Usability describes a collection of attributes that makes a system simple, intuitive, and efficient to users. It quantifies and qualifies the users’ experiences when interacting with systems to accomplish tasks. Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight that usability is multifaceted and encompasses many concepts. Its framework considers how systems function and the characteristics of both users and tasks, which collectively influence the user’s reaction. Usability assesses the intention behind and experience of the interaction, in addition to the accuracy of output, indicating whether the context and language between users and systems are in sync. High usability can lead to increased use, task retention, and decreased learning time. These advantages produce loyalty and profit. Usability can be misjudged in contexts where the intent of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is to anticipate users’ future needs beyond current ones. As such, utility – or the anticipated function of a system – also plays a critical role in the perception of usability. This is particularly important in the context of education, as successful knowledge transfer often relies on purposeful problem-based learning where users understand why they are learning, particularly as adults. If the system produces results that are disjointed from what the user anticipates, it risks being assigned low usability and rejected.
Considering educational usability, one aspect that Issa and Isaias (2015) neglect to include is the social influence on learning. These include collaboration, cooperation, mentorship, feedback, and support from more knowledgeable others. Social Cognitive Theory emphasizes that learning takes place in social contexts, and therefore social influences can alter a user’s characteristics (knowledge, motivation, and discretion) significantly while being completely independent of them. For example, imagine an individual who has chosen to use an iPhone for the last decade. Recently, they started working for a new company that provides Android devices to all employees. In this case, negative outcomes of usability cannot lead to “suspension and discontinuation of the system” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p.32) as it is a requirement for the new job. One could argue that this is simply motivation (learn new system = keep new job), however, that oversimplification neglects the value of social influence within the workplace. There is a profound divide between Android users and iPhone users, and one’s choice to engage with one or the other often goes beyond mere usability and relies more on the social constructs within which they see themselves. Marketing of technology and systems frequently capitalizes on social influence.
Woolgar (1990) alludes to these social influences in explaining the concept of configuring users. One example of users being configured in Woolgar’s (1990) account of the trials is the initial setup, designed to emulate an ordinary work environment. This creates an expectation of competence (I am successful at my job, so I can do this) while the features that are not often present at work, e.g., video cameras and observers, encourage users to persevere (they are watching so I will keep trying to make this work). Combined, these social aspects of the environment made the users think they were fit for any tasks presented in the trial.
A second example of configuring users was the commentary from the not-so-objective observers. Feedback like “you’ve done fine so far” or “let’s assume we succeeded there which I think you did” (Woolgar, 1990, p.85) can adjust the user’s perception of what occurred during the interaction. Here, the social influence collides with constructivism; the user’s reflective observation of their concrete experiences is being influenced and formed into a positive memory, thereby inflating the perceived usability of the technology.
One of the biggest differences between how Woolgar (1990) and Issa and Isaias (2015) present usability is their acknowledgement of what can, or should, be configured. Woolgar (1990) explicitly states that configuring users is a natural part of usability; by shaping and arranging users and their expectations they can be successfully set up for designated tasks, resulting in high usability. In contrast, Issa and Isaias (2015) imply that systems should be configured through iterations targeted to increase usability. The question then becomes, are these ever truly separate? Changes to a system will alter how users interpret and interact with it, thereby adjusting user reactions. Feedback and other steps taken to prepare and guide targeted users can make them fit better with the systems and tasks, swaying user characteristics and reactions. Ultimately, the adjustments made to either the user or the system (or both) to increase usability are aiming for the same result: a simple, intuitive, and efficient experience.
[Word count: 735]
References:
Issa T. & Isaias P. (2015). Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Sustainable Design. London: Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x