Usability means sustainability: a note on world usability day

Today is world usability day, and the theme this year is sustainability.  I can undertsand if that might seem like a bizarre combination, or if it might appear that world usability day has jumped on some kind of bandwagon.  I don’t think the two are wildly unrelated, and I think it is timely that world usability day recognises the relationship.  The relationship comes into play in a number of ways, from better designed living spaces and cities down to feedback to technology users about their real impact, but today I want to focus on two issues: efficiency, and computer supported co-operative work.

Efficiency is, in my opinion, a really big way better usability can contribute to improved sustainability.  Consider that Ben Shneiderman found out 8 years ago that the average person spends 5.1 hours per week grappling with computer problems.  If even 25% of those people would otherwise spend those 5.1 hours doing something that didn’t require electricity, that is a huge environmental saving.  Consider also the case of Lufthansa flight 2904 where cockpit usability problems constributed the death of two people, and the scrapping of an aircraft or the Therac 25 usability problems which caused the death of two people and necessitated considerable medical treatment for two others; both of these cases highlight social, financial and environmental sustainability problems that might have been avoided with better usability.  More mundanely, consider workplace injuries caused by poor ergonomic design, or the tim you spend looking up help files: each of these is a loss in efficiency due to poor system design and lack of usability testing. Every loss in efficiency we suffer due to poor system design or technological troubles is a way that usability (measuring how real people interact wit that system)  might have produced a more sustainable product or system.

Computer Supported Co-operative Work is another area for significant growth in sustainability.  This research field has a rich hsitory of contributing to the ways in which we work, and promotes some real sustainability gains.  CSCW has been the genesis of ideas that allow us to travel less (because we can collaborate online–there are some things for which you have to be there in person, but meetins are no longer one of them), print less (because we can share and review documents online) and share ideas more readily (because electronic dissemination is so lightweight). In their own ways, each of these advantages of sharing an electronic workspace contributes to sustainability (particularly given that travel and paper are not incosiderable contributors to environmental problems) , and I have no doubt that CSCW will continue to provide stepping stones to sustanability gains in the future.

I could talk about any number of other ways that usability helps create a more sustainable world, but I need to get off this computer and go and do something requiring no electricity.  In the meantime, I thoroughly recommend this post on ways you can check the usability of behaving sustanably in your area.  What are the barriers you face in living sustainably that could be improved with better system design?

Voyage: A road to nowhere

Voyage is a novel feed reader that displays content in a 3D-appearing space, and despite my well-documented reservations about 3D interfaces, I tried to give Voyage a go.  I have to assume that Voyage is not actually a production-level RSS service, but rather a demonstration system, because it is lacking some fundamental features of RSS readers including:

• Personalisation: You can’t create your own account on Voyage, which would mean you had to re-add your feeds every time you visited the site.
• RSS search: Voyage forces you to know the RSS URL of the feed you want to access–not the name of the site or the site URL, but the RSS URL.  This is a big ask of the average user
• Reading: To actually read any interesting RSS feeds you leave Voyage and go to the original site, even in cases where the feed is full-text (rather than an “atom”).
• Pictures: The site does not display pictures. This is a bit of a problem for picture-oriented blogs like I Can Has Cheezburger

Given these limitations, this display feels more like a discovery service for new blogs (along the lines of the liveplasma music and movie discovery service), but it does not have the back-end database of recommendations.  Either way, there are considerable usability problems with this interface:

• The text is not clear and readable
• The 3D-ness of the interface doesn’t add anything (the only dimension that appears to have any meaning at all is the forward and back one), and does make things harder to find (indeed, included in the 23 things task is the “add a feed and try to find it” puzzle).  Given that 3D interfaces perform deomnstrably (PDF) worse in information organisation tasks, and this interface does not have to be 3D, this is a serious usability concern
• The feeds area looks as though you ought to be able to click n the feeds to go to them.  Instead clicking on them deletes them, which given that you need to know the feed URL of a site to add it, is a high cost error for a simple action
• It simply isn’t clear what many of the interface elements (space, colour, the horizontal line) mean, making the interface difficult to learn
• it is difficult to navigate back “out”once you have selected something, meaning that the navigation is difficult and actions cannot be easily undone

