Damn that is cool. I had no idea that feature existed, and I read the NYT daily (online and in print).

John, I guess I’ve been entirely too influenced by blogs as a source for information online. :) You said:

It hardly phases me. If you look at the composite of articles, they do paint a reasonable picture of usability.

My problem is people who don’t work “in the industry” don’t look at the composite of articles. There’s still a large contingent of people in the world (I am generalizing) that feel the NYT still has “All the news that’s fit to print” and don’t look to other sources.

And from the article, how could they? There’s only internal-to-NYT links available, and then only to “named” companies (IBM, Sony, and Microsoft). The article doesn’t make it easy to find out more information about UPA or STC.

That said, your blog and mine are contributing to the conversation about the state of Usability (or more accurately in this case the perceived state) and given the choice between only two, I’d choose flawed exposure as well. But it’s up to the people who know better to point out the expose and the and speak to the flaws.

I think a better article would be to point out how Usability (in all its forms) helps make the world a better and safer place. Who wouldn’t want to learn how Human Factors people working with the military helped redesign camera (for recon) controls in tanks so the soldiers would stop accidentally shooting the target. Helps when the controls are not the same to take a picture and fire a gun in the cramped space of a tank. :)

Real stories like that are what people connect with and what I really only see on blogs and in books. And for that people have to want to be in that space in the first place.

You might also check out John Rhode’s point of view.

I think the writer of the article intended “driven by advancements in technology” to mean that as technology is advancing, it is becoming increasingly more complex, which means usability professionals will become more relevant. But I do agree that “recently developed” is hogwash.

“Solid career track?” That’s more debatable, of course, than the other assertions.

“Bridging the gap” is an imprecise (and trite) phrase. For example, do programmers “bridge the gap” between what a product ought to do and what it actually does? (I can’t help but smile.) Perhaps, but there is quite a bit more going on in the “gap”. Same goes for usability work. No, we’re not required, but examining the usability aspect *is* required for a successful product.

I haven’t seen the “accessible web design” programs mentioned in the article. Standards-based programs? Unfortunately, that’s pretty unlikely at this point in time. Right on, in identifying web standards as leading to accessible web sites.

“User-experienced”–he only could have meant “user-experience people” (ie, those that design and understand the user’s experience).

“Usability design expert” is a compound noun phrase from hell. And it doesn’t make much sense: one could be a designer, a usability expert, both … but a usability design expert is pretty vague (wtf is “usability design”?).

I agree that “experience design” is emerging, and not the “traditional usability professional”. Still, I sent this article to my grandparents as I think it’s something they can really wrap their heads around.

Do I think this article is indicative of poor quality control at the NYT? Not really. I’d expect very few editors without experience in the software design process to “get” the role of the usability professional. In sum, I think the article does more good than bad.