ETEC511 IP1

1. A tool’s usability, with inspiration from the work of Issa and Isaias (2015) is summarized in my mind with two components

a) Ease of use – the tool should help the user complete the task in as little intuitive steps as possible

b) Good results – the tool should complete the task reliably and accurately as intended by the users

I understand a tool with high usability as a tool that does two things, it achieves the intended result for the user, and it makes it effortless for the user to use the tool. With more complex tools with more complex objectives, the robustness mentioned by Issa and Isaias becomes more important and users need support before they are able to use the tool well.

2. From this conception, pedagogical considerations are missing. This is especially damaging when users are children. This is because older users have often had the training of working with different, similar tools before. For example, when telling students to sign up for IXL, an online learning platform, it was easy for the older students to do so because they were familiar with an account and password interface similar to when they signed onto social media accounts. However, younger kids had to understand what usernames and passwords were before they could effectively sign onto the system. Therefore, one cornerstone of educational usability I’ve identified is that designers should be considerate of users prior experiences when creating the tool.

3. The central argument Woolgar brings forth is that a user’s actions in the future can be structured and defined in relation to the machine (Woolgar, p. 89). This is exemplified by the trial Ruth went through to try to connect a “Stratus 286” to a printer, an impossible task. Here, the machine is treated like a text waiting for Ruth to interpret with all its instruction manuals. Because of this, Ruth is trying to figure out how a user is supposed to behave. Essentially, the behavior of Ruth, the user, is being shaped by a machine. Another example Woolgar gives is the warning labels on various hardware components found within a computer. Anything that says “warranty void if unsealed” and the like is there to configure the user towards a specific set of behaviors. In this case, getting users to contact the manufacturer prevents the user from tinkering with the hardware themselves, and potentially incurring a greater cost from interacting with what the users do not understand. These examples remind me of the way social media has shaped our behavior. Ten years ago, we would consider 15-year-olds dancing in front of their phones for the world to see a little odd. Today, TikTok has made that a trend. TikTok, a system, has configured its users, the people on the platform, to specific sets of behaviors that ultimately profit the platform.

4. Issa and Isaias and Woolgar have varying views on the uses of usability. For Issa and Isaias, usability is something designers should consider to identify the problems of the tool, before improving it to better match user needs and expectations. It’s an objective process for improving the interaction between the tool and the user. The underlying assumption is that usability studies allow software engineers to create a tool that users can adapt to easier. Meanwhile, Woolgar argues that the tool itself can configure users and that usability concerns should be addressed while also considering the ability of the tool to shape human behavior. Woolgar implies that tools may have sociological effects, and that the design of the tool itself is already full of assumptions about who the users are and how they should behave. The implication here is that the tool may be representing the beliefs and assumptions of the designers who designed the tool. While Issa and Isaias treat usability analysis as a tool to improve the usability of a tool, Woolgar considers the underlying assumptions that designers might have when making usability considerations and makes the usability analysis process sound like a much subjective than objective endeavor.

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.