Each of these concerns is in contravention of at least one of this excellent list of usability first principles, meaning that basically Voyage is hard to use.  Not only is it difficult to use, but it doesn’t offer either a decent feed reader or an interesting discovery service, so there is nothing in the user experience that is compelling enough to entice users back.  Maybe in a couple of years this concept will be more fully fleshed out, but in the mean time I am going to stick with Google Reader, which does reading and recommendations very well indeed.

VuFind: An interesting case of open source usability

We all know that library users are consistently frustrated with library systems, and cannot find what they want, particularly since the advent of Google (PDF). Some academics berate and despair of their students’ information seeking practices, and claim that Google is ruining young minds. In my opinion, as I have stated before, berating students (and Google) is going after the wrong target. It is human nature to maximise benefits while minimising effort, and for many students the time they will spendf searching a number of interfaces for relevant resources–particularly when the interfaces are confusing, archaic, and unhelpful–is simply better spent reading the resources they find on Google, and writing their assignments. The only way to change this “satisificng” approach and reveal the vast range of library resources available to our students is to make them findable through interfaces that do not confuse or humiliate users, and do not require a librarian to operate. While libraries can’t expect to compete with Google while they are buying information from a multitude of vendors that do not have standardised search results or formats, library search interfaces can offer some additional features (such as metadata-based faceting and primary browsing) that Google doesn’t offer–and if the information is better, or gets better results (like higher grades) that will also prove an incentive to use library interfaces.

Typicall I expect library catalogues to be ugly and cantankerous, I see that as the price I pay for finding the books I want(and don’t even get me started on finding journal articles–usually I start with Google Scholar). This is why, when I looked at VuFind on the National Library web site, I was so impressed with it: it is clean, attractive, and very usable:

• It searches more than one type of holding; my search results included books, online resources, and microfilm. This is much closer to the “one stop shop” expectations that users have than any library system I have used in the past.
• I can choose between my search results based on metadata facets–that is, I can choose books, or works by a certain author, or items from a specific subject. This means that single term searches are much more likely to be successful, as I can easily disambiguate my search and bring the results that are most relevant to me to the top
• Results are relevance ranked (don’t laugh, some library systems don’t do this). This feature is the one that has given Google search engine market dominance; their excellent relevance ranking meant that people found what they were looking for in the one to two pages of results they typically view.

These are just a few of the features that make VuFind feel like a breath of fresh air. Another thing that is unusual about VuFind, though, and one that makes it especially exciting to me, is th fact that it is open source. This basically means that you can get the software for free (though if you want support you will generally pay for it), and that if you want to change something about it, all you need is a willing programmer.

Open source software provides large scope for improving usability of software locally, because unusable features can be altered, however generally speaking open source software is not as usable as its “closed source” or commercial counterparts (a problem that is recognised, but not well handled, in the open source community). Dave Nichols and Mike Twidale, colleagues of mine, have long been interested in usability in open source software (and indeed how to open source usability bug reporting). In a 2003 paper they published (which anyone interested in open source or usability should read), they suggested several reasons why open source software might have usability problems:

• Open source communities, famous for comments like “RTFM” (read the **&%@& manual), are not generally welcoming to experts from other backgrounds, as usability experts often are
• Design for usability generally has to start before design for coding
• Open source communities are populated by programmers, who generally cannot see the problems that users with a lesser understanding of computers might have
• Open source software programming is often done to meet a need of the programmer, and as mentioned above, programmers have very different user interface needs to other users
• Design by committee and software bloat are not usually good for usability, and open source software is prone to both

In another paper on open source usability, Dave and Mike noted that it can be hard to report usability bugs in the same way as technical bugs, and that open source interfaces may be prevented from innovating by playing “catch up” with their commercial counterparts.

