Mostly, usability is described in the context of human-technology interaction. Usability is not an independent entity; rather, it is considered as part of an ongoing process -a continuous cycle of production, evaluation, and reproduction. From the user’s viewpoint, usability means carrying out a task accurately and with enjoyment. It must be simple to learn, easy to use, and minimizing errors. Technology specialists consider usability in terms of organizational, social, and psychological factors during the design process and quality assessment.

Educational products should not only be easy to use but also support teaching strategies and learning outcomes. Educational environments are characterized by diverse learners with varying needs and abilities. In the realm of education, users fall into two distinct groups with different needs. The first group comprises teachers who use educational technology for teaching. Since these technologies are at their disposal throughout the teaching period, they actively provide feedback. The second group consists of students who use these tools for completing assignments and studying. Here, two issues arise: firstly, at each educational level, a student typically uses the tool only once, and they won’t revisit it, leading to less inclination to provide feedback. Furthermore, the disparity in individuals’ awareness at a particular educational level can result in diverse opinions, making it challenging to derive comprehensive feedback. Therefore, there is a need for a shift towards a student-centric approach in the future.

There is a need for redefining usability concerning instructional methods. Educational usability is a comprehensive framework that goes beyond traditional usability concepts and focuses on instructional design models with pedagogical objectives, user-centered design, feedback mechanisms, and assessment features. System designers for educational products often rely on the feedback from teachers and a small group of students. This limitation can potentially lead to significant differences in the usability of their products.

In reviewing Woolger’s article, several examples show that a usability study could end up configuring users. For example, he demonstrated that “Observers frequently intervened to explain the origin of a problem in terms of a machine fault, where this prevented (or made difficult) the completion of the task by the subject.” ¹ (Page 85)

Repeated interventions during testing to correct errors lead to the user’s uncertainty and doubts about the device’s capabilities. It interferes with subsequent actions in the next user’s steps. User dissatisfaction with pressure of frequent interventions causes a lack of focus to follow procedures as an ordinary user. Additionally, the continuous presence of observers decreases the sense of being in the real work environment. The quick intervention of the observers leads to a misunderstanding of the technical problem of the device, not only overlooking the user’s problem but also diverting resources to the support the device. Finally, this feeling in the user reinforces the hypothesis of attributing the problem to the machine rather than the user, so, in the next stages, the observers will have incorrect results of the affected user’s behavior.

The second example involves the impact of confidentiality on the usability process. Due to competition in capturing consumer markets, companies try to disclose the least amount of information about their product until its release. This limitation extends across various stages, from design to production and distribution. Because of this constraint, companies for obtaining feedback from users, must hire non-real users, such as someone inside the company or experienced college students. This approach interference with the goal of working with beginner users and the obtained results do not perfectly align.

Finally, two quotes (Issa & Isaias, 2015 and Woolgar, 1990) are compared to highlight their differences in the uses of ability. Issa & Isaias’ quote³ about the usability evaluation stage focuses on the stage of usability (it refers to the “quality of the interaction”, “improving methods”, and “assessing effectiveness”) evaluation only restricted to tool making process. It suggests that during development process, the user plays an important role in shaping usability, but this involvement fades or stops after the product is released to the market.

Therefore, there is a timeframe for user’s role, and the company, until the next product does not need any post-market monitoring and evaluation. However, Woogler⁴ believe that for making a new product, there should be special attention to the user’s configuring process from the design time until after releasing it to the market. Thus, it is not a limited timeframe. In this perspective, the user’s role is not only prominent in design and production but should also be considered for long term.

(Words: 741)

1. Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S 85.
2. Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S 87.
3. Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015)Usability and human computer interaction (HCI).In Sustainable Design (pp. 29). Springer. “
4. Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S 59.