Usability is a method of evaluating how easy it is for a user to interact with a system to execute a task or to achieve a desired goal. As the breakdown of the word itself implies in the Human-Communication Interaction field, it is the ability to “efficiently, effectively and safely” (p.24) use and learn a system by means of understanding human actions towards it and making adjustments to the input and output technologies to generate a more seamless interaction (Issa & Isaias, 2015). Through the iterative design process, players including users, designers and analysts consider specific criteria and requirements of usability to increase the likelihood of returning users and satisfaction of use. In turn, this creates customer retention by making improvements to the system based on the feedback to develop a functional system (Issa & Isaias, 2015). By implementing usability testing, it ensures a quality system that is centered around the users’ needs to incorporate certain attributes that lead to a user-friendly design (Nielsen, 2003). 

Wherein education is concerned, the term usability serves a different function as it pertains to the user. Moving away from the corporate sense of a user as a customer, in education the user is the student and the goal of the system is to acquire knowledge. Thus, accessibility becomes the focus in order to reach a wide range of learners with varying levels of abilities. If authentic learning is to occur and opportunities are presented by learning from mistakes, then the design must fit the context and adapt to the learning process. With that in mind, educational usability recognizes the purpose and context for learning to design an interface that is actively changing to the users’ needs in a relationship that is mutually exclusive of one another. The system has the ability to shape the learners’ attitude in a positive or negative manner and vice versa. As Woolgar (1990) argues, there is a cooperative relationship that exists between the user and the machine; the implications this has on educational usability affords technology the opportunity to provide users with a differentiated learning experience. 

One example of usability gone wrong is in the Wrong Socket Episode in which Ruth, the subject, is tasked with connecting a printer to the DNS with the support of an instruction manual. After a failed attempt, Ruth resorts to asking Nina, the tester,  for help. Throughout the interaction, Ruth physically moves herself and the manual around the machine in hopes of finding a connection. Despite an error with an incompatible model, it becomes apparent that within the constraints and boundaries of the DNS it was, in fact, Ruth being assessed rather than the system itself. 

Another scenario, Constructing Natural Users, undermines the process of usability by having the testers intervene with unnatural commentary thus altering the interaction of the user with the system and the usefulness of the trials. The testers essentially controlled the outcome by speaking on behalf of the DNS rather than allowing the user to interact and learn how to use the system in an uncontrolled environment. In these examples, the users are designed to fit the designated task by setting specific parameters (Woolgar, 1990). There exists a network of relationships between the computer and human such that these machines are not passive. 

In the two excerpts on usability, Issa & Isaias (2015) emphasizes the responsibility of the development team to design a system that is functional and usable for the users. This is in contrast to Woolgar’s (1990) argument wherein the focus is on determining the user in order to configure their actions. Both perspectives have an unchanged variable in the assessment of usability. For Issa & Isaias (2015), the users’ experience with the system remains constant and changes are made to the system according to the responses of the user. Woolgar (1990) maintains the system to be constant and the actions of the user to be changed in respect to their relationship with the machine. Arguably, in Woolgar’s (1990) case, it is more challenging to make changes to the user’s ability rather than altering the design of the system to make it more accessible for users. 

References: 

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.

Nielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Useit. 

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S58-S99.