Webmaster forum - Usability Certification

Author

Usability Certification

fang

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

Can anyone recommend what the best organization is to get certified in
usability?

Thanks,

-Mike

William Tasso

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
fang <fang27@excite.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

>
> Can anyone recommend what the best organization is to get certified in
> usability?

No idea (perhaps Karl wil be along in a minute), but I do find myself
wondering whether you wish to have yourself or your site certified.

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

fang

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

William Tasso wrote:
> Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
> fang <fang27@excite.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> No idea (perhaps Karl wil be along in a minute), but I do find myself
> wondering whether you wish to have yourself or your site certified.

Interesting point. I am asking about myself, but I guess some
certification for sites would be interesting to hear about also.

Thanks,

-Mike

Karl Groves

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

"fang" <fang27@excite.com> wrote in news:1154209388.198426.302250
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Can anyone recommend what the best organization is to get certified in
> usability?

There's only one legitimate certification for Usability - available from
BCPE - http://bcpe.org/

You will also learn of others, including the courses available from "HFI",
a Usabilit Consulting company in Fairfield Iowa. These course, and the
resultant "certification" are silently lampooned by true Usability people.

--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com

fang

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

>
> There's only one legitimate certification for Usability - available from
> BCPE - http://bcpe.org/
>
> You will also learn of others, including the courses available from "HFI",
> a Usabilit Consulting company in Fairfield Iowa. These course, and the
> resultant "certification" are silently lampooned by true Usability people.

I don't understand - the site you refer to is in regards to general
ergonomics training - not specifically Web usability. Is there a part
of this web site that I am missing that deals with IT or something like
Web usability?

Thanks,

-Mike

Karl Groves

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

"fang" <fang27@excite.com> wrote in
news:1154275680.724403.262120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> I don't understand - the site you refer to is in regards to general
> ergonomics training - not specifically Web usability. Is there a part
> of this web site that I am missing that deals with IT or something
> like Web usability?
>

Methinks you don't understand much about usability.
That's OK.
"Web Usability" is not a special field. It all falls under Human-Computer
Interaction.

BCPE offers a certification called Certified Human Factors Professional
(CHFP).

The terms "Human-Computer Interaction", "Human Factors", "User-Centered
Design", and "Usability" are mostly interchangeable. I'm a self-described
pedant and I draw no distinction between these terms. (Though I do prefer
Human-Computer Interaction for its specificity)

--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com

Andy Dingley

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

fang wrote:

> Can anyone recommend what the best organization is to get certified in
> usability?

Nope. I'm not aware of any certifications that are from credible
organisations, or that are themselves useful. (updates always welcome)

I'm certainly unaware of any benefits to be had by gaining any of such.
The only "web certifications" that have any sort of brand recognition
are CIW and Sun Java, Cisco etc. Now Java certification is great (good
example of how such schemes should operate) and it's worth having
career-wise, but it's not really relevant here. CIW is more likely to
have you branded as a newbie and dismissed as ignorant, more than
recognised as valuable.

The other question is whether you mean "usability" or "accessibilty".
The web's often bad at both, but any emerging legal constraints are
about _accessibility_, not usability. If we do ever see job
opportunities from this, it'll be for accessibility (giving everyone a
level playing field) rather than the arguably more important usability
(a site that's at least useful for someone).

Andy Dingley

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

Karl Groves wrote:

> "fang" <fang27@excite.com> wrote in
> news:1154275680.724403.262120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[color=darkred]

Rubbish. Why only one? There are many well-established organisations
with legitimate claims to offer credible training or certification in
aspects of ergonomics or usability.
[color=darkred]

What's so special about BCPE ?
[color=darkred]

To quote their own site on certification , "indicate broad expertise in
the practice of human factors/ergonomics"

This is _broad_ expertise. It's not the specifics of web usability. Now
ergonomics certainly is a broad topic and broad certifications are
useful -- but they're not alone what you need if you're recruiting web
developers to do web-specific tasks.

There's also the obvious comment to be made about the poor technical
quality of their own web site.

Karl Groves

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in
news:1154344870.329522.244860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

>
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
>
>
> Rubbish. Why only one? There are many well-established organisations
> with legitimate claims to offer credible training or certification in
> aspects of ergonomics or usability.

Name them, then. If you have a counter-claim to make, do so.
Certification is an oft-discussed topic in the Usability community and
the conclusion is more or less the same each time - there is no real
certification out there and the CHFP from HFES is about as close as it
gets.

>
>
> What's so special about BCPE ?

For one thing, you need a Masters Degree (in a relevant discipline) and
three years of valid work experience before you can even take the test.

>
>
> To quote their own site on certification , "indicate broad expertise
in
> the practice of human factors/ergonomics"
>
> This is _broad_ expertise. It's not the specifics of web usability.
Now
> ergonomics certainly is a broad topic and broad certifications are
> useful -- but they're not alone what you need if you're recruiting web
> developers to do web-specific tasks.

