“…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 users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (Woolgar, 1990).
Understanding Usability
Usability is a design consideration that enables users to interact with a system or tool with minimal efforts. It helps users complete tasks and achieve expected outcomes in an effective, efficient, and enjoyable way, leading to satisfaction and long-term use. Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight that “usability is an essential concept in HCI (Human-Computer Interaction) and is concerned with making systems easy to learn, easy to use, and with limiting error frequency and severity” (p. 24). Usability also allows us to assess and measure how users communicate with technology. Therefore, it is critical to identify users and consider their needs and behaviours—who they are, what they want to achieve, and how they operate—in order to enhance usability throughout the design process.
Usability in Educational Contexts
When applying the concept of usability to the educational context, it is essential to prioritize both inclusivity and purpose. Learning environments should be designed equitably, ensuring they are accessible to all learners and responsive to diverse needs. This includes thoughtful design choices such as incorporating alt text and figure descriptions for accessibility, accommodating varying levels of technological comfort, and integrating diverse, culturally relevant examples within the content. Such an approach may not always prioritize efficiency in the traditional sense, but it fosters an inclusive and equitable environment that supports meaningful learning for all students.
Unlike most technology-based systems, which focus on task completion and efficiency, the primary purpose of educational tools is to support learning. In this context, designers may deliberately avoid providing immediate answers. Instead, they might withhold solutions to encourage learners to consider multiple perspectives, reflect on concepts, and engage more deeply. This design strategy leaves space for exploration, critical thinking, and engagement. These choices reflect the deeper aim of educational usability: to cultivate an inclusive and engaging learning process for diverse learners itself, rather than merely delivering efficient outcomes.
Examples of Configuring Users (Woolgar, 1990)
One example of configuring users presented in Woolgar (1990) is the failure to remain objective during the observation process of a usability test. Frequent intervention and considerable commentary on subjects’ performance by an observer can make the process biased and unnatural. Feedback such as “You actually succeeded in this task, so there’s no problem about that” or “You’ve done fine so far” (Woolgar, 1990, p.85) creates an environment where users feel they are being evaluated, and where certain behaviours are implicitly framed as either right or wrong responses.
Another example is the effort of various groups and individuals, at different times, to make assumptions about users. As Woolgar (1990) stated “the architects of DBS, its hardware engineers, product engineers, project managers, salespersons, technical support, purchasing, finance and control, legal personnels and the rest are both contributing to a definition of the reader of their text and establishing parameters for readers’ actions.” (p. 69) By making assumptions on who users are based on their own different knowledge and expertise, the understanding of actual or target users becomes distributed within the company. This ultimately leads to configuring users to behave according to their own prescribed expectations.
Differing Perspectives on Usability
The primary difference between Issa & Isaias (2015) and Woolgar (1990) regarding usability stems from their differing perspectives on users. Their perception of users directly influences how they interpret and apply the concept of usability. Issa and Isaias (2015) view users as active participants with specific goals and requirements, who are willing to engage and interact with systems. From this perspective, the usability evaluation stage becomes an effective method for gathering feedback and implementing necessary changes to meet the needs of target users. This implies that communication and interaction between technology and users is bidirectional, rather than one-way. In contrast, Woolgar (1990) points out instances where users as passive operators of technology, expected to follow a prescribed way of interaction. From this standpoint, users must be educated or configured to use the system as designed, with limited room for exploration or contribution. This approach reduces user agency and constrains interaction to a single way.
One final point to consider is the advancement of technology between the times of the two studies. As technology has developed significantly, perspective on the roles and expectations of both users and technology have evolved. This shift may account for the differing views on users and usability presented in the two studies. Looking ahead, as we rapidly enter the era of artificial intelligence, it will be important to examine how these perspectives continue to evolve – particularly within the educational landscape. The ways in which AI tools, with their significantly advanced ability to interact with humans, engage with learners and shape usability in educational contexts is a topic that deserves further investigation.
References
Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S58-S99.
