How do we make it easy to use?
In 2011 I had the great fortune to have been awarded a Winston Churchill Fellowship. In 2012 I then took my research trip which went from the 11th May - 13th July. To say I had a ball is a vast understatement. But my trip was to research how we make technology easy to use and who is doing it and how are they doing it.On my return I then needed to write up my report. If you are interested you can download it from the Churchill Memorial Site. But I thought I would put my executive summary and conclusion here.
Executive Summary
The impact of the complexity of technology is a major factor in the delivery of services to the Department for Child Protection. Currently we have a large and complex client records management system which is served from the desktop computers within the department. With the advent of the iPad and many other forms of mobile technology, the department is considering the possibility of using these types of devices in the field of child protection. Due to the size of many of these devices, the current style of design of many applications is not conducive to mobile devices. The biggest issue is the amount of screen space or territory that these mobile devices offer.The main theme behind this project is to better understand the issues associated with usability and the reduction of complexity in the technology we use. A good example is with the current Apple iPads. If you talk to an owner of an iPad they will talk about what they do and create. Any mention about technology and complexity of the programs does not form any part of their conversation. Based on the view that if Apple can reduce complexity, then how can this be achieved with other technology? Can we reduce that complexity in the technology that the Department for Child Protection uses? How do we make technology facilitate the outcomes of our social workers?
This project took the perspective of four groups in the delivery of this technology. The groups were Users, Developers, Manufacturer’s and Business. From a user perspective the project was aiming an understanding what the user wants to achieve with their technology. What are the challenges and frustrations that users face when using technology?
As a developer, how did they come to their decisions in the development and delivery of products. The manufacturer’s was it based around sound user analysis and understanding the user’s needs? How did they align themselves with both their customers’ needs and the needs of their business? The Business or Government perspective was understanding why many don’t believe they are able to direct the outcomes.
During my research around the world I met many different companies, dealing with software and hardware; I visited Stanford and Harvard to meet with business departments and Human Computer Interaction (HCI) or Computer Human Interaction (CHI) to obtain an understanding how people in the field of usability and Human Factor Engineering (HFE) address these area of usability and interaction with technology.
The following report covers my journey and the interactions I had with the people and organisations that I met. I needed to understand the questions as well as look for answers. What I did learn was that as I gain more knowledge and information the less I knew and the more I needed to learn. I came across some really good questions and some better insights.
This trip and report is just the start of my journey and further education on this field of study. The experience has been priceless and set me on a solid foundation to better inform organisations on the topic of usability and to simplify the technology that we use.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have found that the more I learn the less I know and the more I need to learn. The experience has given me a greater appreciation and insight into the area of usability, especially making technology easier to use. The use of anything new being it phone, TV or computer is one factor that is common to all and that is design. Design of the actual device and the design in how we use it to get the outcome we are looking to achieve.I have met people in the areas of software development, manufacturing, business, educational institutions and usability instructors and consultants as well as authors who write on the topic and other areas that are influenced with and by usability. From these interactions, I have discovered that the issue of usability and addressing it is not new. The topic of Usability and Human Factor Engineering has been around for well over
60+ year and is a doctoral subject. However, many factors have led us to this point in time with our use of technology. The speed of the change in our technology has a big impact to its usability.
Steve Job’s at Apple saw this more than most, and the work that he has done in taking Apple from the brink of bankruptcy has been to his efforts in challenging the norm. He has done this by thinking differently to what has gone in the past. Using one of his famously quoted statement “Think Different” he looked at what people were wanting to achieve and doing that as simply as possible. This is designing for outcomes rather than just capturing data.
Computers started in the laboratories but then moved to the domestic market. From there, the technology grew organically and it was the realm of the nerds and geeks. Software was looked upon as magic by many in the domestic market. It was a toy for the geeks and nerds; and due to that fact it had a major influence as to how software and the applications were developed. Much of the learning in this space did not have too much structure and was the realm of trial and error. Skills were shared and learnt quickly but from the perspective of the geeks and nerds. They understood what could be done and had some idea of how they
were going to deliver the outcomes. Those outcomes were usually grounded in sound computer skills or programming structure and design.
The approach of developers was to capture the information or data, manipulate that data to produce the results that were being sought. This was usually by a set of business rules and algorithms. The resulting information was then reported to the screen and or printer. In the early days of application and the web everyone had their view on what worked. Over time standards were developed but they were from the perspective of the developers. There were early attempts to address usability and standards started to appear. Many of the early attempts at this area of computer use were based on the visual aesthetics and design elements. People like Jakob Nielsen based a lot of this work in conjunction with Don Norman on Human Computer Interaction science in which Jacob held a Ph.D. and Donald Norman who worked in the field of cognitive science, design and usability engineering. The Nielsen Group led much of the discussion and debate about website usability and the standards around building these sites.
