AB what? Blood, Branding, and UX Process

Not AB testing. I'll leave that for another day. AB blood! I donate blood regularly, and I thought of being a geneticist for about a minute during advanced biology in high school. So, of course, the oft-used example of blood-type inheritance is familiar to me. When I saw comments in a social media post about the rarity of O+ blood (it's the opposite, O+ is the most common type), I wanted to see the actual facts from a legitimate source before I chimed in. That led me to the American Red Cross, with whom I volunteer and donate regularly. My nature is to follow all those glorious tangents when I am reading. (Lord help me when I am reading text with significant "related information" or footnotes!) So, of course, I read about blood-type inheritance as well. That's where things got interesting--and provided the impetus for this post.

I am blood type A and my mother was blood type O, which means my dad was A or AB. (Just trust me for now. There is a link later that you can follow to read more.) I was scanning the chart that shows blood-type inheritance on the Red Cross site and read something odd. The chart showed that someone with (O,A) parents could have only O. And (O, B) could result in O or A. Furthermore, the chart indicated that (O, AB) parents could have a child with blood type O. What?! Anyone who remembers high school genetics knows that (O.A) results in A, (O. B) results in B, and (O, AB) results in A or B.

Here is a screenshot of that strange chart that challenged my (superior!) high school memory.

Incorrect Content: Blood Type Inheritance Chart Example

You see it already, right? The inherited blood type row headings are moved a column to the left, throwing off the entire chart. I did not notice it at first because I was focused on the challenge to my own recollection of facts (content) rather than the presentation of them (format). [Now you are starting to see where I am going with this, right?] The facts were, indeed, correct. The presentation of those facts misrepresented them as incorrect.

That is a pretty big deal. And I was shocked that an organization like the Red Cross would make such an error--and that it would be undiscovered for so long. Surely, I am not the first nerd -uh- person to actually read the information about blood type inheritance.

Lightbulb Moment

Wondering about how this mistake could have remained undetected and uncorrected led me to another thought. Maybe it hasn't. [Just when you thought you were following me, I lead you down another rabbit hole.] I will explain. But first, let's talk about the impact of the error on user experience and brand.

UX of Branding and Content

The Red Cross site typically provides a good user experience for casual surfers. The incorrect blood-type inheritance information chart surprised me. How could the Red Cross, of all organizations, display incorrect blood-type information? Remember that it took me a minute to determine that the table format was bad, not per se the content. And that pause is key. People who are not tasked with delivering content likely will never look past the initial problem. They will either:

• not recognize any error and consume the incorrect content
• see a content error and abandon the site 
• recognize the error as presentational and abandon the site 
• recognize the error as presentational, nerd out, and figure out the correct content [this group apparently consists of one person to date]

Each of these scenarios is bad. At the very least, the authority (ethos, for my fellow nerds) of the organization has been diminished. Its brand has been tarnished.

The incorrect information has led to poor user experience. UX is not merely the design and flow of a site or product, it also is the content itself, which should be correct, usable, accessible, and appropriate. In this instance, the Red Cross site did not pass the UX test of correctness. Never mind that the authored content is correct. The presentation of the content is incorrect, which makes the delivered and consumed content incorrect. [Do you see why I like DITA XML and structured authoring, which separates content and presentation?]

Poor user experience can lead to users abandoning the site. Much is expected of large organizations and organizations that are highly regarded or prominent, leading to high standards even in areas that are not their focus (such as a web site). The loss of ethos could lead to a reduction in donations and volunteers for Red Cross.

Seeing this delivery error in a site that typically provides a good user experience [forgoing discussions of user authentication and targeted search for now!] made me me wonder why they would fail in something so simple without discovering the error. Hence, that lightbulb moment from before. The issue is platform specific.

UX of Platform and Context

Like most of my web searches, I looked up the blood-type information on my iPhone. The first (Google) search result was a link to the Red Cross mobile page for blood type information. That's where I encountered the badly-rendered table.

