By Karen Bachmann | Associate Fellow
Many great sessions at this year’s Summit conference covered user experience (UX) and accessibility. They focused on how we should be bringing all users into our work, both in the methods we use and in integrating inclusive and user-centered thinking into our creative processes. The following article summarizes lessons I learned from each of the sessions I attended. I found value for the experienced practitioner, the all-around technical communicator, and the newcomer to this area. All of the sessions reviewed here can be viewed online in Summit@aClick (www.stc.org/education/technical-communications-summit/summit-at-a-click).
Adding to Our UX and Accessibility Toolbox
These sessions focused on core methods and approaches to existing tools and how to make them part of our everyday practice.
Customer Journey Maps: Visualizing an Engaging Customer Experience
Donn DeBoard defined customer journey maps (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfphg/) and recommended them as a way to help technical communicators understand our customers and their point of view. Customer journey maps offer a specialized map through each action and point of engagement that a user has with a product. It goes beyond a simple task flow, though, when it looks at the emotion at each point of engagement. This helps illuminate how customers experience a product throughout an interaction. Customer journey maps are particularly useful when creating complex products or anticipating product use that evolves over time.
Customer journey maps are rooted in research and focus on answering why a customer interacts with a product as much as how and what. Types of journeys include transactional, experiential, emotional, relationship building, and rite of passage. Each answers a different question about the customer experience and provides insight into the entire context of the engagement that sometimes is missed when developing documentation.
Donn explained the steps to develop customer journey maps:
- “Engage customers and hear their stories” to understand the customer “ecosystem.”
- Identify actions and the touch points, or goals, for the actions.
- Identify moments of truth—two to three significant moments that can make or break the outcome of the journey.
Each journey is captured in its own map. These maps create an “internal, customer-focused communication tool” that supports a user-centered process.
Storytelling the Results of Heuristic Evaluations
Carol Barnum shared her own personal journey to rethinking heuristic evaluation in “Storytelling the Results of Heuristic Evaluations” (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfpgg/). She started out using heuristic evaluation following Jacob Nielsen’s original method (www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/) where 3-5 expert evaluators review a user interface and then meet to write a report consolidating their individual findings. In a survey conducted by UXPA, 75% of UX practitioners reported using the heuristic evaluation. After participating in Comparative Usability Evaluation CUE 4 (www.dialogdesign.dk/CUE-4.htm), an evaluation of practice of heuristic evaluation conducted by Rolf Molich, however, Carol learned that many practitioners were modifying how they used this tool and many were really doing expert reviews.
Carol then took a looser interpretation of Nielsen’s heuristics. More importantly, she started to add screen captures with callouts and to provide recommendations, moving her practice and reporting of heuristic evaluation closer to thinking like the user. She continued to modify her approach, moving to persona-based heuristic evaluation as developed by Dana Chisnell and Ginny Redish (http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/research/oww/AARP-50Sites.pdf) and then delivering findings using the users’ voice and telling their stories. By focusing on the users and letting their stories guide the evaluation, “user experience emerges in the expert review.” She encouraged participants to approach heuristic evaluation in a way that lets us “walk in your users’ shoes by telling the users’ stories.”
For a quick introduction to heuristics, see the description at www.usability.gov/methods/test_refine/heuristic.html.
Usability Testing to Evaluate Web & Mobile Content
In his session (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfphy/), Cory Lebson described how to plan, conduct, and evaluate outcomes for a usability test. The starting point of any usability test is to define key content goals and key user groups. We need to know why we are developing a product and for whom we are developing to understand if we have succeeded in delivering a usable 
product. In documentation testing, we can assess:
- Findability and identification
- Readability and comprehension
- Functionality
Once we understand these, we use the goals to define tasks that the right users complete to demonstrate whether a design is successful. We can test at any point, but Cory noted that “when you have a limited budget, test at the latest point you can, when changes will not be a significant problem.”
Cory explained how to create a test plan documenting what we are doing and why, how we are doing it, who we need to speak to, and the moderator’s guide. He talked about the roles during a test: the “test administrator” or moderator, the “logger” or notetaker, and the observers—a valuable role for clients to fill to increase their understanding.
