Faults can be corrected as they are discovered during use Users do not actively look for problems Users are benevolent in their judgements of interfaces Many users blame themselves for being incompetent rather than the interface. Leaving problems for customers to find creates poor customer relations A commercial websites revenue is proportional to the number of visitors and how often they visit Problems at websites discourage users from returning Users cannot define what interface they want Users are not knowledgeable about interface design Often users do not report faults Users need to be studied interacting with the website under controlled conditions Good PR is about associating positive feelings with your company not negative ones The easier the web site is to use the more people will successfully use it, return to it and recommend it

Our designers are so experienced that they do not create usability problems Our web site works just as we want it to We have satisfied customers so we do not need user testing Dissatisfied users seldom complain if there is a competitor with better services, they just defect Competitors who provide an interface with fewer problems will be preferable Users have needs that designers cannot foresee Customers would appreciate improved service Our design is based on a needs assessment and years of customer knowledge What users require of a web interface to your services is different from their service requirements and traditional customer relations Users may not want what you want The view of one manager is not representative of users The project manager is not trained in usability Developers cannot see the development project as a whole and therefore will miss usability issues An evaluation methodology forces developers to look at the interface from new perspectives that are relevant to the user The project manager sees the whole, and that will prevent interface problems Usability is just about using common sense Designers are user themselves so they can foresee users problems Methods that involve designers checking their own work are pointless because they are continually monitoring their results as they work Designers cannot discover their own mistakes Users accept problems as a normal part of usage Problems that are tolerated will still effect use negatively Competitors who provide an interface with fewer problems will be preferable We know from application software that users stick with a product once they have learnt how to use it Web users are fickle Websites have a low learning threshold so the knowledge investment is very low unlike dedicated applications Websites are usually free so, users assess cost in goal achievement time

If a masked problem is worse than the problem that masked it, then rectifying the masking problem makes the interface worse Rectifying any current problems will just lead to new ones If you know about a problem it is irresponsible not to rectify it Finding one problem can reveal a masked problem that was already there and may be more serious. It is better not to tamper with the interface if it is functional

Development will be delayed by a pre-release usability evaluation Problems should be sought after the interface is finished Is better to discover problems before implementation It is cheaper if mistakes are found early Creating and changing a mock-up is cheaper and than implementing and changing code. You cannot see problems clearly until the interface is finished It is clearly more efficient to fix all the problems in one go than to keep going back and delay releasing the web site Nearly all methods can be applied at early stages in development before implementation Problems can be found more easily later and fixed then Early testing will delay development and release Problems can only be found once the web pages are public There are many methods will uncover problems before users see the interface The earlier problems are found the less it costs to fix them Competitors who get to market first gain an advantage It is not an advantage to launch a product ahead of a a competitor who follows with a better product The gain in quality outweighs the loss due to delays in development release

We have a tested design standard that we follow so we don’t need to test the interface again. A design standard is ensures good practices that will prevent usability problems Usability problems can occur even if good standard i used a standard is general and will not address specific requirements the interface must solve Usability is not relevant to the the prime purpose of my website If your purpose requires people to visit your site and gain benefit from their visit then usability is an issue

A test of templates and the most frequently accessed pages is sufficient Only the new part of the web site will need testing because existing parts have been operational for long time Interface solutions that work for a small site may not work for a larger site Consistency across the entire web site is important and will not be detected when only a part of the site is scrutinised Evaluation should also cover the website as a whole or as large units as possible Not all pages contain the same errors Templates regulate consistency with layout problems but do not detect inconsistency of content, textual style, of problems in the relationship between pages The may well be problems in the old part of the web site that will propagate into the design of the new part User’s tasks tend to take them across the system boundaries perceived by developers Users will see a task scenario as a criterion for unity, whereas developers will see database dependency or server residence as a criterion for unity The view of a subset of the interface is not the same for designers as it is for users Frequency of use is not synonymous with the importance of content to the user The problem of useful pages being difficult to find will exclude them from evaluation if frequency criteria are used. If part of your website is of poor quality, it reflects on the whole company

Lists of guide lines are freely available If we use guidelines in development we do not need to do usability evaluation Lists of guide lines are most cost effective because they do not require experts to carry out In order to be fully effective without experts, guide lines need to be specific to the domain. Customer needs change over time Usability should be evaluated by various methods throughout development and after Developing a domain specific set of guidelines is expensive and time consuming and does require an expert It is better to do one method well than several things half- heartedly The developers already have too many aspects to keep track of. Usability will detract them from what they are supposed to be doing There are resources to use one method thoroughly once Using more methods will confuse the developers The method offer different perspectives all of which developers should have in mind when they are working

Boss cannot justify usability costs to his superior Our company is only small and so an evaluation would not be profitable Long term gains are of no interest because changing customer needs and web content/services will have to be revised before the benefit of previous improvements will take effect. The cost of an evaluation cannot be justified There is no guarantee that an evaluation will lead to financial gain. Quality gains are a competitive advantage even if they are not directly profitable Experience from similar companies can be offered as a motivation Where sales or internal operational efficiency are involved, a cost/benefit assessment can be made There are cheaper methods suitable for small companies with small websites Expert can offer to meet the superior or provide written arguments. The benefits of a good interface are long-term improved PR and/or long-term financial gain. These gains outweigh the disadvantages

The problems that users have depend on their not being good at using computers If users can’t use our website that is their problem There are resources to use one method thoroughly once Using more methods will confuse the developers The customer is always right the potential importance to your company of a visitor to your website or is not determined by that customers ability to use an interface Money or publicity from hindered users has the same value as money from unhindered users If the user is hindered by the interface it is the interface that is inadequate not the user The interface should make the users goals as easy as possible to accomplish

Website content is more important than usability If the user cannot find the content then it has no value Users will not appreciate a good interface because they won’t notice it. A good interface should be invisible to the user.

The fad with heuristic evaluation will soon be over because Nielsen’s method was published over 7 years ago. Usability is just the latest methodology fad. It has nothing knew to say or new to offer 7 years is the normal lifetime of a development fad Nielsen is inventor of HE, it is risky to rely on the work of one researcher The method has been adopted by many others and well studied in relation to other methods regarding the efficiency and quality of problem identification in relation to cost, time, other methods, resource, level of expertise etc. The tenets of usability are well researched in studies within cognitive and behavioural psychology

User testing is more expensive than heuristic evaluation Contra The result from heuristic evaluation are not representative of users Pro In user testing, real users test the interface with characteristic use cases User testing finds more of the serious errors than heuristic evaluation User testing is the most efficient evaluation method to validate the interface