Word Count: 741
Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is a discipline concerned with the interaction between humans and computers, the principles of which can be applied to the development or design of computer systems and their software. Users (“humans”) interact with interfaces that are part of the computer systems which makes changes to the virtual world depending on the programmed functionality. Usability in the context of HCI is both an attribute and a process – an application has “usability” if it is easy and enjoyable to use, and “usability” can be methods in a design process to improve the user experience, or to ensure that a design is functional, useable, and useful.
To conceptualize usability, it is important to first establish an understanding of related words – functional, usable, and useful. If something is functional it is said to work as intended. If something is usable then the function will create a desired reaction Finally, if something is useful, then the usable function can be said to be positive. For example, consider a light switch: it is functional if it moves up and down, if it is usable the light changes state, and it is useful when we can claim the experience and outcome was positive. In this example, we are talking about interaction with objects in the physical world that change the physical world – but we can also interact with objects in the physical world which make changes in a virtual world – when we interact with computer systems. Jakob Nielsen (2018) makes the distinction between the physical world and the virtual one with regard to usability with the example of a complicated coffee menu. In the physical world we are willing to tolerate less usability than in the virtual world, one reason being the effort involved in “course correction” (i.e. the effort in leaving a coffee shop for another vs. exiting a website when one is deemed unusable). This distinction between the physical and virtual worlds is important when we consider that usability relates to physical interaction that results in functionality which has been designed and engineered.
Woolgar (1990) experienced usability testing “gone wrong” where the design failed but instead of considering this as demonstrating a lack of usability, the testers intervened on behalf of the user (assuming real world users would somehow be different) or failed to acknowledge that the failure scenario may be representative of real-world experience. In one case the user was asked to setup a printer, however, it turned out that the ports were not functional and that the task was impossible. In another scenario, the tester identified a hardware issue (“a possible loose connection”) and pointed this out to the user. As previously mentioned, there is an important distinction between usability in the physical and virtual worlds – namely in our expectations of each and the user’s alternative options that can influence their experience. Interestingly in the examples I’ve mentioned, the challenges were “explained away” by physical issues, and we can assume that these challenges were not explained as impediments to usability by the testers.
Issa & Isaias (2015) position on usability is about the process of evaluating software in order to iterate on design. Woolgar (1990) recognizes constraints are placed on the user when we ignore that a machine exists in context and an essential part of that context is the user. Both perspectives are related to a “perfect environment” where the HCI perspective aims to create a perfect environment for testing and understanding the user’s interaction with a prototype, and Woolgar (1990) accepts that perfection means ignoring that a user is a human in some environment outside of the usability testing. Woolgar (1990) does not take for granted that machines are new entities where user action may be set by parameters of the designer.
From these perspectives of usability, we have learned that the user is often prescribed or given parameters in order to consider the usability of a computer system when given a specific task. In the case of education, it is not so simple to ascribe such parameters, in particular because we cannot say there is always a defined task for a student. Given that learning is not as simple as “completing a task”, we must incorporate learning and cognition in the concept, the discussed physical-virtual interaction also needs to incorporate the mind and intention of the student. Finally, the educational environment is not constrained to a single user – usability therefore needs to consider the teacher and student.
Issa T., Isaias P. (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). In: Sustainable Design. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2
Nielsen, J. (September 21, 2018). Usability in the Physical World. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/videos/usability-physical-world-vs-web/
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 58-99.