So VuFind is positively fascinating for its usability, both among library systems (though some of the newer commercial systems look interesting), and among open source projects (Koha is similarly fascinatingly usable and open source). Why is it that VuFind is such an exception to the rules?

• It was created by a library, under one umbrella, and not in a typical open source community. Being under a single umbrella demonstrably helps open source projects’ usability (Dave and Mike again, there), largely by ameliorating design by committee and imposing some order on the process. This will also have meant that the community was different — VuFind’s website comments that it was developed “by libraries“, and thus not just programmers, meaning that feedback from other disciplines was likely welcome
• Typical library system websites (though again, I can’t speak for some of the newer ones) are not effective for users, so VuFind didn’t have to play interface “catch up”
• VuFind was developed “for libraries” not “for programmers”
• It looks suspiciously (to me) like VuFind might have had a formal usability process, though I can’t find any evidence for this one way or another

In the end, whatever the specific differences are, VuFind is not just exciting in terms of its user experience, but fascinating, and an exemplar of how to do usability in an open source project. I don’t know if it is the way we will go with our discovery layer (and not having seen many of the other possibilities, I can’t comment on whether it is the way we should go either), but it certainly is a fascinating project, and I will be watching it further.

Paying faster: Economic win-win and good user experience

Over the weekend, I went to a grocery store local to my home. Normally grocery shopping is not something I consider a good experience, user or otherwise. I walk faster than the average person, and I don’t like crowds. I’m irritated by not being able to find anything, and the minute I can find everything the store seems to get rearranged (apparently this is to entice me to buy more when I see new and interesting products in the space where the stuff I was looking for was last week, but it doesn’t work — it often means I leave the store without things I had intended to buy because I couldn’t find them).

Over the weekend, though, I left the store with a bounce in my step, because they had introduced something that made my life easier, and got me out of the store faster (and that small improvement was enough to change the whole tone of the visit — being a user experience geek, improved user experience — and therefore things I can blog about — really make me happy).

The usual scenario at checkout is one of three, at most stores:

1. Stand in a feeder line for one of several express checkouts, where people have usually jammed far more than 15 things into a basket (rather than getting a trolley) to delude themselves that they are entitled to use the express checkout. Then they pay with cash, only it never occurred to them to get their wallets out at any point prior to actually having to pay, so keep waiting while they find their wallet in a large purse or backpack, or in one of their 50 pockets. Not usually so express.
2. Stand in line for a self checkout machine, and pack your groceries yourself (I spent a summer as a packer, and I can pack into my own backpack, so I actually like packing my own groceries). If you’re lucky the machine behaves for those in front of you (and you) so that you don’t have to wait for a shop assistant to come and make it scan items correctly or deliver the right change (this is risky, so I don’t usually use this line).
3. Find a non-express line where the person in front of you is nearly done, and check out through there. Even if the person still has 30 or so items, there is only one transaction (and thus one chance for a lost wallet), and it is only the same number of items as two express checkout customers. This is my preferred option at larger supermarkets.

Clearly a large part of my irritation with supermarkets is the time I waste standing in line (I know, I could read the magazines, but I don’t like the ones they have on display, and besides…it feels a bit wrong to read a magazine someone else will take home). So recently at my local Safeway, having taken option 3 and being ready to pay for my groceries with my credit card I looked down at the credit card terminal while I was waiting and noticed something new: I could pre-swipe my card. The screen read “Paying by card? swipe now”, and so I did. I then selected my account, and had my transaction pre-approved — all this while the cashier was still scanning my groceries. This saves a significant amount of time once the groceries are packed (especially, if like me, you can never figure out which way to swipe your card) — all the check out operator had to do was ask me if I wanted cash out, and then, unusually in Australia, the machine accepted the PIN I have on my credit card (instead of forcing me to sign).

This pre-swipe thing saves time in three ways:

1. Encouraging shoppers to have their cards out ahead of time
2. The check out operator not having to ask how you want to pay for your groceries (if you have already swiped your card — if you haven’t, they will still have to ask)
3. The time taken to swipe the card and select the account (not insignificant if the card is being temperamental and/or like me you can’t figure out which way to swipe it.

