This paragraph is noteworthy for two reasons:

1. I agree with the author's suggestion that the context surrounding a particular study and the structure of the study need to be analyzed separately because the usability research does not fall under one discipline. For example, a study involving 100 female freshman CIS Majors at Georgia State University would produce very different results from a study of 100 random people off of the street. Because the produced data would clearly vary, a context analysis is necessary.
2. This paragraph reminds me of a concept in sociological research: disaggregated versus aggregated data. Aggregated data is a collection of data that has been summarized and "watered down" or generalized, while disaggregated data has been broken apart into subgroups. It can help researchers fully understand trends and findings, while providing data that more accurately represents a population. If the context and structure were not analyzed seperately, results would likely resemble aggregated data that does not accurately represent the sample.

I am assuming "classical fieldwork" refers to the somewhat standard method of surveying within sociology and anthropology. It is true that surveys/interpersonal interviews have been an effective method of data collection for both of the disciplines, in part, because of the nature of the data collected. In several of my sociology courses, I have conducted extensive research on social problems and patterns of behavior. Although i researched a variety of issues, they all had one thing in common- data was related to interpersonal interactions within social systems and institutions. However, usability research focuses on human-computer relations, rather than interpersonal ones. Although this method of data collection has worked in sociology, it would likely not work at all in this case. I agree that new methods should be utilized, but i am unsure of how to best represent usability data without unintentionally aggregating it.

I understand that this formal method of observation may "catch" data that informal observation and note taking may miss, but i question the accuracy of the data found. For example, If i was instructed to use a new website while just being observed, I would face the challenge of navigating the website purely based on common sense. If i was told to read the text or talk aloud while navigating the website, I would feel somewhat "guided." It would also slow my pace, giving me more time to comprehend text and find pages within the site. Although i'd be able to better navigate the site, it would not accurately reflect the usability of the site in a real-world setting.

I agree with the hypothesis that usability research can develop methods for enhancing product development. As i noted above, testing usability towards the beginning of the product development process would allow for the development of products to be increasingly based on the results of the usability testing, while testing after development likely leads to very minor improvements on products. Here, Sullivan noted that although research is developing quickly, only a handful of tests have been published. However, i see this as an advantage, rather than a burden, for usability testers. With few precedent findings, usability testers could employ experimental, rather than "tried and true," methods of testing. By thinking creatively and across disciplines, new methods of usability testing could be formed and more effective products could be created.

Summary

In Patricia Sullivan’s article, “Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing,” she began by discussing the need for a broader interpretation of usability because of its complex nature. Next, she asks “what is it that we are doing in relation to others who study usability, and what might we need to be doing?” First, she notes that technical writers should contribute to research regarding the broader concept of usability. Because a broader interpretation of usability also means a larger body of information to tackle, studies should be situated within the umbrella of usability research, but both the context of a study and the study in and of itself should be analyzed as well. Analyzing the context of a study allows researchers to understand the choices made within the study, such as the chosen population. Analyzing the structure of the study allows researchers to understand factors such a study’s focus and constrains. However, depending on the identity of the group that conducts the study, such as sociologists or psychologists, different questions may be raised. For example, in the interdisciplinary group of human-computer interaction, all researchers are concerned with interface design, but may approach it differently by employing various methods and asking differing questions. Sociologists focus their studies on usability and how people interact with computers via observational techniques, while marketers focus their usability research on specific products and services. Technical communicators focus their research on the educational documents regarding a system and “how users employ those aids to help them learn a system.” The research of technical communicators is often interdisciplinary, so research methods are consulted as guides, rather than as set rules of practice. Researchers can then employ any combination of methods that they see fit in their research. Some research methods for usability studies include surveying, observation, keystroke records, and computer text analysis. The various methods can be organized into three models of research. First, the product development model pertains to the product development process of engineering, so it utilizes lab-based research methods. The cognitive model is based on the work of human-computer interaction psychologists, whose focus is on finished, developed products. The cultural model, often used by sociologists, utilizes field work in order to study “normal use” usability. Each model is also related to certain types of questions. For example, the cultural model is often connected to questions regarding the environment, or context, of a study. In closing, Sullivan addresses three questions pertaining to usability research. First, she argues that usability research can “develop methods for enhancing product development,” particularly if usability is tested earlier in the product development process. Second, she claims that she is unsure of whether or not usability research can be used as a “model” for studying “naturally occurring” usability until more field research is conducted on the subject. In closing, Sullivan enthusiastically argues that usability could become more “central” to the writing process in general due to advances in usability research. When technical communicators are aware of users and when usability research is implemented at the front-end of the writing cycle, technical communicators are able to produce significantly more effective and usable documents.

