IP 1: Uses, Users, and Usability

Usability

My conception of usability is based off the three major system variables (task match, ease of learning, and ease of use) that should be attended to during the development process (Booth, 1989, as cited in Issa and Isias, 2015). Using this as a starting point, my notion of usability is based on how easy it is for a new user to learn to use the system and the tools within that system to carry out the tasks they need and want to; and, how efficiently and easily the user can carry out these tasks regularly once they have learned the basics of the system. These aspects determine the quality of the interactions between the machine and the user, and ultimately, its usability.

Educational Usability

In terms of educational usability, I would add the component of system flexibility. That is, the ease with which the system can be differentiated to varying levels of user ability, independence, and technological know-how. Schools usually have budget constraints. This often leads to classes having to share devices. Generally speaking, more students in older grade groups would have experience using the devices whereas those in younger grade groups would need more embedded guidance with using the system. As those younger students gain experience, they might not need the guidance tools, so the ability to easily toggle between a version suited for beginner users versus intermediate users is crucial to educational usability. 

Another aspect that is foremost for educational usability is the sustainability of the technology. As climate change continues to impact our world, the technology that learners use should be environmentally sustainable so as not to further contribute to the climate crisis. This relates to the longevity of the physical devices too. With environmental impact and school budget constraints in mind, the physical devices should be rugged and built for multiple students’ rough handling over the years. As well, the hardware should be sustainable in the sense that software device updates will be compatible with the hardware without the threat of planned obsolescence. Far too often, there are physical devices that work in schools that become unusable due to the company no longer providing software and security updates because there is a newer model of the device that the parent company is selling. 

Examples of Configuring the User in Woolgar (1990)

Woolgar (1990) states that configuration involves “defining the identity of putative users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (p. 59). In setting these limits, the company is trying to impose its definition of the likely user onto future users. This act of imposition is most strikingly apparent in the exchanges between the testers and the test subjects during the usability trials, as prompts and discussions about whether or not the subjects were behaving like real users would ensue. These discussions threaten the authenticity and validity of the test users’ experiences because they are prodded to behave like a pre-existing idea of the potential user.

This process of configuring the user also proves tricky because the socially distributed nature of the knowledge about the potential user is contested by various factions within the company. An example that Woolgar (1990) offers to illustrate this is when SallyP, a technical writer at the company, chastises Woolgar for volunteering to act as a “naive user” (p. 70) since this “reaffirmed her worst fears about insensitive ‘techies’ and their inability to see beyond a company mindset” (p. 70). In another instance, Woolgar (1990) recounts how a technical support member shared how “typically, the engineers don’t have a clue about users” (71). And while those in the engineering department acknowledge the importance of understanding the user, they also believe users do not always know best. From these examples, we can see how the definition of the potential user is socially distributed and contested among company insiders.

Difference Between Woolgar’s Usability and Issa and Isaias’s Usability

The major difference in how Woolgar (1990) treats the uses of usability compared to Issa and Isias’s (2015) framing lies in who or what is treated as the object. In Issa and Isias’s conception, it is a given that the device is the object and the user is the subject. Here, the user is performing actions to the object to test it and the user is identifying what works well and what does not. It is clear that the device itself is the object that the action is being done to. In contrast, Woolgar (1990) complicates the boundary between object and subject. He suggests that the user is the object that is being tested and configured during the process of usability testing. Here, the outcome is not necessarily how the device can be improved, but rather, how the user can be molded through the limitations set by the designers. 

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.