There is also a fourth advantage, in that it gives shoppers something to do in that awkward time where talking to the checkout operator might annoy them or slow them down, but not talking to them feels rude. The time saving is, admittedly, in the process of grocery shopping relatively small, however, it probably represents a large saving in the time-per-transaction for the cashier (and therefore a labour cost savings for the store). In situations of long lines where people pre-swipe, though, or for those who loathe grocery shopping, this small time saving (and awkwardness aversion) can make a big difference to their experience. This is a win-win user experience improvement — it will save the grocery store money, and may have an impact on consumer impression of the store — I know it has improved my perception, and will make me more likely to use the Safeway that has implemented the system than others that have not.

User experience in the world, or “I got Connexed”

Probably I shouldn’t be writing this post right now, because I am in a fit of pique with Connex over a trip that should have taken 15 minutes and actually took an hour and a half (and finished with me walking the final ten minutes because it was easier than staying on the train). Nonetheless, Connex recently provided me with an opportunity to point out that usability is not just for computers — after all the tag line of this blog is ‘because life can be simpler’, not ‘because computers can be simpler’.

Connex recently spent no small amount of money (I would dearly love to know just how much) publishing and handing out a booklet at several stations, written by the fictional Martin Merton about train etiquette. The booklet is named There is no ‘I’ in Carriage, presumably in a dismal attempt to satirize the old management adage “there is no ‘I’ in team”, and you can download it here (warning, PDF). I was handed the booklet one morning last week as I cut through Glenferrie Station, in front of the gates, not boarding a train (which is a usability glitch all on its own, because surely those known to be using the trains are a better reader group than those who simply happen to be near a station).

This book made some good points about manners on the train, for example how reading a newspaper affects the person next to you (though I do wonder how the Connex sponsored mX fits into this advice), and how certain gents’ fellow passengers would appreciate it if they kept their legs closed, thereby taking up only their own seat. The book did raise some problems, though, that would be better fixed by fixing the cause of the problem rather than issuing expensive advertising:

• Blocking the aisle: The book comments that ‘on an uncrowded train there is no excuse to stand in the aisle’. Well, on the face of it this does not seem unreasonable, except that there is very little “hanging on” space anywhere in the trains, and if the bars near the door are taken, the only place to hang on is in the aisles (and there is little room between the seats to get out of the way). By adding handstraps near the doors, more passngers would be able to stand out of the way.
• Backpacks: The book directs that backpacks should be placed on your lap or at your feet. Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I often carry a backpack, and if I am riding a train full of footy fans the last place I am going to put my backpack is at my feet; after all, I actually want to keep the stuff inside it, and chances of becoming separated from it during the surge of fans toward the stadium are pretty high. If, on busy trains, more time was allowed for people to get on and off, and more “holding on” points were available so that those not getting off could stand further from the doors, then I would be happy to put my backpack on the floor (as it is I never carry a backpack on the footy trains anyway, and in fact I try never to be on them, but for many people that kind of crowding is an everyday reality).
• ‘Special needs’ seats, feet on seats, and littering: These problems are caused by rude people, for sure, but they are also listed as offences subject to fines on all trains, so one possible systemic solution is simply to have more train inspectors and issue more fines. Better still, though, would be to provide more seating on each train, not have seats facing each other (which also leads to other uncomfortable social situations) and providing rubbish bins on the trains near the doors.

Of course, you can do everything in the world to make it easy for people to do the right thing, and some people still aren’t going to do it, such is human nature. However, in any system (and trains are a system) your money is much better spent making it easy for people to to the right thing (or use the system correctly) than retrofitting documentation, signage, and penalties to prevent them doing the wrong thing. I wish Connex had spent the money they spent on this campaign adding handstraps to the trains, because I know for certain that would have made riding the train easier, but I have yet to see any difference as a result of the booklets. For a post about trains that have some nice usability features (though not in so many words), see Tony’s post about Japanese trains.