Assignment instructions
- Formulate your own conception of usability based on the first reading.
- Think about what is missing from your conception from an educational perspective, then create your conception of educational usability.
- Identify and discuss 2 of Woolgar’s examples of how usability studies ended up configuring users.
- Discuss the differences between these two quotes:
- “…the usability evaluation stage is an effective method by which a software development team can establish the positive and negative aspects of its prototype releases, and make the required changes before the system is delivered to the target users” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29).
- “…the design and production of a new entity…amounts to a process of configuring its user, where ‘configuring’ includes defining the identity of putative users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (Woolgar, 1990).
- Figure out an effective way to reduce your writing to a maximum of 750 words without losing meaning.
Usability
Usability can be defined as the degree to which a system can be used by people to achieve certain goals. Issa & Isaias write that the goal of usability is “making systems easy to learn, easy to use, and with limiting error frequency and severity” (2015, p. 24). Ease of communication between humans and machines by means of an intuitive user interface, comfortable physical interaction, and use of familiar language in programs all increase the usability of a digital tool. Usability increases productivity and the speed of task completion without creating additional frustration.
Educational usability
In an educational setting, there are additional considerations for usability of digital learning tools. They should be affordable to avoid cost as a barrier and easy to operate for students who experience neurodivergence, learning disabilities, or physical constraints that could interfere with operation of the tool. The design must take into consideration the ages, relative knowledge levels, and experience of the students who are expected to use them for learning, and provide relevant and engaging content that promotes interest. Care should be taken to represent diversity and inclusivity so that the tool can easily be used by all students regardless of race or gender.
Woolgar’s accounts of user configuration
In contrast with the aforementioned concept of educational usability, Woolgar (1990) recounts instances where usability testing focused more on how a company could determine who would use their tools and how they would be used. For example, Woolgar makes a connection between the case of the computer and boundaries between the users and the company (1990, p. 79). The myriad of warnings about electrocution, void warranty, and possible damage to computer components if the case was opened or tampered with, coupled with a redirection of the user to a manual or hotline, ensured that the users behaved in such a way that their interaction with the computer was distinct from that of the company. In doing so, the company was able to retain control over the prescribed use of the machine, but forfeited possible valuable input about usability from the users.
Another example Woolgar provided of usability trials gone wrong was the testing of th user manual. User manuals that accompany the hardware and software configure users in the sense that they outline the correct sequence of actions that a user should take (Woolgar, 1990 p. 81). By testing how easy the manuals were to follow during usability trials, the company was testing the effectiveness of their manual in instructing the users how to behave instead of assessing how intuitive the system was to use, and ensuring they could maintain control of the users’ future actions.
Differing perspectives of usability testing
In the following quotations, the authors show a stark contrast between their views of usability testing:
“…the usability evaluation stage is an effective method by which a software development team can establish the positive and negative aspects of its prototype releases, and make the required changes before the system is delivered to the target users” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29).
“…the design and production of a new entity…amounts to a process of configuring its user, where ‘configuring’ includes defining the identity of putative users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (Woolgar, 1990).
On one hand, Issa and Isaias (2015) describe usability testing as a process where the user and developers are in communication to improve the usability of prototypes prior to the release of the final iteration of the machine. By taking into account the opinions and desires of the people who will be using the final product, the designers admit that they cannot possibly perfectly predict what users will need.
On the other hand, Woolgar (1990) describes the process of usability testing as deciding who the users should be and essentially testing them to determine the amount of control the company will have over how the machine is used. This gives the impression that the company believes their initial design is flawless and the importance is placed on ways to ensure the user can be trained to use the product effectively.
In conclusion, it is clear that if designers share the perspective of Issa and Isaias (2015), they will be far more likely to produce a tool with a high level of usability, whereas designers who operate in the way that is described by Woolgar (1990) face the possibility of producing a frustrating experience for the user.
References
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S58-S99.
Word count: 737