learnability matters

Ever seen shoes with pockets or a wrist watch that does everything but read time? I’m sure you have. We come across such products everyday but we just don’t pay attention to its unusable nature as we have been ‘conditioned’ to its use. Some of you may disagree, calling it style. But the others who would agree with me, call it a ‘user fatigue syndrome’. With the use of some common everyday products, I will postulate the essence of simple, good design principles that we can adopt while designing for an effective online experience.

Inaccessibility vs. Accessibility
Let me begin by talking about what appalled me most at the mall the other day. I stumbled upon a shirt that had me flabbergasted! It was completely unusable. Usability in clothing? Yes, let me explain. The shirt pocket wasn’t on the front as our mental mapping would normally expect. It was placed inside the shirt. If I were to wear the shirt, how was I supposed to access the pocket? I agree that customers look for security. It is common to associate value for money with security. Placing the pockets inside is an excellent way of keeping the money secure. But is it easily accessible? No, it isn’t.

With this analogy in mind, let us look at how we can use this knowledge at our workplace. During an online experience, a user must be presented with information upfront. If a link or a tab is placed in an unconventional location, you can be almost certain that you have lost your user.

Style vs. Usefulness
Let me tell you about the other thing that caught my eye. This time it was a trouser that had strings protruding from its sides. Users may think that they need to use this feature. But the only role these strings play is that they contribute to style. No doubt that it enhances the look of the product, but of what use is this “feature”? We need to ask ourselves this question over and over again, especially while designing a product. What will the user do with it? How will he use it? How is he going to benefit from this? Such countless questions need to be asked over again during a user centered design process.

I am specifically using this analogy to make you realize that we always tend to overdo things while we design. As designers, we provide all the features that we can possibly think of. Ah, an online news center for example. While we update our news report, let the users have a way of gambling, kareokeing and golfing online– in the same interface! Why not? Ironically, it is far easier to complicate design than to retain its simplicity.

Discomfort vs. Satisfaction
The Enfield Bullet is known for its power, smooth performance, and stability. But I have always wondered why a bullet is used to travel long distances. For one, the seat is not cushioned and it does not even provide a suitable back rest. The pillion rider is uncomfortably seated throughout the journey. No wonder he/she complains of aches and pains!

Long distance travel has to be comfortable. It is important to test such products to see how users perceive and use it. Missing small detailing in design would shatter a users’ experience. Even while users navigate through an online experience, the distance to reach a user’s goal should be kept in mind. If the experience is not well cushioned by providing appropriate feedback, users are going to quit immediately.

Feature Creep vs. Simplicity
Every design model should easily satisfy a feature of the product that the user would perform primarily. I once saw a watch that does everything but read time effectively! This watch has several features that could bewilder and, at the same time, leave a user perturbed. Its features included:

• LCD display
• Solid Stainless Steel
• Extremely Detailed Color Display
• English/Japanese Instructions

A press of a button sends the watch into scan mode and the various panels & readouts animate as if scanning the area for life forms. After a few seconds the results display the time, but the animation sequence can be skipped if desired with a second press of the button. Now that’s effortless!

A designer must always keep the primary tasks upfront for the user to easily access. Incase you think more the features, more choices the user has. Think this widens the interaction experience? Well, you are wrong. Looking for design solutions is then a futile chase.

Unfamiliarity vs. Mental models
Let’s look at the new Indian two rupees coin. This coin completely goes against a user’s mental model. Let me explain. If I ask you to give me a one rupee coin from your wallet or purse, the first thing you would do is “feel” the texture and shape of the coin. You would pick a coin that maps your perception. Place the old two rupees coin alongside the new one. Close your eyes and feel its texture and shape. Does your mapping of the old coin match the new one? No, it doesn’t. Another design glitch lies in the weight of the coin. Customers always associate the weight of the coin with value for money. Look at the hierarchy in the structure of coins. The one rupee coin is much lighter than the five rupees coin and two rupees coin. When you hold the new two rupees coin, isn’t it lighter than the old one?

Old Coin New Coin

Design should always map a user’s model of the object as reactions always follow perceptions. Even when you look at poker tables online, you can see how it retains the real life experience of playing the game. The table, chips, and cards are able to retain the players’ model. In this case, the human mind replicates a similar action that has occurred in the past. Incase this mapping does not match, the user is left discomforted.

Design solutions
Focus on the user’s model. The solutions behind these problems lie with the designer. I have used everyday examples to enhance the reality of this dispute– propagating bad design. Designers create designs for themselves and not their users. Reducing a designer’s model of a product and increasing the user’s model would increase the role of the user while using that product.

Reduce feature creep. It is important that a designer keeps in mind that the features provided are not excess. Always remember that less is more effective. The user is only keen on the benefits that a product provides. Keeping in mind the primary goals and tasks of the user, a designer can avoid including several features for a product.

Don’t make the user think. While using a product, it is important that the user feels comfortable and assured, especially while performing a task. If you see an expression of confusion while testing, irrefutably your design has failed.

Do not frustrate, but enliven. A user must be ensured that the product is easy to use. No doubt a hundred features are present, but how useful and usable are they? The user must think of the interaction experience as delightful rather than an experience that causes friction.

Map the experience to users’ mental models. An interaction with the product and the user always includes mapping. It is important to provide the user with a situation that he/she has experienced before, rather than baffle him with unexpected ones. People rely on mental models that the mind constructs of reality in order to anticipate future events.

It’s always about the interaction experience. A designer must make sure that the interaction between the product and the user is smooth, effective, efficient, and satisfying. If there are any pitfalls along the way, the user is bound to cringe. Reducing friction and increasing the delight factor during navigation will make this experience effortless and satisfying.

Conclusions
Indubitably, it is hard to criticize one’s own design, but understanding your users would fetch far reaching benefits. Just as you perform tasks in a context and an environment, so does your user. Just as you expect objects to behave like you want them to, so does your user. Remember that you will be the user of your product. It is vital to design for an effective interaction experience.

Share this