Why would anyone hire a web developer to do usability?

> There's also the obvious comment to be made about the poor technical
> quality of their own web site.

And that means what, exactly?
IMO, all of the usability organizations out there have terrible sites.
The UPA's site is terrible the Usability SIG's site is terrible.
Naturally it diminishes one's impression of them but does that *really*
mean they don't know what they're doing?

This reminds me of a riddle.
You've just moved into a new town and you need a haircut. The problem
is, there are only two barber shops in town.
The first barbershop you walk into is dirty, worn down, has old busted
equipment and the barber is a mess as well with a terrible hair cut.
The second barbershop you walk into is modern, with new equipment and
everything is clean. The barber is well dressed and has a great hair
cut. Which barber cuts your hair?

--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com

Andy Dingley

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

Karl Groves wrote:

> "Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in
> news:1154344870.329522.244860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Name them, then. If you have a counter-claim to make, do so.

If I set out today and found "Dogbert's School of Ergonomics" then I'll
see more trouble over infringing Scot Adam's "Dogbert" trademark than I
will over claiming to be a certifying body in ergonomics. I can't
claim to be a dental hygenist -- I can only do so (under my local laws
at least) if I train through an _accredited_ course and if I'm a member
of the appropriate governing body (the General Dental Council), as
recognised by law. There's no equivalent for ergonomics or human
factors. _Anyone_ can not only practice as one, they can set up a
brass-plate organisation handing out certifications in the field.

So if you're looking at such bodies, then judge them by their
established contributions, publications and the quality of their
membership, not the quality of their notepaper.

The most common "qualification" in "ergonomics" (certainly of people
I've met in the workplace) is CEES (Certified Ergonomics Evaluation
Specialist). That's more closely related to occupational health in
workplace environments than it is to the theory of usable design. These
have no (AFAIK) connection with BCPE. BCPE is also a heavily
US-centric body and is almost unknown here in Europe.

If you ask (in Europe, or probably anywhere outside the USA) what the
"main" body for ergonomics is then it would be the IEA (International
Ergonomics Association) -- particularly well known for its connections
to Netherlands universities. As to _practical_ qualifications denoting
someone's actual skill level for designing human-factors issues in new
products, I'd rate a bare first degree from U. Twente as trumping these
week-long-course and printed certificate bodies (Much of this is based
on my own experience working with U Twente people when I was at HP
Labs).

> Certification is an oft-discussed topic in the Usability community

What's the "usability community" in the context in which you describe?

I note also that we're talking about "usability" here when the usual
web issue needing improvement is accessibility. The thread has also
side-tracked into a discussion of ergonomic certifications. These are
three closely related disciplines, but the relevant skill sets are
quite distinct.

> there is no real certification out there and
> the CHFP from HFES is about as close as it gets.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I question the usefulness of any
"certification" in a field as broad as ergonomics. Certification just
isn't that useful - it's always based on a narrow assessment test
rather than significant training.

> Why would anyone hire a web developer to do usability?

I think we're actually hunting accessibility here, more often than
usability, but the point remains. You might not recruit web developers
to "do usability", but the resultant usability of your site depends on
who designed it, and that's your web developers. Consultancy is no use
at all unless your ground-level developers are actually putting it into
practice.

>
> And that means what, exactly?

Given the general poor state of the web, not much! However they ought
to be doing better. The web doesn't really need more "usability /
accessibility developers" as much as it needs pointy-haired managers to
recognise that they need to be using such developers and letting them
use their skills. The raw skills are finally out there, but they're
continually over-ruled by dezyners and marketeers selling Flash ads.

> Which barber cuts your hair?

Irrelevant. Either barber can easily build their own website. The
barber's limitation just doesn't apply here.

Karl Groves

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in
news:1154353815.258412.60990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

>
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
>
> If I set out today and found "Dogbert's School of Ergonomics" then I'll
> see more trouble over infringing Scot Adam's "Dogbert" trademark than I
> will over claiming to be a certifying body in ergonomics. I can't
> claim to be a dental hygenist -- I can only do so (under my local laws
> at least) if I train through an _accredited_ course and if I'm a member
> of the appropriate governing body (the General Dental Council), as
> recognised by law. There's no equivalent for ergonomics or human
> factors. _Anyone_ can not only practice as one, they can set up a
> brass-plate organisation handing out certifications in the field.

For the most part, anyone can set "brass plate organization" to hand out
certifications in *any* field. Hence my response to the OP that the BCPE
was the only legitimate certification.

For example, the CUA offered by Human Factors International is exactly like
you say - attend a week's worth of seminars and you're somehow "Certified".

> If you ask (in Europe, or probably anywhere outside the USA) what the
> "main" body for ergonomics is then it would be the IEA (International
> Ergonomics Association) -- particularly well known for its connections
> to Netherlands universities. As to _practical_ qualifications denoting
> someone's actual skill level for designing human-factors issues in new
> products, I'd rate a bare first degree from U. Twente as trumping these
> week-long-course and printed certificate bodies (Much of this is based
> on my own experience working with U Twente people when I was at HP
> Labs).

