Intellectual Production #1: Users, Uses and Usability
After reviewing Issa & Isaias (2015) I developed the ability for a user to successfully attain/accomplish/complete a desired outcome with minimal struggle as a conception of usability aimed at being as universal as possible:
My first conception, targeted towards customer loyalty, does not accurately represent usability in the educational setting (Issa & Isaias, 2015; University of British Columbia, n.d.). It assumes a fixed outcome/goal, which is limiting in education (UBC, n.d.). In education, there needs to be some struggle to promote growth, but also the forgiveness to make mistakes as that is how we learn (UBC, n.d.). There also needs to be enough flexibility that students don’t feel too constrained. For teachers to select and continue to use the technology it needs to be effective in promoting development in students (UBC, n.d.). This led me to this conception of educational usability: providing greatest access for users to maximize their growth and development, by facilitating purposeful interaction between the user, educational activity and their environment in a forgiving, engaging and enjoyable way. (Lovell-Johnston, 2019; UBC, n.d.).
The only true way to determine the usability of any product is to conduct usability testing (Issa & Isaias, 2015; Woolgar, 1990). Woolgar (1990) provides the account of a flawed usability study. At one point the user is asked to hook up a printer with an incompatible cord, an impossible task (pp. 86-89), highlighting the need to ensure that all tasks being asked of the user are in fact capable with the resources available. Something I have encountered designing assignments for students, often due to differences in devices, settings, and software what is simple and functions well on one computer will not function the same way, if at all, for all students. Woolgar (1990) also highlights the selection of users in the study, the company for several reasons chose to create a panel of “relatively novice users” from within the company rather than using local post secondary students, the very target users they were testing usability for (p. 83). Defeating the purpose of usability testing as it does not take into consideration the variety of experience and skill that actual users will have with technology in general and the product under study specifically (Issa & Isaias, 2015; UBC, n.d.). The breadth of experience is especially relevant in educational usability as students come with all levels of experience and skills, and all need to be able to engage with the technology and to have the ability to grow, even highly skilled users (UBC, n.d.).
“…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.” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29)
“…the design and production of a new entity…amounts to a process of configuring its user, where ‘configuring’ includes defining the identity of putative (presumed) users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions.” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 59)
The excerpts above from Issa & Isaias (2015, p. 29) and Woolgar (1990, p. 59) both speak to the need to identify the target user and what their intended use of the product will be and the need to test new products with their targeted user to see if they are working as designed and intended.
The main difference between Issa & Isaias (2015) and Woolgar (1990) is the issue of configuration, or rather what is being configured. Woolgar (1990) makes it explicit that the user needs to be shaped in behaviour and skills to use the product. The technology is deterministic in shaping what the user can and cannot do, to be successful the user needs to be configured within those parameters, during testing the user is being evaluated as much as the product (Woolgar, 1990). Issa & Isaias (2015) on the other hand speak to configuring the product to meet the needs of the user. During the evaluation stage, the producers want to know what is and what is not working for the user, and why. Is the issue one of the product or one of the user? In the case of a user issue, is it the user’s fault or is it in fact a flaw of the product interface – does the program need better design/support/assistance for the user to succeed? In this Issa & Isaias (2015) illustrate configuration as changing the product to meet the needs of the user. Issa & Isaias (2015) illustrate the concept of a modern Human Computer Interaction, the key word being interaction, a back-and-forth process (UBC, n.d.), whereas Woolgar (1990) speaks to a more deterministic view of technology where the user needs configuring – likely the result of the 25 years of technological and theoretical advancement between the two accounts.
Usability, though it may appear so, isn’t a simple concept, it requires a great deal of thought and several rounds of configuration and iterations to be achieved but is vital for success.
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.
Lovell-Johnston, M. A. (2019). Do “Interactive” Educational Technologies Promote Interactive Literacy Instruction?. Language and Literacy, 21(3), 79–111. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29448
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Configure. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 25, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/configure
Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Building Student Success – BC’s Curriculum. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1_suppl), 58-99.
University of British Columbia. (n.d.). Foundations of Educational Technology: Usability. https://canvas.ubc.ca/courses/96880/pages/usability?module_item_id=4381910