Earlier in my annotations, i mentioned the ways in which marketers understand audiences by constructing personas. The concept of personas is somewhat relative to this passage as well. However, the challenge of "incorporating the growing knowledge of users," seems far more complex than persona construction. Instead of having to create imaginary figures to make predictions about the traits of an audience, technical communicators must do almost the inverse and navigate and narrow down a wealth of information pertaining to users in order to determine what is applicable for developing a manual or interface. Here, the process of communicating with one another to decide on how findings connect to documents is similar to the rhetorical concept of dialectic, which i mentioned in greater detail in Wickman's "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication". Collaboration between technical communicators, like traditional dialectic, helps rhetors organize and process information in order to form effective arguments, or in this case, manuals and interfaces.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

Beginning on the last sentence of page 7, this closing addresses the importance for technical writers engaged in usability testing to learn about users.Although technical writing is often viewed as more expository than rhetorical,an excellent document regarding usability or usability testing effectively addresses the rhetorical situation, or the "set of circumstances in which an author creates a text," according to Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. An important factor within the rhetorical situation is the audience, or in this case, users. Technical writers must consider primary audiences, such as users reading a manual for a software or product, as well as secondary audiences, such as students studying technical writing who may come across the manual. Although consideration of audience is vital to reaching primary audiences, it can also produce more effective technical writers in the future by successfully addressing rhetorical situations.

Arola, C. (2014). Analyzing Multimodal Projects. Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, 20-40.

In Chad Wickman's article, "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication," he author noted that his students worked on tackling the "wicked problem" within groups, and that many of the groups contains students of varying disciplines. The interdisciplinary groups proved to be beneficial because each student had different experiences, areas of expertise, and proposed solutions for consequences of the oil spill, so they were able to effectively collaborate. Similarly, Sullivan notes here that multiple methods can be used in usability research. When individuals from varying backgrounds, such as cognitive psychologists and engineers, collaborate in usability research, they most likely have different ideas about which methods to use. Because of this, interdisciplinary groups of usability researchers are able to select the best combination of methods to reach the concerns of all of the researchers, which in turn, would improve usability overall.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

This practice in human-computer interaction reminds me of a concept that is utilized in marketing known as "creating personas," which is further discussed in the link below. When marketers want to test whether a product or service reaches audiences, they create templates or "composite sketches," of imaginary individuals within the target audiences. Personas constructed by marketers include basic information such as age, gender, and marital status, as well as personal information such as their interests and hobbies. In terms of human-computer interaction, it sounds like cognitive psychologists also make personas or "theories of users," in order to increase usability. Although Sullivan noted that problems may arise due to the differing goals of cognitive psychologists and engineers, engineers could use information gathered from the psychologists' theories to create more effective solution-based systems.

Lee, K. (2015). The Complete, Actionable Guide to Marketing Personas. Buffer Social. https://blog.bufferapp.com/marketing-personas-beginners-guide

Including usability testing earlier in the product development cycle would position usability testing as a fundamental stage of product development, instead of as a "finalizing" step before a product is introduced into the market. Traditionally, the product development cycle of six chronological steps was as follows, according to James Duval of Business2Community.com:

1. Idea Generation
2. Research
3. Product Development/Assembly
4. Usability Testing
5. Analysis of Findings
6. Introduction into the marketplace

Because usability testing occurs after the development of the product, it is clear that the testing would only motivate develops to make minimal changes to a product. Recently, many engineers have utilized a new product development cycle that tests the usability of the potential product before it is actually developed, according to ProductLifeCycleStages.com. After it is developed, the marketability of the product is also tested. When usability testing is at the forefront of product development, the user-centered approach maximizes the potential for growth and allows developers to more effectively plan for the implementation of a product.

Duval, J. (2013). Eight Simple Steps for New Product Development. Business 2 Community. www.business2community.com/product-management/eight-simple-steps-for-new-product-development-0560298#fGOcuH6At5eDoUyc.97

New Product Development.(2016). Product Life Cycle Stages. Living Better Media. http://productlifecyclestages.com/new-product-development-stages/