- 1. Usability is a system’s capacity to be easy to use, easy to learn, compatible with the user’s needs, frequently used with minimal error count, safe, memorable, enjoyable to wok with, speedy when accomplishing tasks, informative about achievement of goals, and functional.
2. What is missing from this conception, particularly in relation to education, is the system’s capacity to be educationally valuable. Squires and Preece clarify that, ‘’Just because an interface is easy to use does not mean that it is designed appropriately from an educational perspective.’’ (Squires and Preece, p. 1, 1996). The core purpose of an educational software is to support learning and assist students in achieving learning objectives. If it does not do that, then the software isn’t really ‘’usable’’. Therefore, educational usability could be defined as a system’s capacity to support learning intentions as well as having usability as defined above.
3. The first of Woolgar’s examples that demonstrates how usability testing has gone wrong concerns a group of subjects (users) who are testing a machine. The observers are supposed to objectively observe the subjects as they were performing the tasks without influencing their behavior or intention. However, this was not the case as they intervened multiple times and provided commentary that clearly affected the users’ experience thus rendering the usability testing pointless because the users weren’t ‘’real’’ users as in their behavior was not intuitive and therefore did not reflect the true needs and goals of the intended users of the machine.
The second example is about Ruth, a participant who was assigned the task of connecting Stratus 286 to a printer. Again, the observers make the same mistake of interfering in the task and imposing a certain user experience on the subject. They were telling the participant how the machine is supposed to be used. The observers wanted the user to have an experience that agrees with their expectations, they expected them to use the system in the way they intended, which is the opposite of what usability is about: the system must fulfill the needs of the users and the interaction between the machine and the user must be seamless and natural, not forced.
Usability testing must be performed by the users organically without any influence on their goals, needs, or intentions. The relationship between the system and the user must not be set up or decided (configured) by the observers or the designers of the system. Only the real users’ experience and their authentic satisfaction with the system determines how usable it is.
4. The first position by Issa & Isaias is an optimistic one where they believe usability evaluation is a very successful method of determining usability. Ideally, Issa & Isaias clarify that observers should observe users as they try to accomplish ”true-to-life” tasks. Without the authenticity of users’ behavior, usability testing is pointless, which is what Woolgar sees. and discusses in depth. Usability testing could go wrong as sometimes users and their needs are configured, set up, already decided by the designers which is exactly the opposite of what good usability is all about. Woolgar sheds light on a real and important issue that others might disregard or simply not be aware of. His view is realistic.
References:
Issa T. & Isaias P. (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Sustainable Design. London: Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2.
Squires, D & Preece, J. (1996) Usability and learning: Evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers & Education. 27(1) 1996 (p. 15-22). ISSN 0360-1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(96)00010-3.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1_suppl), 58-99.
Safa'a Abusa'a 