I provide then, the following:
http://www.iea.cc/events/education.cfm

"As a result of this review process, the IEA Executive Committee formally
endorsed BCPE as a certifying body in 2002."

>
>
> What's the "usability community" in the context in which you describe?
>

The "usability community" in this context means everyone in the field,
ranging from newbies, to "pop gurus", to the hardcore HCI nerds. Everyone
from the UPA types to the STC Usability Sig types, to the people doing
real, quantitative research.

> I note also that we're talking about "usability" here when the usual
> web issue needing improvement is accessibility. The thread has also
> side-tracked into a discussion of ergonomic certifications. These are
> three closely related disciplines, but the relevant skill sets are
> quite distinct.
>
>
> I wouldn't disagree with that. I question the usefulness of any
> "certification" in a field as broad as ergonomics. Certification just
> isn't that useful - it's always based on a narrow assessment test
> rather than significant training.

The OP asked about certification, to which I answered.
The OP didn't ask what people thought about certification - a topic which
we likely agree.

>
>
> I think we're actually hunting accessibility here, more often than
> usability, but the point remains. You might not recruit web developers
> to "do usability", but the resultant usability of your site depends on
> who designed it, and that's your web developers. Consultancy is no use
> at all unless your ground-level developers are actually putting it into
> practice.

You previously attempted to imply a distinction between a Human Factors
Engineer and "web usability". Which is it?

Let me be clear: I agree. One of my biggest complaints is that so many
"Usability" people know XXXXall about development. That's not a problem
except in instances where they're not teamed with someone who *does* know
development. At my job, we often see "consultants" who, at best, could
find problems in a system, but have absolutely no clue at all as to how to
fix the problems. In fact,they often don't even know how to *describe* how
to fix the problem.

--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com

Andy Dingley

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

Karl Groves wrote:

> You previously attempted to imply a distinction between a Human Factors
> Engineer and "web usability".

Not really - I see these as overlapping (obviously the field of
application is more specifc). Any "distinction" I'm drawing is in the
particularly web-relevant aspect of usability vs. accessbility. This is
unusually significant to web apps - I don't use a wheelchair,
wheelchair-bound friends drive personally modified cars - but we all
use the same web sites. For this reason "global accessibility" has a
significance on the web, and for access to public buildings and a few
other topics, that it doesn't have in physical product design.

> Let me be clear: I agree. One of my biggest complaints is that so many
> "Usability" people know XXXXall about development.

As much work is done by small outfits, or at least by small teams, then
it's a faint hope to expect to have usability people on tap for every
project. So how do we get a bare minimum of usability and accessibility
knowledge into the hands of the developers actually doing the work?
More importantly, how do we get their well-lunched editors and managers
to _permit_ accessible and usable development, rather than the glitzy
dancing penguin that the ad sales team want?

Karl Groves

2006-08-02, 11:39 am

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in
news:1154361655.317819.126650@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Karl Groves wrote:
>
>
> Not really - I see these as overlapping (obviously the field of
> application is more specifc). Any "distinction" I'm drawing is in the
> particularly web-relevant aspect of usability vs. accessbility. This
> is unusually significant to web apps - I don't use a wheelchair,
> wheelchair-bound friends drive personally modified cars - but we all
> use the same web sites. For this reason "global accessibility" has a
> significance on the web, and for access to public buildings and a few
> other topics, that it doesn't have in physical product design.

The oranges are over there ------->
We're talking about apples now.

IMO, there is:
Accessibility - namely, that a resource can be accessed.
Usability for people with disabilities - that a resource, once accessed
can be used Usability - that a resource is usable, in general.

Note that there's considerable overlap here, but that some things, while
they can be accessed are NOT usable and even some things that are usable
for people with disabilities are NOT usable for a more general audience.

>
>
> As much work is done by small outfits, or at least by small teams,
> then it's a faint hope to expect to have usability people on tap for
> every project. So how do we get a bare minimum of usability and
> accessibility knowledge into the hands of the developers actually
> doing the work? More importantly, how do we get their well-lunched
> editors and managers to _permit_ accessible and usable development,
> rather than the glitzy dancing penguin that the ad sales team want?

It is ridiculous to think that a developer should function as a
competent human factors engineer, and vice versa.

Proper Human Factors Engineers are psychologists and often know about as
much about things like OOP programming as a developer knows about things
like GOMS Modeling and Gestalt Principles. And why should they? IMO, it
is a misallocation of resources to expect either person to do the
other's job.

That said, a developer *should* have some basic knowledge of usability
if, for no other reason, than to streamline the process toward building
a usable system. One of my biggest complaints about developers is their
complete cluelessness of user-friendly error handling and providing a
way for users to recover from error. In most cases though, I'd still
place blame for such things on the person who designed the interaction
flow.

--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com