An aspect of good user experience is to provide a mobile user with a link to view the full web view on mobile instead of the minimalized mobile view. The Red Cross site provides a Full Site link (or button, depending on how you got there) on the mobile view site (m.redcross.com) that goes to www.redcross.com. Sure enough, the table was perfectly rendered on the "full" web site.

Correct Content: Blood Type Inheritance Chart Example

So only users who use the Red Cross mobile site see the error. Outside of location and specific event traffic, I imagine that the Red Cross website probably is viewed on PCs more than on mobile devices. This is a theory, I have no empirical evidence to support it. but the continued existence of the badly-rendered blood-type inheritance table does lend credence to my theory. The reach of the error in this particular existence is limited. But the issue here may be greater than the impact of this particular error.

UX of Development, Validation, and Process

The cause of the table error is not clear. Either the content itself is different for mobile and web sites or the rendering is. Obviously, rendering is the ultimate issue. But rendering where? Were two different sources used (and the table rendered in the source content) or was the error introduced during mobile site rendering? Even with responsive web design, these types of errors can occur. The first error can be avoided by using a common source for content (single sourcing) and using platform conditions to identify content to serve. This can become quite complex, leading some organizations to simply create separate content for different platforms or contexts. [The horror!] The second error can be addressed by religiously checking conversion and rendering scripts, CSS, and code.

Why was the content not tested on the mobile site? It probably was. But every single snippet of information--particularly generated content--typically is not tested. With automatic content generation, once the process is validated, the content generation typically works without a problem (until a new situation is encountered). If generation and rendering scripts have worked in other instances, they would not be questioned. And if the error was in the platform rendering itself rather than pre-formatted table content, the content author would have no reason to believe there is a problem.

Without knowing the source(s) and method(s) used to create this particular table, it is impossible for me to identify the origination of the problem. But the problem is bigger than one table. The underlying issue is not content creation nor web development nor even testing and validation. The problem is process. Somewhere, the process has broken down. In this particular instance, the content is not critical, and the reach of the error is limited. The resulting error in this case is largely benign. But it may not always be. Process issues tend to cause pervasive problems that can be difficult to identify, challenging to communicate, and expensive to address. Although it is sometimes overlooked or undervalued in user experience design, process is an important component of a cohesive, sustainable, and successful UX architecture.

Blood Types, Type Distribution, and Inheritance

If you are like me and love to follow those tangents and want to learn more about blood types, follow this link to the American Red Cross (full web) page. Hopefully, the blood-type inheritance table as rendered on the mobile site will be fixed soon. 

http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-types 

Testing, testing. Can u hear me?

A friend posted recently about abbreviations of the word microphone. Apparently, abbreviating microphone to mic gives him a nervous tic. For him, mike is the proper abbreviation. It is not clear if he is in the pronunciation anti-mic camp--their argument is that mic is liable to be mispronounced as "mick" (like "tic")--or if his objection is solely because (his point) we abbreviate "bicycle" as "bike" and, therefore, should abbreviate "microphone" to "mike." Except the
first "c" in "bicycle" is soft and the "c" in "microphone" is hard, making this a specious comparison. If bike is using the sound of the second "c" (and it is), then the type of abbreviation must be completely different. It is a false comparison. Those who take issue with the spelling because of potential mispronunciation make a good point, mic out of context likely would be mispronounced. But that is true of many words in English.

The English language is a harsh mistress. English is built upon and borrows liberally from many languages and cultures and, thus, has many inconsistent forms. There are precious few rules that apply to all of her subjects sweepingly. This is quite evident in our abbreviations.

Mike or Mic?

In fact, the common abbreviation for microphone in audio and engineering is mic. This shorthand of mic for microphone has been used by professional broadcasters and musicians and in equipment labeling for many years. Mic was used in printed texts (remember those?) at least as early as 1961. (It did not start with rap, as has been stated by a few commentators.) Interestingly, the verb form, to express the act of setting up a microphone, seems to be written somewhat interchangeably as both "to mic" and "to mike." Regardless of which spelling is used for the abbreviation as a verb, "mike" is used for its past tense, present third-person singular, and passive voice forms.

Stoddard mikes himself before he goes on air.

The engineer miked him already.

