IP 1:
USABILITY
A formulation of the concept of usability, educational usability, configuration of users, and different views.
Usability and Educational Usability
Usability refers to the interaction quality between users and interface across different dimensions such as learnability, flexibility, robustness, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction. It evaluates interface effectiveness and, for this reason, is used during the design process to identify required improvements in user experience, interface design, and profitability. Usability emerged in the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) whose aim is to “Develop tools and techniques to help designers ensure that computer systems are suitable for the activities for which people will use them” (Issa & Isaias, 2015). On a deeper level, as shown in Woolgar’s (1990) case study, usability also looks at how interface design influences and conditions user activity.
From an educational perspective, we would first have to replace the term users with learners and think about the unique characteristics of a learning experience. Although the levels described above (learnability, flexibility, etc) are important and will help to strengthen usability and facilitate better learning experiences, quite often technologies fail because there isn’t a deep understanding of the specific characteristics of learners, teachers, content, and the interaction among them. Hence, educational usability should also look at the interactive dimension of the educational experience and the unique profiles and needs of its agents. Other elements that could be added to educational usability are cultural relevancy, adaptability, and accessibility. Educational usability could also include an assessment of user configuration potentials for the achievement of desired learning outcomes.
Configured Users
Woolgar (1990) demonstrated several ways a usability study configured users to a point at which the usefulness of usability was affected, distorted, and undermined. This can affect the transparency and the overall goal of a usability study, as it conditions the identity and behavior of users.
​
One example of this problem is found in section VII.2 Constructing natural users (Woolgar, 1990, p.84). Even though testers wanted to remain as objective observers without intruding on the natural process of users finding a way of interacting with machines, they frequently intervened when contingencies arose. Testers offered “considerable commentary on subject’s performance” (Woolgar,1990, p.85) and helped users avoid trouble, often attributing problems to machines. These interventions were combined with instructions about behaving normally to act like a real user, which resulted in inauthentic behavior.
Another example of usability configuring users is found in section VII.3 The wrong socket episode (Woolgar,1990, p.86). In this case, a user named Ruth was required to connect a Stratus 286 computer to a printer using a manual. However, the testers intentionally made this an impossible task as the lead cable was only compatible with earlier machine versions. Throughout the test, Ruth was offered advice on whether she was behaving correctly, promoting her to display her actions in accordance with user expectations. The impossibility of the task also configured Ruth’s sense of self-efficacy, as she declared “I’m being stupid, this is silly” (Woolgar,1990, p.88). This example illustrates both how interventions and design configured a user.
Differences in usability conceptions and uses
Although both Issa & Isaias (2015) and Woolgar (1990) are using frameworks for usability built on the idea of interaction between users and interfaces, their focus is different.
Issa & Isaias (2015) explain usability in terms of interaction assessment for product and user experience improvement. In section 2.4 What is usability? (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p.29) a literature review of usability and its purposes is presented, all concepts revolving around the idea of understanding complex HCI dynamics to inform and support an iterative design process. For example, citing McGovern (2003), Issa & Isaias (2015) note that usability observes users to “see what can be improved, what new productions can be developed” (p.29). On the other hand, even though Woolgar (1990) also infers that usability evaluates interaction, he focuses primarily on how interface design influences the behaviours and identities of users. This is rooted in his ‘machine as text’ metaphor (Woolgar, 1990, p.60) which asserts that “the relation between readers and writers is understood as mediated by the machine” (p.60) and the user's character, capacity, and possible future actions are structured and defined in relation to the machine.
Issa & Isaias (2015) and Woolgar (1990) views on usability are not contradictory but rather different in depth, as each explores different dimensions. Issa & Isaias (2015) focus primarily on the main purpose of usability, that is product assessment, while Woolgar (1990) goes deeper into exploring the behavioral phenomena that arise from interface design and its influence on human activity and cultural implications.
references
Issa T., Isaias P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable design: HCI, usability and environmental concerns (pp.19-36). Springer, London. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2
McGovern, G. (2003). Usability is good management. http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2003/ nt_2003_04_07_usability.htm
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 58-99.