learnability matters

We all know what 3D glasses are. We know where they are used, how they are used and what they can be used for, the purpose of its use. But in essence I want to talk about the usability of these glasses. I’m not sure we realize how detrimental they can be sometimes!

Let me share an instance that completely took me aback last week. At an IMAX theatre, we were all handed 3D glasses that not only looked ghastly but were too big for a person’s face. Unlike in any other theatre, we were given the following instructions: “Please do not break the 3D glasses provided to you. Incase of any damage, you will have to pay a fine”. Eagerly awaiting the start of the movie, we all ignored the statement (or at least I did).

Now to explain what happened. I broke the glasses. So did a couple of others. I could soon hear shrieking and yelling at the entrance. So what was wrong with its design? How did it break? Let’s analyze this further.

Current Design
These glasses can be used for various purposes but they are mainly used at theatres. A study conducted showed that more than 4 glasses invariably break during each show at a theatre. That is quite a sum of money they earn, considering this happens at each show. Before we move on to talk about the design flaws, let me just show you how it looks (at the IMAX).

The design flaws include:
1. Size. This is a primary flaw that most users don’t even recognize. The size is too big for any average person’s face. We look through our eyes, not our face!

2. Shape. It is obvious that most users know that these glasses not only eat up the entire face, but also look ludicrous. Due to its size, the shape tends to look disfigured. Shapeless in fact.

3. Usability Issues. Why do you think some people watching the movie broke the glasses? Human’s form conceptual models in their everyday environment. They receive information, perceive it through their senses, process it, and then, react to a stimulus accordingly. Humans would use these glasses as they would use a spectacle. The designer should keep this in mind. We all know how spectacles look and how they need to be used. This is because we have formed a conceptual model of it. Now why are glasses at the IMAX so different? It does not fold. When people use it, they would obviously expect it to work like normal spectacles, unless the design is a pleasant surprise to the user. In this case, I highly doubt that! This is a major flaw that causes disruption to an existing conceptual model.

Solutions
Increase product appeal. My first solution would be to change the way these glasses look. People always react positively when the things they use look great! Reactions to a design model is vital as appeal plays an important role in judging whether it looks good or bad. But here, people don’t have a choice. They all have to wear the glasses. So why can’t a designer create a product that people would “want” to wear, rather than “have” to wear. Create an urge, not a force.

Better the usability of the product. It is important that people can use these glasses effectively. Why do so many people break them? Because they are ineffective. They break the perceptions that any normal looking glass would create. Don’t break, I would say- enhance the feel and use of it.

Ensure that people think about what you design. How does one reflect on this product? Do you think it was great? Of course you will. So long as it provides you a great movie, you won’t have qualms about it. Here, its reflective properties are nullified as the movie acts as the primary task for a user in this context. So long as the object flies out of the screen and careens in your direction, it’s all pleasure as you feel a part of the action. I would consider: a design has been successfully created when people go home thinking, “wow, those glasses were cool. I wish they sold them!” Right now with the IMAX glasses, I am quite sure that I was moving in the opposite direction.

A simple design created below shows how the same product can look and behave more effectively.

Conclusion
According to cognitive scientist, Donald A Norman, human reactions to design exist on 3 levels: visceral (appearance of the product), behavioral (how the product performs) and reflective (individual satisfaction with the product). Every product has to be attractive, usable and satisfying. People build their understanding of the world according to how they feel and react to things around them. Enliven this experience. Design is like a gift that should be given and not taken. Each person should be able to anticipate, elevate and capture the moment awarded to him.

Share this