These three players co-exist for good site usability.
John Rhodes’ (2005) point about usability training over testing is promising for companies who have been depending and investing too much on usability tests, more so, for those companies which choose to neglect usability. He had a matter-of-factly statement that instead of hiring usability professionals which may cost them $35, 000 half a day, a company may rather invest in training designers and developers about the whole usability aspect. Usability is not just an aspect of selling a site but a series of operations (Rhodes, 2005). From there, designers and developers may be able to integrate the knowledge gained from the training into the course and duration in structuring and designing a site (Rhodes, 2005). However, this train of thought actually eliminates the importance of usability researches needed for the usability in huge user-centered interface designs where average people are the end-users. More so, he
Usability tests may be equally important to usability training. The former involves users. The latter involves creators. Dumas and Redish (1999) summed up five attributes to which all usability tests have in common: 1.) the aim to enhance of product usability; 2.) participation of end-users; 3.) involvement of actual tasks; 4.) evaluation of what participants do and say; 4.) analysis of data and diagnosis of the problems; and 5.) recommendation to fix problems. In short, they offer how significant a user’s opinion may be in formulating an extensive solution. This though, doesn’t hand over the benefit of usability training, where it makes jobs easier and fast for creators.
Designers and developers, themselves, for instance could conduct user testing which is a basic usability activity. This is also a good utilization of what they learned from their usability training. With small-time projects, the