Actually we were going out to play pool and bowl anyway. It just happened to be World Usability Day on November 13 but we watched very carefully and didn’t see anything get magically easier. In fact, setting up our teams to start bowling was predictably frustrating… more on that in a minute.
‘Usability’ is starting to make its way into vernacular but it may be losing its usefulness. Often it’s used too specifically to mean just things like fixing button names in the usability lab at the end of a project. It can also be used too broadly to be useful, including any kind of customer feedback or best practices.
Let’s take the bowling console as an example. It isn’t just the names of buttons that get in the way. There are buttons that only work if you’re in league mode or before you begin a game. The controls are separate from the hanging monitors, limiting your ability to make connections between your actions and their effects. And the feedback on your current state (editing names or frames, normal play, re-racking) is minimal. If you were designing one of these and found such problems at the end, the budget you set aside to fix button names won’t do the trick. So how should the design process have worked?
The goal is an experience the user may enjoy but doesn’t have to think about. Setting up a game shouldn’t be the memorable part of your night. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to get there. Careful choices about what information is required when, how to get it, and how to interpret it must guide design. User involvement (even on a budget), is one way to set the project on the right path. Heading off the large issues before they are too far advanced to correct makes thisan investment rather than a cost.
It’s glib to suggest a “cell phone should be as easy to use as a doorknob,” but it shouldn’t take 3 people to set up a bowling game, either. Is the popularity of ‘usability’ helping us advocate for better process and better experiences?
Well done Kevin with the high score, and Ken for Miss Congeniality!