Every so often, there would be software or hardware that came along that changed how we interacted with computers and software systems. The biggest of these was the introduction of the Apple MAC. Before then many worked at the command line with strange commands and sequences of letters, numbers and names. Windows came along making access to this technology a little easier but it was still not mainstream. In the early 90’s came the internet and from there grows daily our interactions and fascination of the technology.
It was not until Steve Jobs had returned to Apple in 1996 that things started to really change in design and interfaces within technology. When the iPad was released in January 2010, people started to see that the use of technology could be made easier. That influence of the iPad and iPhone has changed our understanding of the use of complex technology. These innovations have led to the raising of the expectations of users and the technology they use.
What Steve Jobs brought about was the consideration of outcomes based design. As Apple designed its products, the market started to understand that technology can be easy and intuitive to use, by designing products to function the way people think and work and not on the capabilities of the device. Interfaces of the past were more about the functions and features, while not much effort was place in the aesthetics. The issue was that unattractive, convoluted, or illogical interfaces would feel like a chore when using the application even if it was a great product. Use of these systems became the realm of the geek and nerds. With the advent of the iPad and iPhone, beautiful, intuitive, compelling user interfaces enhance the application’s functionality. It inspired a positive emotional attachment in users. This has increased to such an extent that these devices have now become personal; people place a large amount of emotional attachment to these devices. The devices are taken everywhere in their daily lives and events People cannot go to bed at night unless it is nearby.
My project was to get a better appreciation on the how’s and why’s of technology usability. In better understanding, this topic I could potentially apply this knowledge to how we go about developing products and services for our field staff. The experience of this trip has led me to discoveries that there is nothing special, there is no silver bullet or solution in getting this right other than our approach. We have the ability, the technology, the understanding and have always been aware of the issues. But I believe it is in our approach to development of devices and solutions that we need to consider.
In the past, we have concentrated on the capturing and the data. We have been worried that if we miss the data, we will not be able to carry out the task. In many systems and devices, this has been to the detriment of the user and their experience in working with these systems. As time went by we started to address usability but it has been treated as an afterthought. Most of the work in this area has been based around the aesthetics of the interface, system and or device. The problem was that by the end of the project when usability people were involved with the project, much of the work needed to be carried out could not as the product was about to leave the building. So usability was more based on aesthetic look and feel.
Steve Jobs turned that concept on its head by changing the focus and the point of engagement of the designer and engineers getting together at the start of the project and having a far greater involvement overall and on the outcomes of the product and services. The first Apple Computer led this. Where Steve Wosniak wanted to release the computer as a kit, Steve insisted that it be developed as a completed computer. By the time the first MAC computer came to market this concept had been developed to a far great level. The problem was a new company and not having the financial backing. Steve Jobs ended up being removed from the company. On his return, he was face with a company that was close to bankruptcy. He redefined what the company would develop. It was taken from a line of some 20 or 30 lines of products to four. Laptops for home and business and desktops for home and business. Company moral was raised over 100% and focus was towards building the best product.
What had changed was the perspective that was taken when developing both products and services. They asked simple questions as they were developing and designing. Was what was the end user trying to achieve? They gathered all the things that were believed to be needed. Then they concentrated on reducing elements until only the elements needed to achieve the outcome were left. Everything was centred on the end user experience and how the user was empowered to use the device. In my meetings and visits, I was researching how companies are starting to address the issue of outcomes based design. How are they implementing those perspectives and practices in to the production of their products and services? Is there something that was a mystery in what they are doing or how they are doing it? To what level are they embracing this approach and is it based on a solid foundation? Could I learn from their work and apply it to our work in Child Protection or any agency that dealt with the public? I was aiming to achieve an understand how technology and its solutions could become better enablers to the field of social work and not a barrier to carrying out their tasks.
What I had started to discover was that companies are starting to take this seriously and it was due to the financial survival, that the end users were becoming more vocal. Comments such as “make it like the iPad”, it is easy to use and “you don’t need much training” is having an impact on the adoption of the different technologies, software and services. The users have a taste of technology that is enabling them to do what they have not been able to carry out in the past; they are feeling more in control. My experience to date has shown that the approach that Apple had started is having an effect on what people are looking to achieve
with their technology. In addition, they are asking the question “why can’t they work like the iPad?” This raised the question. Why all technology can’t be designed in the same manner as the Apple products.
I now know that I need to address this issue of technology complexity. It was in a single line in a recent TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) conference video. Reduce the complexity and simplify and….
“Design for Outcomes and the Experience”
