Welcome to Nirvana:
Naïve Beliefs
of Usability
(SIGCHI
Bulletin Sep/Oct 2001)
|
There are many reasons why the Internet might be thought of
as a form of paradise, but the slightly unusual motivation I
would like to explore here follows on from the proverb "ignorance
is bliss". There are two primary sources of ignorance that
lead to the utopia that we know as the web. They are both really
forms of naivety although one is inevitable while the other is
not.
Inexperienced users are frequently euphoric about the web because
they can see its possibilities without yet being disenchanted
with its realities. They assume that problems they have in accessing
sites, finding information, making purchases and browsing in
general are because of their own inadequacies - slow connections,
the wrong ISP, browser software that is either too old or too
new, lack of familiarity and so on. Consequently, at least in
the early days, they experience the web through a kind of innocent
optimism that is hard to decry.
The second source of ignorance is much more invidious. It is
the collection of naïve beliefs that many software and web
developers hold about usability. Here are some of the worst culprits:
- Users are like me
- A mouse is better than a keyboard
- More is better
Some of these beliefs pre-date the web by at least a couple
of decades, but they are still prevalent none the less. The assumption
that users are the same as developers has been a problem since
the introduction of interactive systems in the 60's and 70's.
It leads to a very narrow-minded approach to design which discourages
flexibility and the accommodation of individual differences.
We do not have to stray very far from well known and successful
web sites to find a variety of bad examples: operations that
must be performed in a set order, fields with mysterious formatting
requirements or the absence of accessibility features.
Why use a mouse? The answer appears to be, rather like Mallory's
answer to questions about climbing Everest, "because it's
there". Many web sites would rather force users to click
ten times with the mouse than to allow them to type in a simple
date - and usually in the middle of a series of alphanumeric
fields. There is also the underlying assumption that users will
prefer to use the mouse where possible, even though this is entirely
a matter of personal choice.
That "more" is synonymous for "better" should
come as no surprise to anyone in a technological field. It is
almost unheard of for a new product to be labeled with anything
other than quantitative superlatives. In software product and
web design this focus on "more" leads to bewildering
accumulations of features, controls, windows, links, popups,
pulldowns, animations, sound effects and other wizardry. The
idea that anything should be made simpler or clearer is frequently
met with gasps of astonishment from anyone not intimately involved
with usability.
What's to be done? First, I should say that I don't really blame
individual developers for their naïve usability beliefs.
We have all had naïve beliefs in subject areas with which
we are unfamiliar. If blame is going to be placed, it must be
with the way that we teach technical skills such as software
and web site development. Most courses (both academic and commercial)
keep the technical issues quite separate from the human. Yet,
we should be able to anticipate the problems that will occur
as a result. Perhaps we need to take a leaf from the US National
Science Education Standards:
"Teachers are aware of and understand common naive concepts
in science for given grade levels, as well as the cultural
and experiential background of students and the effects these
have on learning." [NSES Chapter 3]
If we developed courses for the design of interactive systems
that fully integrated technical and HCI issues, we could address
these naïve beliefs of usability at an early stage. Developers
would lose their blissful ignorance, and users could experience
a sustained sense of well-being, long after the initial novelty
subsides.
The Author
William Hudson is principal consultant for Syntagm Ltd, based
near Oxford in the UK. His experience ranges from firmware to
desktop applications, but he started by writing interactive software
in the early 1970's. For the past ten years his focus has been
user interface design, object-oriented design and HCI.
Other free articles on user-centred design: www.syntagm.co.uk/design/articles.htm
© 2001-2005
ACM. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here
by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution.
The definitive version was published in SIGCHI
Bulletin,
{Volume 33, September-October 2001} http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/970492.970504
|