2 things to put usability in your sights
Instructional designers are familiar with the basics of usability testing to improve the design of an instructional unit even while it is still in development. Watching users work through an instructional unit or navigate a Web site for the first time helps uncover the ambiguities underlying what we thought was quite obvious. Poking around the Web, I came across a podcast interview by Jared Spool with author and usability expert Dana Chisnell, Spoolcast: Usability Guerilla Techniques (ignore the introductory music and such, the interview begins at about 2:00). She shares two factors that can take us from ‘good user research’ to ‘great user research’: having a Vision and having a Strategy. As I traversed the web threads further, I found other posts that made comments that extend one or both of these components. So let’s take a brief look at how usability can be improved by having a vision and having a strategy.
Having a Vision
Dana Chisnell says in her interview that usability has to be “more than a spot check on functionality.” To conduct an effective usability study, create a vision for what you want the users to gain and what sort of experience you want them to have during the interaction. Great usability begins with a commitment to creating a great user experience. We have to understand more about the users: who are they and why are they visiting the site or participating in the instructional unit (their needs and goals). In another blog, “User Experience Supports Findability and Usability,” Kim Krause Berg comments similarly about knowing web users, “understanding, in-depth, who web site visitors are is a good place to start.”
Having a Strategy
A great vision is implemented through a great strategy. Three thoughts are offered as part of implementing a strategy: (1) use qualitative data to describe the full user experience, (2) implement usability early and often, and (3) share the usability role with others.
First, some usability studies result in statistical, quantitative reports: the average number of clicks to complete a task, the average duration for completing a task, etc. However, Lane Becker (“90% of All Usability Testing is Useless”—but don’t let the title scare you off) argues that real usability drives modifications through a holistic, qualitative approach: why were the users confused, what were they expecting?
Second, usability data should be gathered early and throughout development to accommodate revisions when they are less costly and more efficient. “Some of the most inspired work I’ve seen has happened on whiteboards in the observation room while testing is going on several feet away” (Becker).
Finally, who does the usability testing is part of the strategy. Chisnel recommends involving the entire design and development team: let every member of the team know first-hand what it is like for the user to interact with the instruction. Becker adds, “Anyone who might have a stake in what’s being tested should be present for at least a part of the process.” And both agree that good usability testing can be performed by those who are involved in the design and development, contrary to some opinions that say that only objective outsiders can perform an unbiased analysis of the user experience.
According to Becker, “it’s time to get your hands dirty.”
Guest blogger: Linda Sadler is a Master’s student in Instructional Design at the University of Memphis. Her particular area of interest is safety training in the general industry setting. In the fall of 2009, she completed the 30-hour General Industry OSHA Course to acquire an overview of the safety environment. As part of a broad context analysis that supports safety training, she is interested in pursuing a quantitative study of the safety culture in Memphis-area high-hazard companies to uncover factors that impede adherence to safety guidelines. Linda is currently the Editorial Assistant for The Southern Journal of Philosophy at the University of Memphis.
Image by JulyJu from Flickr Images at Creative Commons
