Usability
Usability requires designing a functional interface with the needs of the user in mind, while ensuring that the relationship between the user and the interface remains both efficient and effective (Issa & Isaias, 2015). This level of functionality requires that the designer measure the performance of their interface through quantifiable methods while also ensuring that user feedback is incorporated into the design process to ensure that the interface is meeting the needs of the user (Issa & Isaias, 2015).
Educational Usability
Issa and Isaias (2015) name “functionality” as one of the main components of usability, as it’s important that the interface performs in a way that meets the needs of the user. But, when it comes to educational usability, it is often not the student-user that selects the technology themselves, but the teacher. It is a teacher’s responsibility to ensure that their students progress in their learning and build knowledge and skills that are relevant outside of the classroom. Therefore, I suggest expanding the idea of functionality in the educational context to include “usefulness”. Usefulness means that the teacher would consider the role the technology plays in helping the student progress, whether it’s helping them meet their learning goals, and how the tool might be useful in their future.
Lessons from Woolgar (1990)
It is important that teachers take time to reflect on the usability of the technology for each individual student, and guard against inadvertently putting limits on what a student may learn and accomplish if they are not using the appropriate technology or interface . Woolgar (1990) states that “by setting parameters for the User’s actions, the evolving machine effectively attempts to configure the user” (p. 61). Educator’s need to ensure that the technology is the right fit for the student and not inadvertently creating additional barriers to learning and skill development by constraining them. An example of the potential barriers would be failing to introduce technology with the appropriate assistive tools to better support student needs, or not providing students with access to more advanced functions once they have mastered the basics to allow them to build their skills.
Similarly, Woolgar (1990) reminds us that the “insiders”, and for our purposes, the teacher, have advanced insight into what the technology is capable of that the users may not have and this can influence their relationship to the technology. Woolgar (1990) states, “Insiders know the machine, whereas users have a configured relationship to it, such that only certain forms of access/use are encouraged” (Woolgar, 1990, p.89). This “configured relationship” that students may have with the technology is compounded if appropriate scaffolding is not provided in learning to use the technology. It is imperative that the teacher provides the student-users with the appropriate instruction and support in learning to use the interface itself. When I worked as a learning support teacher, I often saw the disconnect that can occur in the classroom when a teacher introduces technology without the appropriate scaffolding and opportunities to build technological skills themselves before the students were required to use the technology to communicate their ideas and create. The teacher needs to take time to share the insider knowledge and build appropriate skills to ensure it is a good fit for the student-user.
Testing Usability
Different scholars have different interpretations in regards to the process required to test usability. According to Issa and Isaias (2015) “…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” (p. 29). From this perspective, the developers will evaluate usability based on their own criteria and intuition as to whether the interface will work for the future user. They are putting more of an emphasis on the “performance measures” and what is “quantifiable” and “observable” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 34).
In contrast, Woolgar (1990) reminds us of the importance of knowing the user, and both anticipating and examining how they use the interface, and designing with both the limits and competencies of the user in mind. Woolgar (1990) states that “…the design and production of a new entity…amounts to a process of configuring its user, where ‘configuring’ includes defining the identity of the putative users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (p. 61). Knowing what the user is both able and unable to do (yet) is an incredibly important part of the design process beyond whether the interface works or not.
References
Issa T., Isaias P. (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). In: Sustainable Design. 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, 38(1_suppl), 58–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x