take into account different human factors are carried out all the time in different fields. Like Grudin says, we just need to recruit people with skills in social and cognitive psychology, anthropology and human factors engineering. And this is the part in which I've seen the most progress from the nineties. It is no longer considered such a hindrance to need different types of skills available for carrying out something, these different people are just recruited to get best results possible.
- People just need to understand that we are not stuck in a lab environment anymore, there are many ways to carry out different tests, and to me saying some of them are inherently too difficult to properly execute because of the different factors that need to be considered, is just a cheap way of saying we don't want to progress.
- In a field that is so quickly evolving, generating and adopting new methods is one of the most important tasks we have. Being left behind by saying something is too difficult to do, is like Henry Ford saying it's too difficult to build a car, we'd better keep on doing horse carriages. Thus I feel that noting the difficulty as one of the main problems developing groupware is not something we should just accept as a fact, but something we should focus to get rid of. Being left behind on this matter is not an option in a world where we get new groupware applications every day.
- I feel that we've gained loads of new information, adopted new techniques, recruited people from different fields of knowledge and improved our methods of evaluating groupware since the nineties. That's why saying that the challenge we currently face in this field is not as large as it used to be earlier is not incorrect.
- References:
[Grudin, 1994] Jonathan Grudin, Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Comm. ACM 37, 1 (Jan. 1994), 92-105. - Blog post on Sunday 23th of January, "Are Grudin's Challenges up to date"
- Posted by Santeri