Zoe Armstrong – MET

Thinking Critically about Usability

Criteria of Usability as it relates to HCI (In the Past and Now) from Dix et al. (1998, p 162) and Nielson (2003) as cited in Issa & Isaias (2015, p. 33):

• “Learnability: by which new users can begin effective interaction and achieve maximal performance”
  • This criteria relates well to the “HCI-Now” in that learnability is really “seeking to understand and support human beings.” The ability for a user to learn a system with success directly relates to usability. We all know how frustrating it can be to try to learn something that feels impossible. Our likelihood of giving-up increases with learning frustration.
• “Flexibility: the multiplicity of ways the user and system exchange information”
  • This criteria relates well to the “HCI-Now” in that it is the “interaction with and through technology” that answers how flexible a system can be for it’s users.
• “Robustness: the level of support provided to the user in determining successful achievement and assessment of goals”
  • This criteria relates well to the “HCI-Now” in that it to is an area that relates to the interactions with technology. If a user gets stuck and needs support, is that support available to them but further interacting with the technology?
• “Efficiency: once the user learns about the system,[the speed with which s/he] can perform tasks”
  • Evidently this criteria is echo’d in the “HCI-In the Past” section. I could argue however that it still fits into the “HCI-Now” category as well seeing as it is important to “understand and support human beings” by allowing them to find success quickly in remembering the steps of using systems.
• “Memorability: how easily the user will remember the system functions, after a period time of not using it”
  • This criteria relates well to the “HCI-Now” as memorability involves the interaction with the technology or system. After having had time away from the system, is the interaction with it still obvious and painless?
• “Errors: how many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?”
  • This criteria relates well to the “HCI-Now” because in order to produce errors, a user needs to interact with a system or with a technology.
• “Satisfaction: how enjoyable and pleasant is it to work with the system?”
  • Though this criteria is also found in the “HCI-In the Past” section, it directly relates to the way in which we are seeking to understand and support human beings. Humans find joy in satisfaction. To create this satisfaction, designers must seek to understand humans further.

In conclusion, the criteria of usability fit well into the HCI ‘present’ very well even though some are directly mimic’d in the HCI ‘past.’ Though only 2 categories, the HCI ‘present’ allows more room for discussion around diversity of users as it directly discusses human beings, something the HCI ‘past’ lacks.

References:

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.

IP 1: Users, Uses and Usability

Usability

Usability is a two-way street between user and system. It encompasses the inherent competencies of each individual user as well as the capacities of the system to “show” the user how to navigate its parts to in turn find success. What is success in usability? According to Dix et al. (1998, p. 162) and Nielson (2003) as cited in Issa & Isaias (2015), success has to do with the “learnability, flexibility, robustness, efficiency, memorability, errors and satisfaction” a system provides its user (p. 33). For a system to have high usability means to support human beings of all backgrounds (race, socio-economic level, age, previous experience with technology, physical ability) in accomplishing the task they initially set out to use the system for, bringing the user a sense of success without having had too much of a sense of frustration or irritation. A highly usable system provides a clear and guided path for its user to follow, teaching them how to achieve the most favorable outcome for their desired task.

Educational Usability

The biggest difference between usability and educational usability is that ultimately, the goal with the latter is to learn. So though general usability is concerned with learnability, the ways in which human beings acquire information needs to be stressed even further. Learning theories and learner theories should be prioritized upon initial designs of machines and systems. An even clearer understanding that learners are extremely diverse as human beings should be maintained knowing that users will come from all walks of life. For educational usability, there must be an acknowledgement that attempting to define a target audience will be difficult. For a machine or system to be educational useable and useful, it needs to be able to meet diverse user learning needs.

Usability Gone Wrong

Woolgar (1990) identified many examples of a usability study gone wrong. One of the largest indications of the study or system configuring its users is through the heavy reliance on manuals and technical support.  The study is attempting to test the usability of the machine, not the usability of the manuals and support hotline. “In the event of uncertainty, users are redirected back to sources – either user documentation or the the company technical support hotline – which can re-establish the correct pattern of user action,” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 80). A study determining a level of usability should not already have a correct pattern of user action.

The second indication from Woolgar’s 1990 study of user configuration instead of machine configuration, is the “recurrent commentary on the subjects’ performances,” (p. 85). To collect unbiased and reliable data, study participants need to be placed in an environment that would most closely mimic a typical users environment. A typical user will not have a company employee on their shoulder guiding their next move. In this sense, the observer is configuring the user in what to do next instead of exposing the errors in usability that designers and engineers need to re-configure to meet the needs of users.

Positions of Usability

Issa & Isaias (2015) view usability as a responsibility fulfilled by designers and engineers of the corresponding machine or system. Using beta from the usability evaluation stage, it is the obligation of the company to make changes that will increase the likelihood of users finding success in their desired tasks. This view of usability negates the notion that users are highly diverse human beings who will never all fall into the intended “target audience.”

Woolgar (1990) negates that same notion in stating that it is possible to define “the identity of putative users,” (p. 59). This view of usability places more of the responsibility on users. If a system is highly usable, it will be able to teach and guide its users to the desired information. It will be able to configure these users so they understand how to find success more quickly each time they use the machine or system.

Perhaps what needs to be considered here between Woolgar and Issa & Isaias is that both their viewpoints need to be examined collectively. Usability involves that ability for the machine or system to be a flexible teacher that can guide users to find satisfaction, a perspective initiated from Issa & Isaias (2015). It also involves the users ability to learn the machine or system’s ways, while being comfortable making errors without becoming defeated, a perspective initiated from Woolgar (1990). So, though positionally these two views are quite different, together, they make a lot of sense.

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.