ETEC 511 #1: Understanding Users, Usage, Usability
How do we define usable and usability?
Usability measures how well a user achieves their intended outcome with a tool. It is a gauge that references how functional and fit-for-use something is towards a targeted goal, and how easily the user can configure it given their knowledge. In the context of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), usability assesses how intuitively users translate goals into actions. It is a blend of how accessible, efficient, effective, and satisfactory something is for an intended purpose. Simply put, a tool is usable if it lets users complete tasks quickly, comfortably, and with minimal errors.
Theorizing Educational Usability
While there are physical attributes and design factors that Issa and Isaias (2015) identify as factors toward what does or does not make something usable, the concept of educational usability extends past the interface and physical design of a tool.
When thinking about he role of usability from an educational standpoint, we must consider how the concept of usability supports the user beyond the completion of the task and how it helps contribute to ones’ knowledge and understanding. Users often interact with technology not merely to “get things done,” but to explore concepts, test ideas, and develop skills. The scope of usability in an educational context should then be broadened to incorporate formative feedback, self-assessment, and metacognitive reflection through the process which then guides their conceptual understanding of the user towards their goal. Whereas traditional usability prioritizes efficiency and effectiveness, educational usability should widen this scope to include teachable moments to prompt deeper engagement, and scaffolding of the task to allow for the development of the user’s autonomy. In this way, educational usability must also encompasses equitable representation of the content and other cultural considerations, in order to reduce any cognitive frictions the user experiences through the tool’s usage.
Withdrawing to Woolgar
In Woolgar’s (1990) account of “usability gone wrong,” it is revealed that studies of usability often do not convey true user behaviour but instead unintentionally configure the user’s behaviour by influencing their interactions.
1. Documentation
In one trial, participants were guided into engaging with machines by following manuals and prescribed procedures. The user was conditioned to operator the machine through the set of instructions, rather than being problem-solvers themselves. This shows that while the tool may be functional for its purpose, the usefulness and usability of the design becomes limited through the operational guidelines shared with the user. While the tool may have helped accomplish the task it was intended to do, the usefulness of the tool overall was limited by the user’s exploration and growth of it since they were regulated by the user manual.
2. Testing Environment
Another study I found interesting was based on how the testing environment shapes usability outcomes. In the study, Woolgar (1990, p. 78) suggests that the physical location of the trials and the operating environment is influences in how the users functioned throughout testing. Applying this to educational usability, it would then appear that the domain and conditions of the usability studies are impacted by whether the testing environment is the user’s natural operating environment or an artificially established one.
Two Perspectives
“…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 and Isaias (2015) ultimately view usability as a feedback tool to improve a system based on user input, emphasizing a user-centric design. In contrast, Woolgar (1990) sees usability as a way to configure users, suggesting that the design of a tool should guide its users towards usability. While Issa and Isaias focus on adapting the technology to users, Woolgar highlights how it is the technology that shapes the user’s behaviour of a tool. These differing perspectives reflect a discrepancy between both quotes, as one highlights designing the technology for its users, while the other designs its users through the technology.
