Bruce D Walker. (2021, March 17). COVID Course 3 17 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGjYE2GtRLw

Anne Sullivan grew up in Feeding Hills Massachusetts in a poor Irish immigrants house with her mother, father, and two younger brother, and sister. Her father was a poor farmhand who used all of their money on alcohol, he often beat Anne and her mother tried to hide her from him. when Anne was two she suffered from tracheotomy where her vision started to deteriorate very quickly. she had two unsuccessful operations before her mom died when she was seven from tuberculosis. Once her mom died the dad gave up the kids to relatives, nobody wanted Anne or her younger brother Jimmie since Anne was blind and Jimmie had a large tuberculosis lump on his hip. but the toddler was very healthy and was taken by their aunt. Anne and Jimmie were taken to Tewksbury

Observation is effective because the researcher can observe the user directly. In market research, users are typically placed in a room with a two-sided mirror, a camera, and sound recorder; this allows the researchers to observe the users in a separate location -- allowing the users to feel more comfortable and less pressured as they complete the tasks at hand. Hopefully, if the users are more comfortable and in a relaxed setting, they will provide useful (and truthful) feedback.

I think this is because the survey and interview questions might be too generalized, and doesn't allow for precise answers from the users. Also, users might fabricate their answers, or alter them in a way they think will please the surveyor/interviewer/tester.

Technical communicators process expert level information/knowledge into something that can be more easily accessed by a general audience. I like that Sullivan used the word "empathy" here. It suggests that technical communicators have a gift for connecting with users and understanding what they need.

Things to keep in mind about market research(from my work experience in market research): oftentimes, the product-specific interest is also customer specific. Examples of customer specificity include projects that target loyal-brand only customers, and projects that target unaware-only customers. Focus groups are coordinated through set parameters: customer preferences, demographics, personality, and purchase habits.

This type of usability test certainly does apply to the process of technical communication, because one thing is key: the audience. For marketers, the audience is the specific customer base; for technical communicators, the audience is also who will use their product.

This can be compared to what was read in Wickman's Wicked Problems article. He stated that the different groups from the class approached the Gulf oil spill in a different way. He had groups made up of different disciplines and groups made up of similar disciplines. Both types of groups approached the problem in a way that aligned with their strengths and personal interests. The same applies to usability studies in that there are multiple ways to approach the same topic.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(1), 23-42. doi:10.2190/tw.44.1.c

Both Sullivan and Wickman utilize steps (and plans of action) when approaching their research. Likewise, both authors utilize frameworks in their research.

Part of becoming an effective technical communicator is to plan ahead. Time constraints are real, and it is important to give yourself enough time to write and re-write your works.

As writers in technical communication, our work is audience centered. Therefore, it makes sense for technical communicators to be involved in expanded usability, because we focus on what is best for our audience. Expanded usability testing can ensure that we reach our primary and secondary audiences in a more exact way. It might also expand the accidental, or unintentional audiences too. However, it is always most important to target products at your primary and secondary audience members.

In general, the need for usability testing is expanding. Our world is growing more diverse, and the types of audiences we have at our fingertips are expanding. Usability testing can greatly benefit users that are often times neglected; an example of this would be users with disabilities. An applicable example of this issue occurred today (09.06.16): Hulu has agreed to expand its closed captioning programs due to in-accessibility (and great upset) from deaf individuals and The National Association of the Deaf.

NAD, A. (2016, September 06). The NAD and Hulu Reach Agreement. Retrieved September 06, 2016, from https://nad.org/news/2016/9/nad-and-hulu-reach-agreement

Because each individual user approaches the product in an individual way. Usability testing does not have one solution, and user accessibility cannot be understood after one test. The can be compared to Chad Wickman's Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. The problem of the Gulf oil spill did not have one solution to it -- it had many -- and of the many, the solutions still had to be revised over and over again.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(1), 23-42. doi:10.2190/tw.44.1.c

It is interesting that they have chosen to phase out editorial and technical review. It seems they've declined to answer to expert's ethos, and instead rely statistics gathered by way of user testing and interview.

Both exploration and grading seem important to the advancement of usability. Exploration is important for discovering new methods to present information that are more widely understood. Grading is important for grading these methods.

It doesn't seem like the study of usability has a systematic method of inquiry in the same way that other fields have the scientific method. It seems natural that different researchers would turn up vastly different results.

Little habits like this, though they may seem insignificant, demonstrates how people minds organize information, and what areas they need assistance. Taking things like this into account can really boost usability.

