To my understanding, usability is a goal that should be kept in mind when developing an artifact or choosing a tool for consumers to use. It is almost impossible to quantify what usability is, but there are a few indicators that serve as proof of its successful execution. For something to be usable in this context, it should:

  • Be easy to understand, read, and navigate
  • Function in a way that matches the “needs of the user” and allow them to complete their tasks (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 31)
  • Provide support in the form of hints or guides to aid users as an option; this assistance should not be pushed onto users

The device or tool in question should also have what is known in gaming as a low “skill floor”, meaning that the tool is accessible for beginners, and a high “skill ceiling”, meaning that there is room for users to grow in and display their proficiency or mastery. For example, everyone knows how to start a Google search to some extent, but advanced users will be in a flow state and will have developed extra skills such as a higher typing speed and knowledge of functions like CTRL+F that dramatically reduce the time it takes to find desired results.

These blanket statements cover a lot of what usability is, but in generalizing, the diverse needs of students are left out. As time needs to be spent on differentiation and inclusion, I believe that usability in educational contexts means that the device, tool, or game needs to be flexible and adaptable so that teachers can tune accordingly to their classes. When it comes to assessment, projects or assignments that are usable should allow students to express their learning from a variety of modes rather than one “default” method.

A prominent example of usability gone wrong can be observed in Woolgar’s account of Ruth’s trial in being asked to connect a printer. She has been configured to have an almost kind of reverence for the machine, so when she runs into a problem, she never considers the possibility that the cable might be incompatible or that the task is impossible in the first place, instead thinking the fault is due to her being “extremely thick” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 87). Another case is when the capacity of the user and the machine are in flux, causing confusion and leading to an unnatural intervention of reassurance: “Let’s assume we succeeded there” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 85). In doing so, the user is no longer configured to act unbiased or natural, and the ambiguity of how success is defined in this particular trial means the machine cannot properly be assessed for suitability either.

“…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).

Issa & Isaias frame usability from a market or business perspective, indicated by speaking of prototypes and delivering products. Parts of the artifact are what need to be iteratively adjusted based on testing and feedback, where positive aspects are kept and negative ones are ideally removed. In this case, the designers are the ones to establish those definitions and make those decisions, and from my understanding this form of “usability” is more open to interpretation in terms of what needs to be added or removed for the next version of a piece of software. Everything centers around the vision for the final product.

Meanwhile, Woolgar flips the idea of usability to shaping the user instead. There is no mention of the product whatsoever. He first speaks of configuring the behavior of the ideal user, and instead of being open to whatever changes might be needed in the usability evaluation process as suggested by Issa & Isaias, this version is, in my opinion, restrictive, diminishing, and even manipulative in which users are deliberately limited in order to fit that narrow definition without room for any deviancy. There is essentially no room for error, where the term “error” means not fitting the “identity” that the designer envisions – regardless of whether their vision is distorted or not.

References:

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design, 19-35. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7513-1_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