Streisand always is miked.

Who's your daddy?

Not only does English itself have a plethora of standard abbreviations, every field has its own set (and sometimes many sets) of abbreviations. Neither the comparative abbreviations nor comparative pronunciations approach is particularly useful in English to determine how abbreviations should be formed. There are some basic forms for abbreviating, but first, here are a few other interesting abbreviations and comparisons of abbreviations in English.

mother > mom, mommy

but

father > dad, daddy

number > num

but

amount > amt

and

quantity > qty

By the way, if something is countable, use quantity or number; if not, use amount.

telephone > phone

but

television > T.V. (sometimes teevee), now TV

satellite > Sat

but

Internet > Net

worldwide web > WWW > Web > web

I owe you > IOU

Did you think the shortcut of abbreviating "you" to "u" started with text messaging (texting), electronic mail (E-mail > Email > email), or social media (SM or sm, not to be confused with S&M, although SM can be both tortuous and addicting)? Think again. The IOU abbreviation using U for you has been around since the late 18th century.

Types of Abbreviations or Abbreviations of Type?

Dropping the end of a word to abbreviate it (deli, gym, mic) is called clipping. Dropping the beginning, as in telephone to phone, is called apheresis. Dropping letters from the middle (mgmt, fwd) is called contraction. The first two (and, arguably, contracting) are syllabic-based methods of abbreviating words.

Television to TV, International Business Machines to IBM, self-contained underwater breathing apparatus to S.C.U.B.A. (then SCUBA, now scuba), and Worldwide Web to WWW, are letter-based methods of abbreviating, which, typically but not always, abbreviate using the first letter of each significant word or syllable. Examples of exceptions are extensible markup language, which abbreviates to XML, and user experience, which abbreviates to UX. But, I beg you, for all that is holy, please do not write out these using a capital X! If I see one more eX- anything, I may run screaming for the eXit.

Letter-based abbreviations that form a pronounceable word, such as scuba, NATO, and radar are acronyms. Radar actually is a hybrid letter- and syllable-based abbreviation for "radio detection and ranging," forced somewhat in order to make a memorable acronym. Letter-based abbreviations that are not pronounceable as a word (IBM, CIA, WWW) are initialisms rather than acronyms. Note that this distinction is often missed as a result of massive misuse. I suspect that this conflation began with texts that show all abbreviations in a list of "acronyms" rather than in a properly-named list of "abbreviations and acronym" or, simply, "abbreviations." (All acronyms are abbreviations; not all abbreviations are acronyms.) Nonetheless, the distinction remains.

Some shortened words and names may not much resemble their longer forms, such as father shortened to dad or daddy. These particular abbreviations also happen to be hypocorisms. Hypocorisms are words that are for or about children or endearing 'pet' names. Daddy, like many hypocorisms, also adds a softening, singsongy -y sound at the end.

The mutability of English also is apparent in abbreviations. Dropping the periods in abbreviations is common in technology and communications, and it is becoming more common in the mainstream and academia. We now write PhD, NATO, and USA. But keep the periods in U.S. (US is a magazine, not a country.) Similarly, abbreviations, particularly acronyms, that do not represent a proper noun generally now are written in lowercase instead of uppercase letters. Hence, we have radar, scuba, laser, and pin instead of their unnecessarily bulky predecessors. Likewise, proper-name acronyms are moving toward only an initial capital (Unicef, Peta, and Fema).

And about those text shortcuts? That's TMI 4 2nite. BB4N.

Previously published at cherimullins.blogspot.com

"What happened to usability?"

Nicolette L. Davis, PhD, asked this question in the UX Pro group on LinkedIn yesterday. She expanded on her question with the following post.

The term "user experience" seems to have replaced "usability" recently. Why, the Usability Professionals Association even changed its name to the User Experience Professionals Association a couple of years ago! Personally, I think "usability" is a much clearer term than "user experience," particularly for people not familiar with our field. Does anyone know the reason for this change? Some kind of management fad, perhaps?

There does seem to be a trend currently to conflate user experience (UX) and usability. UX is both more and less than usability, but there is significant overlap between the two.

