The idea of ‘usability’ described by Issa and Isaias comprehensively answers the question “how easy is it for a human to use a piece of technology?”. The variables that determine the outcome are the user, the design of the computer or system, and their interactions. The user is introduced to a computer because he has a task that the computer supposedly can help accomplish or he is forced to using this tool based on various constraints. Using education terms, the former user has ‘intrinsic motivation’ to use the computer while the latter might be ‘extrinsically motivated’ because of company mandates or financial constraints. A user assesses his learning ability and the complexity of his tasks to find a tool that fits. Designers should begin creating a product with users in mind, targeting a wide a range of users varying in technological proficiency, culture, and goals, without compromising functionality. To create such a product, a user-centered process must be used in its design and evaluation. Usable technologies require higher level human-computer interactions beyond simple input and output, such as giving and receiving feedback, accessibility, multimodality, and satisfaction.
Along with what general usability entails, educational usability should include and/or emphasize engagement of users, forgiving and encouraging “errors”, removing or reducing constraints, differentiation, accessibility, and multimodality. Users of educational technology have varying levels of motivation so engaging them is critical, especially when many competing tools are available. Factors to consider are visual appeal, enjoyment, rewards, and educational value. The user should also be encouraged to explore the technology and the educational content it provides, and to make mistakes which can be corrected with feedback provided. Removing constraints allows a wider range of users to access the technology and let curious users explore. Differentiation in user interface, content difficulty, and constraints all result in a more engaging user experience that can appeal to a range of users. Accessibility allows users with different learning styles, physical and mental capability, socioeconomic backgrounds, languages, and IT proficiencies to participate. Multimodality relates to accessibility in allowing user input and software output in various formats (e.g. audio, video, print).
Poor usability results in the “configuration” of users since there is a disconnect between the design and its target. Two examples from Woolgar’s study are the configuration of the users’ identity and their ability. The company marketing team not knowing who target users were meant there could be no clear goals in designing the product: “What do you mean by best fit? Who knows?!” (Woolgar, 1990, p.72) Even though the product was supposed to appeal to a wide range of users, users were lumped into a single entity with overgeneralized characteristics because little was known about them. Learning about users through tech support gave engineers an extremely biased view, since proficient users would not contact tech support but were still part of this homogeneous entity. Once the identity of users had been configured, it is difficult to reconfigure: “He was a user but he seemed to know what he was talking about”. (Woolgar, 1990, p.73) This leads to the next assumption that users do not know what they want since they know little about the technology and its future developments. As a result, the views of users are seen as unimportant.
The second configuration of users in Woolgar’s study was what they were able to do. Since the users are seen as IT novices and the engineers see their products as “established”, errors would likely be attributed to the fault of the user. (Woolgar, 1990, p. 82) In the trials, testers observed the users as they attempted their tasks and frequently intervened to configure them. This is evidence of a fragile design prone to errors yet is so unforgiving that users can go “hopelessly wrong”. (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85) Commentary such as “you actually succeeded in this task” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85) shows that it was either unexpected of the configured user to succeed and/or that there was no feedback of the user’s success. The users were also configured to know WINDOWS was installed, to use WRITE, and to drink one of two caffeinated beverages. (Woolgar, 1990, p. 82) Users certainly could not be trusted to deconstruct and analyze the machine as it would break their configuration of how to interact with the machine and the company. The computer case, warning labels, user documentation and technical support all ensure correct configuration of what the user should do.
Woolgar’s usability definition is well-defined and rigid. By defining the identity of users, constraints are set that will lead to the eventual obsolescence or limited use of a design since users can attempt different tasks once they are sufficiently proficient, therefore changing their identity. Advantages of usable designs by Woolgar’s definition could be that they are cheap and quick to produce, and easy for the user to master. However, over-configuration of users could lead to designs with a limited range of target users or a shorter period of usability. In Issa and Isaias’ definition, user feedback is valued and taken into consideration to create a usable product. This could be limited by time and money of designers but would ultimately result in a highly refined and usable product, appealing to many and functioning indefinitely.
References
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1_suppl), 58-99.