Usability is the key factor in successful HCI. In short, usability is how intuitively a user can navigate and effectively utilize a system. A system designer must have a user-centric approach when striving for high usability and that consists of the following: Functional Fit, Cognitive Accessibility, and UX Quality.
Let’s look at usability from the thought flow of a user. Functional fit is where I begin. I look for a system that matches my task and can effectively complete the task as the top priority. This also encompasses the system being adaptable to the context or environment I am in. Next, I consider Cognitive Accessibility. I look for one that can accomplish the goal with relative ease, varying depending on the task. It should be intuitive enough to complete tasks without a steep learning curve. It should have advanced features that allow the user to develop skills and not need to look elsewhere. Lastly, I want a smooth user experience. A good UX Quality consists of a highly efficient, predictable system that satisfies a user, allowing them to easily navigate and accomplish tasks in any environment suitable for the task. It should minimize and be resilient to errors, with easy corrective actions.
While this is a general concept of usability, let’s dive into an educational context using this three-pillar framework. We will focus on K-12 learning as different learning environments will have different points to cover. The key differentiating factors to consider with educational usability is that the system must also motivate students and encourage continual learning growth. Building on my previous definition of usability, educational usability is how intuitively a user can navigate a system that perpetually motivates them to advance their learning.
- Functional Fit must align with age-appropriate learning goals within the context of the curriculum and classroom with progression of learning.
- Cognitive Accessibility entails enough flexibility to address different cognitive levels, learning styles, learning disorders, and prior knowledge at age-appropriate levels using a scaffolded approach that won’t impede motivation.
- UX Quality encourages motivation, engagement, and the opportunity to learn from mistakes.
Two examples Woolgar (1990) has provided some examples of usability that ‘configures the user’. The first mistake the company made was using test subjects from within their own company, with no outside subjects (Woolgar, 1990, p. 69-71). Although they strived for “true novices”, all employees likely have a sense of the company’s culture and understanding of the product offerings, eliminating the possibility of real novices. The employee subjects may reinforce the company vision in their approach to using the device, in turn “configuring the user” to act in the way the company expects them to, rather than understanding how authentic users will approach use. They reshape their perception of the user through the company lens, hindering a truly user-centric design. A better way would be to have NDA’s signed by authentic participants to see how a see potential user might behave.
Another mistake was made in the ‘wrong socket episode’ (Woolgar, 1990, p. 86-89). Providing the user with everything needed to setup the printer with the computer. The subject soon realized they couldn’t figure it out and blamed herself for not being able to configure the devices. The facilitators investigated and determined the printer wasn’t compatible with the new computer. The user is configured to believe that she was at fault when it was in fact a company error. The lesson learned here would be to ensure all components are correct before presenting to the subject.
I see the main difference between Woolgar (1990) and Issa & Isaias (2015) in the way they approach design development. Woolgar (1990, p. 59–60) takes the position that designers configure users by trying to shape actions of their imagined users while Issa & Isaias (2015, p. 28–29) take a hands-on approach where user feedback drives the final design.
Issa & Isaias approach has parallels with the iterative Silicon Valley “move fast and break things” approach where they can quickly change things based on real test cases. Woolgar has a valid theory with configuring the user as a negative, but at the current of stage of capitalism, I believe major companies try to configure the user to manipulate their behaviors. Usability is undoubtedly a critical component of these companies but ulterior motives, primarily maximizing profit through keeping consumers engaged as long as possible, have driven the design more than anything. Issa & Isaias approach closely reflects this ideology through their user-feedback driven approach, while Woolgar wants us to understand that design configures users.
References
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In T. Issa, P. Isaias, & P. Kommers (Eds.), Sustainable design: HCI, usability and environmental concerns (pp. 19–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19590-0_2
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), 58–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x
Disclaimer: This paper was written in it’s entirety without the use of AI, but some ideas and guidance was provided by ChatGPT. The conversation can be found at this link: https://chatgpt.com/share/68c8859e-61cc-8005-b1db-a8a592168272