Usability
Usability is the relationship between a human user and an object which is measured through positive or negative experiences. These positive or negative experiences relate to how well the object can meet the needs of the user (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p.33). As a basic example, the usability of a computer could be measured positively if it was easy to use or negatively if it was difficult to use.
Educational Usability & What Is Missing
In education, usability should also be seen as how impactful an object or material is in an educational setting. This object or material would also need to meet all the needs of the possible users in the educational setting. Specifically, an object or material must be able to adapt to users of different learning styles and abilities to showcase true usability in an education setting. In this sense, it must be built with many different types of educational learners with different abilities in mind with a focus on ease of use and the ability for users to make mistakes while providing learning opportunities.
Error!
Woolgar shared instances that developers configured users, and therefore did not properly focus on usability, during his time as a project manager assistant at a technology company.
The first instance that stood out to me was how involved the observers were during trials. Although there was a large emphasis on ensuring the test environment was situated in a way that would promote a natural user environment, the observers intervening affected the data collected and the outcomes of the trials (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85). Observers saying things such as “let’s assume we succeeded there” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85) and using encouragement such as “you’re a technical author’s dream – reading the manuals” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85) also does not ensure the test environment remains neutral to provide accurate and useful information. Although the observers may not have realized, these simple sentences are enough to change the outcomes of the testers, and therefore can change the results of the usability of a product. Specifically, they were configuring the testers to use the product in a singular intended way instead of letting them explore the product on their own.
The other instance that continuously stood out to me related to how the employees of the company discussed their users as those on the “outside” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 72). Their focus on creating products based on the Managing Director’s “visions of the future” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 74) showcased a disconnect between the user and the developer. This disconnect is because the developer believes that the user does not know what they want from a product. Since the user does not know what they want, the developer believes the user must be configured to use what the developer thinks is best for them. This causes a huge problem as developers often are stuck thinking from the inside, just as Woolgar mentioned in his research (1990). Without involving the user in the design process, the developer is taking a huge risk.
Issa & Isaias v. Woolgar
Issa & Isaias (2015) and Woolgar (1990) provide two different takes on aspects of usability. Issa & Isaias discuss the necessity to include the end-user throughout the entire process to ensure usability is achieved (2015, p. 29). This focus is to ensure the product meets all the needs a consumer could want and is created very much with the consumer in mind and through user input. Woolgar takes the position that the product configures the user, and therefore the usability of the product must appropriately define its own limitations and boundaries that a user cannot cross (1990, p. 72). This shifts the focus for the developer to ensure that they know what the user would want and then ensure the created product can mold the user. These different takes on usability would create two completely different products depending on which is followed. In the case of Issa & Isaias, it would lead to more open products with constant iterations to ensure the user’s needs are met with many different options for them to choose from. For Woolgar, it would lead to a product that is very restrictive and limited with very little iterations post-launch to ensure that the user can only use the product for what the developer intended. Overall, Issa & Isaias approaches usability from a “user knows best” position while Woolgar approaches this topic from a “developer knows best” position.
References
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable design: HCI, usability and environmental concerns (pp. 19-36). Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review (Keele), 38(1, Suppl), 58-99.