Not only can a research question be posed, but it is practically necessary. Usability is an incredibly broad term, that covers nearly every facet of nearly all publicly available content. If you are going to improve it, you will need specific goals to focus on. A research question clarifies those goals.

I feel that direct questioning is definitely one of the more effective methods when handling methods of research. Different ways to go about surveying participants is by going to a populated area and asking randoms people to assist. Or mail them out as well.For interviews you can also go to a populated area to ask if they would like to participate in the study, also go by telephone but that really isn't a preferred method now a days. For comprehension tests, this is when they ask to answer questions, so send out flyers in the mail to help to assist with questioning or email them online to random participants again.

I think this method is something that Sullivan steers away from because it doesn't leave much room for multi modality or the collaboration between multiple disciplines. It is more one sided in it's way of collecting and analyzing information and as the author states doesn't take into account the context of the person being observed and their cultural awareness.

I think the author is trying to show how people working in different disciplines can achieve a common goal and that technical writing and communication is evolving to be multimodal. Different skill sets are needed to create the different systems and products in technical communication and also to measure their usability and what is deemed a successful product or message.

Through this part of the reading Sullivan goes into a discussion of whether or not usability research presents writing theory with compelling arguments for integrating usability more centrally into the writing development process. He states that this is a yes pointing out although usability may not help out the writers in a sense it will help to assist the viewers. Which this will give the writers a chance to learn about the views which he discussed earlier in the chapter.

By learning about the viewers, writers are able to change the view point that they have on constructing manuals, because they now know the point of view of the users. These tests lead to endless possibilities for the writers to go off of to find out what the viewers want.

I generally found this entire section wonderful and informative. Sullivan in this section discusses the issues at hand while broadening our view in usability while also informing us of the con's that come with it. He discusses three issues that touch base on product development, whether or not usability can be put in a natural context, and can usability be found in compelling arguments.My favorite issue that he discusses is the third one; I will go into more depth with my annotation there.

For this reason, I would think that observation is probably the most effective way of judging usability. Second hand accounts could never bee as helpful ass actually seeing how people interact with your content first hand.

Sociology can be very helpful when trying to aid in the improvement of usability. The discipline includes the study of commonly accepted method of communication within a society, which is vital information when you are trying to modify specialized information for wider consumption.

By explaining specialist subjects with a more broadly used vernacular, utilizing more universally understood modes, and sharing the context that certain information was researched, specialized information within a single discipline can be shared with a much larger audience. This is very important, as what might seem like an insignificant study could potentially have far reaching application if shared properly.

There are some methods you can use. The rate of returns for first time visitors and the number of complaints received are both excellent statistics that point to how user friendly your medium is, albeit indirectly.

Editorial and and technical experts are likely to have encountered many examples of technical writing with varying levels of usability. When critiquing, they have plenty of examples compare to, and so I imagine they are the most prepared to offer criticism.

It's interesting how Sullivan advocates a broader view of usability but also acknowledges some of the challenges it creates, in this case a flood of information. It also shows the theme of adaption that appears throughout the text, with the author referring to the new fields and positions that this broader view creates from people who research to those that design and test new systems.

Using the method of these place questions helps to keep organization as Sullivan says. But it also helps with the focal point of the research. These are extremely important as Sullivan goes on to mention about what groups are studied and why. This in turn will help others to figure out and apply these things to their own situations during research.

Sullivan points out how important that usability is for technical writers and mentions that this is what his argument will be about for the article. It is very smart of him though to point out that their are some consequences when it comes to "broadening our view" of usability. There is always a consequence to everything that we do, and the fact that he argues both sides shows that he is doesn't just want to persuade us to follow the need of usability but for us to do so wisely while knowing the consequences. He definitely goes into this later on in the reading about the issues that can be at hand.

Again, the author is raising questions on how usability changes depending on the context and also how the successfulness of writing is reliant also on context and the development cycle. I think it's interesting to think about how adaption and context could also effect what is considered successful. It would definitely be important for a group of coworkers to be in consensus of what a successful outcome to a project would be over a negative one. Without it, their work would have no direction or purpose behind it and would likely go off in different directions.

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 think the author is trying to get readers to see computers as a space where many different types of interactions can occur. A job for a technical writer using a computer is different than the task of a engineer or psychologist. The computer is a way for us to create and receive messages that are multimodal, so there are many different ways of thinking about and creating these messages, taking from different disciplines like sociology, psychology and writing. I think this is also why Sullivan stresses the adaption of research methods throughout the article because the computer has always been evolving to be more and more multimodal.