He then talked about reporting, ranking issues by severity, and providing recommendations in a spreadsheet to supplement the report. He noted that he includes positive feedback when he has some to share. He also discussed creating video highlights to illustrate issues for “high emotional impact.”
Cory advocated making testing part of the design mindset and process. Even if time is limited, a lean UX approach, which compresses the typical timeline and scope, can add value. He also encouraged establishing a follow-up process to find out how things went and whether clients need more insights as the product is being used over time.
Realigning Our Core Thinking About UX and Accessibility
A number of sessions talked about the fundamentals that underlie our work, including standards and best practices, and also fundamentally how we think about the content we develop.
Accessibility in Documentation, Media, & Web Design
In this session developed with Sarah Horton (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfpgq/), Mike Paciello presented on the why behind how to implement accessibility, which was discussed in Whitney Quesenbery’s presentation on plain language (www.slideshare.net/whitneyq/pla11y-accessushare) and Char James-Tanny’s presentation on writing for everyone (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfppd/). Mike started by providing an overview of the accessibility landscape where standards are concerned. Three waves of standards, from the Americans with Disability Act to the new Section 508, have shifted focus from the right to access to a ubiquitous approach aligned with current business practices. He emphasized that current initiatives factored in international standards.
Nevertheless, challenges remain. He described three issues. First, he discussed the “maze of standards and laws that make it hard to figure out what applies and when.” Not all of the standards are aligned, but effort to align them is underway.
The second issue is that many organizations are not legally obligated to comply with accessibility laws, but they can be sued. He noted that the litigation efforts of low vision and deaf advocates is a huge motivator for organizations to be compliant.
Finally, he borrowed the title of the book Living in the State of Stuck (www.amazon.com/Living-State-Stuck-Technology-Disabilities/dp/1571290982) to describe the third issue—the gap between mainstream technology and accessibility and aging. The speed at which technology is moving means that assistive technology is always trailing behind. A change in thinking is needed for original designs to reduce the number of people being left behind.
Mike commented, “Bad design hurts. Good design helps. Everyone.” He pointed out that the updated guidelines reflect this thinking and attempt convergence to support good and inclusive design. The refresh of Section 508, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, and the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) all have the goal of providing the same means of use for all users—identical when possible, equivalent when not possible. WCAG 2.0, as an example, is based on the POUR principles: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust. Each principle has a guideline and is testable—an important support for adoption and implementation. Mike expressed the new Section 508 operability principle by saying, “Things that seem obvious and easy to many of us require thought.”
The call to content creators and designers is clear: We need to be creating inclusive, accessible content and designs from the start. The standards and guidelines continue to evolve to help support that goal.
Purposes, Personas, Conversations:
Practical Techniques for Everything You Create
Ginny Redish started her session (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfpkm/) by asking the audience to identify the types of content they worked on—marketing, Web, user manuals, online help, proposal, technical reports, etc. She stated that, although her examples were drawn from the Web, the lessons applied to all types of “basic, good writing.” She went on to note that everything we write serves a purpose, but that purpose is not to “give out information.” We want to help people accomplish something with the information we provide. In writing for people who will use our content, everything we write is part of a conversation. This “asynchronous conversation,” Ginny asserts, is the contribution of professional technical communicators. Technical writing has “moved from statements of fact to a conversation that has the user in the middle.”
For most of what we write, the other person starts the conversation. The conversation is driven by their needs and goals. She noted that a study on documentation found that people don’t read when “documentation doesn’t fit the reality of their story.” Defining purposes, personas, and conversations helps you plan, organize, write, and evaluate.
Ginny stated that we should develop and follow a content strategy. A strategic approach to content will ensure we deliver the right content, in the right amount, to the right person, and at the right time. To do this takes planning at every level: why (the purposes), who (the personas), and what (the conversations).
When considering the purpose—the why—think about what effect you want to have on your reader. It’s not enough, or not deep enough, to say you are trying to inform or persuade. You have to answer “why?” Ginny encouraged us to write a purpose statement for everything we write and focus on what we want people to do because of our content.