The methods of usability and UX analysis are similar. Usability and UX are not distinguished by "measurability" as one response in the thread implies. Usability assessment is a more established field than UX assessment. As a result, there are more established methodologies for assessment and measurement as well as more established indicators for such assessment and measurement. Nonetheless, both usability and UX most certainly can be measurable. Also like usability, certain UX factors can be qualitatively comparable rather than measurable.

A current trend in companies is to focus usability on research and testing and to limit UX to design. However, both usability and UX have research, analysis, implementation, and testing aspects as well as design aspects. Design is only one aspect of a product, and there are many facets to design, among which are: interface design (IxD), user experience design (UxD), business experience design, and graphic design. None of the individual components of UX equate to UX, which is a very broad area. Even though UX in current practice seems to have an undue focus on design, design is not a differentiator between usability and UX. The UX-design connection is more clearly understood, but even with usability, there should be a focus on usability in design. The gap here may relate to the "convenient acronym" effect that Dave Lull notes. Perhaps "Usability Designer" does not have the same buzz-word ring to it as "UX Designer." It certainly does not reduce as well to a clever abbreviation: UxD (or IxD, or BxD, or XxD) versus what? UD?

Generally, but not always, user experience (UX) encompasses what I would refer to as 'fitness for purpose.' Something can be completely usable but not particularly useful. Or it can be both usable and useful, but not relevant. Or usable, useful, and relevant, but not appropriate. And so on. Tom de Haas implies this with the inclusion of branding, usability, functionality, and content in his understanding of UX. UX includes not only certain tangible components, but also intangibles. As Gary Dorst implies, many intangible aspects of UX affect the overal user experience although they are not measurable. Also, as Katie Albers points out, these are not the only aspects of UX. One of the most notable aspects missing from the de Haas list is architecture. The architecture of physical, interface, and information products and components has a profound impact on the user experience, particularly over time. Futhermore, the element of time is another differentiator between usability and user experience. Usability looks at how usable something is in an instantation (whether or not access is repeated). User experience (or its more specific counterpart, business experience) looks at the overall experience over time.

But back to the question. "What happened to usability?" It sometimes is hiding inside the larger user experience field, sometimes stuck to the side in research without fruitful application (and re-application in an iterative manner), sometimes mislabeled as UX or another related area. But usability research, assessment, application, testing is alive and well in many environments.

Problems with Using Different Systems: Calculating Easter

Today is Ash Wednesday, the day when millions of folks who follow the Roman Catholic calculation for Easter begin Great Lent, the most solemn and holy season of the year, which leads to the Paschal celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eh? Follow the Roman Catholic calculation? Indeed. The different (and differing) dates for the calculation of Easter (more properly called, Pascha (Πάσχα), but more about that later) among Christians has nothing to do with dogma or belief. Rather, it has to do with using different systems to calculate the date. Perhaps a bit of background is in order.

In 2013, Roman Catholics, the Anglican Communion, and Protestants, which we can (somewhat casually) collectively refer to as Western Christianity or the West, begin Great Lent on Wednesday, February 13 and celebrate Easter on March 31. Lent encompasses the 46 days beginning with Ash Wednesday through the day before Easter, Holy Saturday.

For Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholics, which we shall collectively call Eastern Christianity or the East, Pascha falls much later in 2013, on May 5. Pure Monday begins Great Lent, March 18 in 2013. Thus, Lent before Pascha encompasses the 48 days beginning with Pure Monday through Great and Holy Saturday.

Why are Pascha and Easter calculated differently?

Pascha / Easter is observed on the first Sunday after the paschal full moon that occurs on or follows the vernal equinox. So why the difference?

The West fixed the date of the vernal equinox on March 21 and regards the full moon as the 14th day of the lunar month (which begins with a new moon). The date of Easter is calculated based upon this fixed date and ecclesiastical (rather than astronomical) full moon. These fixed dates make the calculation of future ecclesiastical dates easier.