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

I think this point is important to make because assuming your audience is versed in the rhetoric involving computers can have drastic effects on the outcome of the observations of the researcher. I believe that because technical writing is so multimodal, context and adaption are key because it uses new and quickly changing technologies. Sullivan believes that the discipline through which we view technical communication also determines it's context. I think this is where the adaption that the author is speaking about comes in, the way in which we study technical communication needs to change as fast as the issues and technologies surrounding it.

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/

I agree with my classmates that this method could be too generalized and not user specific and seem to be less effective than a chosen focus group. I think its thought provoking how the author uses sociology to describe a more hands on approach when it comes to measuring usability with a product or technology. I can see the benefits of a more hands on approach and the use of sociology because it provides the researcher with a better opportunity to observe than in a survey type setting where the end user is more separated from the researcher. I think this is also why the sociologists way of thinking about technical communication is better suited for education and office settings where people are interacting with one another.

I think it's important to notice the distinction the author makes between technical review and work in the field, what the author prefers and how some views of usability study prefer laboratory work over field and some the opposite. For example, Sullivan states that a sociology perspective is better studied using field work as opposed to more controlled experiments in a laboratory. I think the traditional method of evaluation focuses more on the end product as opposed to using technical thinking early on during the prototype process. It also less on the analysis of the context in which the message is delivered. Because technical writing is now so multimodal, with people working within many disciplines at once, there are less commonalities among collaborators and more of a need for the analysis of context, Sullivan believes.

I think this touches on the goals we have created for technical writing in this class, emphasizing that the usability of the piece differs depending on the client it's created for. Sullivan uses this goal for the article as a pillar to discuss different ways in which we study usability and the effect that a multitude of different disciplines, like psychology and sociology, can have on the study of usability and technical communication. I think this message is relevant today because of the multimodal forms of communication present in todays world and how new mediums are emerging alongside new technologies.

I believe that seeing technical writing through a sociologist's viewpoint is important because of what the author calls "the context of normal use". Although in the reading and in the other articles it's expressed that making your message too simple or dumbed down is also ineffective, it's important for your message to be user friendly and direct also. I think the most effective way to make your message user friendly would be field studies as opposed to laboratory studies even though this is a relatively new approach to technical writing.

Continuing to do usability testing is essential for technical communicators to continue to improve their relationship with their users.

There are endless variables to consider during usability testing, and that makes it difficult to make sure everything is done.

Each group is an individual variable. Different approaches are what makes testing usability so difficult.

I found this paragraph really interesting, just because we kind of get the sense of where people in different job settings take human-computer interactions seriously. Writer's generally aren't concerned with this, but when it comes to technical writers the research that they look into for this will affect their career I'm sure.

Correlates to the idea in Wicked Problems where different statistics and accounts were being found across the student groups, as well as the affect of perspective. Each specialized group would have a different perspective within their different fields

This is important in a rhetorical sense because it is the open question that we need to address to an audience. It relates to Wicked Problems in that it questions the relation of Technical communication to other fields' areas of study.

"The usability of an interface is a measure of the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in a particular environment with that interface."

Source:(http://infodesign.com.au/usabilityresources/articles/technicalcommunicators/)

This can readily affect organization of material and the diction used, as well as introducing the potential of multimodal communications.

By defining the parameters of origins, you create an easily definable topic for your audience. This helps you compose your document because there is a clear intent behind your piece. Essentially, if we view each piece as teaching the audience (as mentioned earlier in this article), then we can really go about the structure like a lesson plan. With any lesson plan, you need to ensure that the foundation of basic knowledge is addressed and reinforced through the lesson. Establishing these foundational characteristics are key to this goal.

This is interesting in the lens of rhetoric because the interface is the persuasion and the mode. Each interface is designed with ease in mind with readability, attractive appearance, legibility, information organization, and efficiency of the reader retaining the information.

The difference she argues for may become more difficult to navigate as people become part of each; we create computer-based existences alongside or completely separate from our human life.

This seems to imply that for this sector of usability research, the potential market has priority. This means that the information could be manipulated for the benefit of a larger market margin.

Technical writers focus more on source material; what users utilize to learn a system and what materials are out there to help them.

These various disciplines provide a variety in Technical Communication productions. They are not overly focused in "empirical studies" (Professional Communications), but rather focus on analyzing the effective avenues of communicating to audiences

Fascinatingly, the humanity roots of Technical Communication professionals seems to create a more liberal way to assert accuracy in a message to an audience. They focus more on case studies that have more philosophical nature of discussing success. As such, they are always entertaining the idea of what grading should be. This spurs the discussion of usability within the community.