When considering personas—the who—we need to understand the people who use our content, including their abilities, attributes, and attitudes. “A name and face to the person, not just a list of characteristics, puts them in the room and in our head, and that really helps us write better information.” Once we know who they are, we can hear our readers as we write.
When considering the conversations—the what—we need to flip what we often have been taught about writing and put the key message, from the users’ point of view, first. Ginny shared the “bite, snack, meal” approach of Leslie O’Flahavan (http://ewriteonline.com/articles/2011/11/bite-snack-and-meal-how-to-feed-content-hungry-site-visitors/) to layer content to “feed all hungry people.” The bite becomes the tweet. The bite and snack becomes the Facebook post. We need to think about how to give readers exactly what they want when they need it.
We should hear the conversation as we design and write. It’s important to know that until we answer the question of the visitor, they aren’t going to get to what we want. To ensure that we’ve achieve a successful conversation, we have to evaluate our content using tools such as usability testing or persona-driven heuristic evaluation.
Writing for Everyone: SEO, ESL, Translation, and Accessibility
Char James-Tanny’s session, “Writing for Everyone” (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/scfppd/), started with the diversity of our audience from Millenials and GenZ who live in a world of devices and whose preferred mode of communication is text messaging, to people who use English as a second language, to people who have disabilities that can affect their consumption of content, to people who may be assumed to be readers but have distractions. We need to know our audience and accommodate all. When considering accessibility of our content, we cannot ask about disabilities, as that is against the law, but we can ask about making accommodation.
Where we once put content in silos, we now put our audience in silos. We have to think about so many channels—SEO, ESL, translation—that when we bring up accessibility after all these passes, there can be resistance to yet another pass. Additionally, Char noted that because disability scares people (“What happens if I become blind? Deaf?”), we must also overcome the fact that people avoid what they are scared of. And yet people with disabilities make up the largest minority in the world: 11%. And at some point, everyone will have a disability, even if only temporarily (broken arm, for example) and definitely as we age (who put on their reading glasses before reading this article?).
So what are we to do? Char shared this quote by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus: “We should not write so that it is possible for [the reader] to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us.” We must stop and think about what we write because we could confuse someone. Fortunately, many of the essential good writing techniques are also those that improve accessibility:
- Use headings (and when publishing to the Web, mark up in the correct tag order).
- Correctly use numbers and bullets as appropriate.
- Use active voice and second person. She shared Rebecca Johnson’s test for passive voice by putting “by zombies” after the verb.
- Write consistently. People get used to following a pattern.
- Use serial commas.
- Write in sentences of less than 25 words and short paragraphs. One sentence in a paragraph is the best for translation and Web copy. Three is the max.
- Keep in mind the readers’ context.
- Use smaller words.
- Define or avoid acronyms.
- Use a clear date and time format for users.
In summary, Char encouraged us to avoid putting people in silos, to write for all, and to write simply and well to make our content accessible.
Nuggets of Wisdom vs. the Mother Lode
I hope you’ve enjoyed this tour of some of the new tools and approaches for UX and accessibility offered at Summit ’13 and that these nuggets help you understand how you can apply these to your own work. If these summaries just whet your appetite or you attended and had to make some hard choices as I did, you are in luck. All sessions were recorded and are available through Summit@aClick (www.stc.org/education/technical-communications-summit/summit-at-a-click). Additionally, many presenters have uploaded their presentations to SlideShare or are linked through the Lanyrd conference site (http://lanyrd.com/2013/society-for-technical-communication-summit/).
Karen Bachmann, the research and analysis practice lead with Perficient, helps clients deliver usable products that support how users need and expect to interaction with information and perform their tasks. Karen is a member of STC, UXPA, and ACM SIGCHI. She is a former manager of the STC Usability & User Experience SIG and an Associate Fellow of STC. Karen blogs at https://blogs.perficient
.com/spark/author/kbachmann/and can be reached at karen@seaconinc.com or karen.bachmann@perficient.com.