The East uses the older, Julian, calendar instead of the Gregorian calendar to calculate the date of Pascha. So right off the bat, the March 21 (Julian) date occurs on April 3 (in the Gregorian calendar we use today). Furthermore, Eastern Christianity also uses the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem, site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, to calculate the date of Pascha (hence, the moveable ecclesiastical dates).

Got it? Most of us who live in countries that have both Eastern and Western dates for the Feast of the Resurrection simply rely on looking up the dates. In my family, where all of my siblings and cousins are Western Christians, I am clear to differentiate between "my" Easter and Western Easter. For my kids, we generally celebrated both: Western Easter with bunnies and egg-rolling contests and public activities for children; Pascha with church and a Paschal feast and cracking red eggs to "Christ is risen!" And, of course, because Pascha often is later than Easter, we got discounted candy.

But what about that long fast?

Ah yes. Great Lent is actually 40 days, not the 46 that it appears to be in the West or the 48 it appears to be in the East. How is that? Again, calculations are the culprit.

For Eastern Christianity, Great Lent is the 40 days beginning with Pure Monday (March 18, 2013) through the Friday before Palm Sunday on April 26. Great Lent is actually over at that point. Then we observe the fast (lent) of Lazarus Saturday and the feast of Palm Sunday. Then we enter the fast (lent) of Great and Holy Week, the Monday through Saturday before Pascha. So even though it may appear that we fast during Great Lent for 48 days, Great Lent itself is only 40 days. We fast for 7 more days (Lazarus Saturday and Holy Week) after Great Lent ends. We also prepare for Great Lent by fasting from meat the week before Great Lent begins (saying "farewell" to meat on Meatfare Sunday). Thus, we fast for more than 40 days leading up to Pascha, but Great Lent itself is 40 calendar days.

In the West, Great Lent begins with Ash Wednesday (February 13 in 2013) through Holy Saturday (March 30). Although Lent encompasses 46 days, actual Great Lent is only 40 days, as the 6 Sundays included within those dates are not part of Lent. (The RC Church, in the General Norms of the 1969 Novus Ordo, changed Lent to end on Holy Thursday, but that's a topic for a different discussion.)

Why not have the same date?

It seems to me that the difference in calculations, and thus, dates, is what Borgna Brunner refers to as "a technical skirmish." A WCC proposal in 1997 was for all Christians to use the same calculations, using modern methods to accurately determine the equinox and the paschal full moon and using the meridian of Jerusalem as the point of reference. The proposal has not progressed since that meeting. Sometimes, a mere change of focus can help. Perhaps with new leaders (Orthodox Christians have a new Patriarch of Antioch and Roman Catholic Christians soon will have a new Pope of Rome), administrative leaders of Christians throughout the world can agree upon a calculation that results in a common date for Pascha for all Christians. And from there, who knows what reconciliations could occur?

And Ash Wednesday?

The day of ashes (dies cinerum) custom dates from at least the 8th century as a reminder: "Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return." According to 11th century Roman Catholic homilist, Ælfric, "we strew ashes upon our heads to signify that we ought to repent of our sins during the Lenten fast."

The Ash Wednesday services have always been a bit of a mystery to me, but the public acknowledgement of our own sins and the need for repentance is a powerful sentiment. We all could do a bit more in that area.

Blessings to all on Ash Wednesday, and particularly to my friends who observe this holy day.

Sources:

• About.com. Greece Travel http://gogreece.about.com
• Bruner, Borgna. ca. 2007. A Tale of Two Easters: Why one faith and two celebrations? http://www.factmonster.com/spot/easter1.html
• Constantine. Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter, recorded by Socrates in Church History http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-26/
• Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Dating of Easter (Pascha) in the Orthodox Church http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/faithandlife/pasch.pdf
• New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org
• Patsavos, Lewis J. ca. 1996. The Calendar of the Orthodox Church http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7070
• Richert, Scott P. About.com Catholicism. How Is the Date of Easter Calculated?
• Unknown. 1994. The Date of Pascha. The Word Magazine. http://www.antiochian.org/date-of-pascha.html

Fine-Tuning Output Formatting

A simple way to calculate line length: Pitches and Picas and Points. Oh my!