Looking at the natural to introduce the manufactured seems to be a common goal of technology. If we study what we reflexively do through daily tasks, such as organization, then it is easy to create a platform emulating these natural habits, putting users at ease. Hence, the Iphone brands itself as :user friendly" by focusing on the same habits to operate the slew of apps available.

Wicked Problems comes to a similar conclusion about cross-field studies. Each person in the group has an expertise and a perception that differs from the other. This effects priorities, study type experiences, and diction decisions. Combining fields allows a wider lens view of issues and potential solutions.

Factors such as these would make it to difficult to analyze each manipulated factor is a matter of personal opinion.

This coincides well with the statement I previously made about the difficulties of measuring and analyzing usability with infinite manipulations used throughout technical communication.

By enacting one specific framework to be used by all technical communicators, it makes it easier to determine usability across the field.

Of the three methods, I would assume that direct questioning and observation would be the most effective. Direct contact with users and instant access to data would make determining usability easier.

According to the text, traditional evaluation methods produce real-time results, in regards to readability and efficiency. They don't, however, answer questions of usability.

The product development model measures usability, paying special attention to each stage of development, maintaining realistic expectations during each stage, and continuously determining the practicality of the product from stage to stage.

The cognitive model requires an experiment. Test subjects must use the "product" with researchers watching, who then determine usability through user action.

My only concern with this method is pre-screening for participants. The provided example involves word processor software. A factor that could impact data would be computer literacy or basic familiarization. Although its a new program being tested, anyone who has previously used a word processor would be more successful at navigating the tested program than someone with no previous experience.

The Cultural Model uses user interaction to determine usability. This model seems the most reliable when trying to determine the usability of a program because it connects researchers with the audience. It's easy to assume that the larger an audience a program or website has, the simpler usability has to be.

It's important to recognize the connections between the methods and questions: information processing and questions formed during application or testing, and a person's beliefs connected to how/where they were born or raised

Connecting data and research across technical communicators, in regards to one product, can improve usability. A collective effort among many in the field provides many "solutions" or "resolutions", as we learned in #wickman concerning wicked problems.

"Natural use's goal is to minimize interference to results and data as close to reality as possible."

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/which-ux-research-methods/

This can be done through observation, and can be extremely helpful when determining usability. Going with the provided example, if users were testing a new word processor, some questions that could be answered include: How easy is the program to navigate? Are the tools and symbols universally recognizable?

I found this table to be helpful in conceptualizing what needs to be done for a technical writing assignment. Everything is clear and concise, including the projects goals and constraints.

Using these two settings of groups, contextual and structural, it will give more structure and organization to figure out the differences between the two different groups. Sullivan state it "helps us understand it more reliably." Also, in Wiclman's reading Wicked Problems he also uses a similar method with controlled groups having two groups similar and different in disciplines.

This is true in any form of research, which is losing focus on what is necessary out of the research. But when it comes to technical communicators the focus needs to come back to what will help the audience in the long run, which is something that technical communicators take in for everything that they do.We are here to inform and to teach them.

The idea of building a framework (later stated) should include the use of multiple test group/subjects within that individual study

In order to measure factors such as these there needs to be standards as to what using, successfulness, and where look like/appear as

How to measure usability:

1. Heuristic Technique
2. Defining approach: Availability, sustainability, accessibility, readability.
3. Wilsons Technique

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/VidishaB/documentation-usability

Her name is Stacy Savides Sullivan. She was already Google’s HR director by the time the CCO title was added to her position, in 2006. Somewhat surprising that Sullivan’d disagree with Teller, given her alleged role:

Part of her job is to protect key parts of Google’s scrappy, open-source cultural core as the company has evolved into a massive multinational.

And her own description:

"I work with employees around the world to figure out ways to maintain and enhance and develop our culture and how to keep the core values we had in the very beginning–a flat organization, a lack of hierarchy, a collaborative environment–to keep these as we continue to grow and spread them and filtrate them into our new offices around the world.

Though “failure bonuses” may sound a bit far-fetched in the abstract, they do fit with most everything else we know about Googloids’ “corporate culture” (and the Silicon Valley Ideology (aka Silicon Valley Narrative), more generally).

Interesting that the title would be appended to the HR director position, instead of creating a new position. Stacy Savides Sullivan has been with the Goog’ since 1999, so pretty early in the company’s history. Not sure if her job is specifically with Google or if covers Alphabet more generally. It does sound like Sullivan’s ideas clashed with Astro Teller’s.