I
As someone with a background in arts and design, Issa and Isaias’ (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction, reads as a ploy to convince future programmers that good design is just as important as technical functionality. It can be difficult to comprehend why an unusable product would prevail – but considering my own experience in various workplaces, it is often about cost: what product can we afford? What customizations can we afford to make this system meet our needs? The familiar circumstance of mismatched tool to user needs stands in stark contrast to Papert’s (2020) notion that “…computer presence could contribute to mental processes not only instrumentally but in more essential conceptual ways, influencing how people think even when they are far removed from physical contact with a computer…” (p. 2). Papert conceived digital systems as not only intuitive, but also working to teach us complex ideas, and transform the ways we perceive and interact with our world. This is good design; of which, usability is an essential component.
Issa and Isaias’ (2015) criteria of usability (p. 33) led me to consider tangible aspects of usability: It allows new users to learn through active exploration when guidance is built into the system interface. It is present in systems that are respondent to different approaches, allowing users to reach the same conclusion through various pathways. Usability means the system anticipates potential user error and is comprised of protections to prevent these inevitabilities or support the user when they occur. It utilizes the interface to display streamlined processes, and it integrates modern aesthetics in ways that reinforce functionality. Additionally, Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight two “critical dimensions” (p. 21) of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) that assist designers in maximizing usability, first, that the user be involved as a key aspect of the creation, and second, that aspects of human behavior and psychology are considered in the design process (p. 21).
II
Missing from this model of usability, is the technologically cultural perspective. Designers must also consider: what might users anticipate in direct reflection of their collective technological experiences? What are they accustomed to, and what innovations will build on their expectations? Technology evolves in response to what came before – what signs and symbols will be utilized to embed familiarity, and activate users’ prior knowledge? A system that is considerate of the user’s world affords them the basic level of comfort and ease required to proceed with the effective learning of a new complex tool. This fundamental principle also applies to educational systems and supports usability from an educational standpoint. Papert (2020) suggests a similar sentiment:
It is about whether personal computers and the cultures in which they are used will continue to be the creatures of “engineers” alone or whether we can construct intellectual environments in which people who today think of themselves as “humanists” will feel part of, not alienated from, the process of constructing computational cultures (p. 3).
III
Papert shares an idealized symbiotic future, whereas Woolgar (1990) exhibits a critical view of the reciprocal relationship between human and technology. In Configuring the User, Woolgar (1990) addresses the agency of inanimate objects, specifically a computer’s ability to shape its users. Woolgar explains that the computer manual itself serves as instructions for constructing the user. The manual “defines the correct courses of interpretation and action to be followed” (p. 81) by the user – essentially, configuring a user that acts in ways best-suited for the computer’s benefit. He asserts the physicality of the computer – a clean case with complex technical components hidden inside – is designed as a user restraint, “Insiders know the machine, whereas users have a configured relationship to it, such that only certain forms of access/use are encouraged” (p. 89). Viewing the object as imbued with the intentions of its designers, activates it, and reminds us to be analytical of our relationships with our things as they are not neutral parties.
IV
The general nature of Issa and Isaias’ approach to the HCI and usability design process is practical and assumes designers are working in ideal circumstances where the needs of users are addressed in the “usability evaluation stage” (2015, p. 29). Woolgar on the other hand, perceives the “design and production” (1990, p. 59) of a system as the process of building constraints to police users’ interactions. Perhaps each perspective has validity: We can acknowledge Woolgar’s critical view but look to Papert to find beneficial ways to build our unavoidable relationship with technology, while also applying the pragmatic tools provided by Issa & Isaias.
References
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer, London.
Papert, S. (2020). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In The Sociological Review, 38(1_Suppl), 58-99.