Bias is an outcome of human thought and often based on rules of thumb. Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behavior. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, or from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive under different circumstances.

Though cognitive bias falls under the realm of Psychology, cognitive bias plays a vital role in user research. Understanding the various forms of cognitive biases will help a usability analyst when performing contextual inquiries and user interviews.

Wikipedia lists all the cognitive biases that makes for an interesting read. The list of biases allows a researcher understand the context behind user’s approach to tasks. For example, understanding the Hawthorne Effect – which is about the tendency to perform or perceive differently when one knows they are being observed – will help during a contextual inquiry. An understanding of the Planning Fallacy effect is useful in calculating the task completion times.

Bullshit. Every one seems to have forgotten the basic tenet of usability: “Know the user, and YOU are not the user.”

If a car designer tries to create a similar steering wheel for a production vehicle, I can understand the uproar. But for a customized piece of machinery like a formula 1 car, the discussion is moot.

Most people don’t understand what a motor racing car is. Comparing it with an ordinary road vehicle is idiocy. A casual driver never deals with issues like configuring the fuel mixture, adjusting down-forces and wings. He never drives at speeds of over 300 kmph. He never experiences g-forces of over 4. A Formula 1 car is a complex piece of machinery… Trying to apply ‘iPod style’ usability principles will not work…

The definition of usability is ‘The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.’ And I see no reason why the F10 steering wheel doesn’t adhere to this definition. It is designed for

• a ‘specified users’ – a Formula 1 racing driver
• ‘achieve specified goals’ – win the race
• ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’- the various functions available to the racing driver to win the race
• ‘satisfaction’ – a F1 car is built around a single person, customized to his needs.
• ‘a specified context of use’ – the car and its components are built for one thing only – speed and maneuverability.

As a formula 1 aficionado and a UX practitioner, I belive the F10 steering wheel does what is supposed to do — help the driver race his vehicle.

Absolutely. Without Doubt.

One major interaction that a user has with a system is the documentation accompanying the product, either as printed manuals or their electronic cousins. In fact, any text that a user sees on the screen in the form of labels and copy is a form of technical communication – another source of interaction with the user.

I’ve had many people ask me about transitioning from technical communication to usability/user experience. All I can say to them is that you might already be doing it; only that you aren’t aware of it yet.

Another question I get to field often is how to ‘get into’ it. The answer that I give mostly is Volunteer. Volunteer to check screens/copy text for clarity/disambiguity. Volunteer to check every interaction a user would have with the system. Provide clear and meaningful copy for error messages.

Technical Communicators often forget a very important fact – they are often the first users of a system. Most of the time, they are just concerned about just documenting the system, rather than looking at it from a user perspective. I’ve seen this happen a lot of times and have been guilty of the same on several occasions.

In a blog post at Adaptive Path, Peter Merholz writes, I believe that user experience is not best thought of as an activity or function, but as a mindset. To varying degrees, every customer-facing person in an organization has an impact on, and, thus, responsibility for the user experience.

That’s something everyone aspiring to be a usability practitioner ought to be taking to heart.

More than 100%

Wait a minute! 114%!!! Lucky, my phone was nearby and I took this snapshot for posterity.

This Brandon Sanderson-esque progress bar is unacceptable. I have heard of people telling that they will do more than 100%. But this is frankly the first time, I’ve seen a software do it.

I was wondering what would’ve been the reason for the progress bar crossing 100. Some person definitely would’ve forgotten to declare the variable that stored the progress percentage. The maximum limit must have been set as 100, but I guess someone missed it. Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought Ubuntu code went through more eyeballs than any Windows OS code.

All I had was an Excel file with around 20 messages that had the current error message and a description when/how the error message occurs. Feeling it would be a good exercise to spend the afternoon, I made my way towards the product development team. As we started the exercise, I realised that the team had no idea about error messages. They just got in touch with me because I was the technical writer. They had obviously thought that I was there just to correct the grammar and punctuation. I sat down and went through each scenario where the error message occurs and did what was required.

One typical user activity is to create a configuration file into the database by creating one or by importing an existing configuration. The dev team wanted me to look into the errors that occur during the import process. During that process, I identified issues with the sequence of error messages appearing because the inputs were not validated atomically. Rather, they were validated as a batch and you got a bucketful of error messages that should have been caught earlier. Being modal in nature, the user had no choice but to click the Ok or Cancel button to move on, which was too late. And these error messages really weren’t serving any purpose other than the developer’s need to say that the user made a error.

I explained that a good error message consists of three parts: what went wrong (a reason), why it was wrong (the problem), and what to do next (a call for action). Messages that follow this approach help the user move on with their flow with minimal interruptions. I also explained it was better to anticipate possible error scenarios and prevent them from happening rather than display an error message afterwards. As Alan Cooper mentions as a design principle in About Face 3, ‘Error message boxes stop the proceedings with idiocy and should be avoided.’ I suggested some solutions to avoid the error happening in the first place by performing validations then and there, rather than display them as a bunch of dialog boxes that force the user to click a button to get the error message out of the way.

Next up was the language used in the error message, which was the original reason why I was working with them in the first place. A question arose if the word ‘please’ had to be included in the error message like “Please enter an IP address” or should it just read “Enter an IP address”. I felt it was better to go without the word ‘please’ because it felt too patronizing and it did not add any value to the sentence. Finally I had reworded it to read as “The IP address cannot be blank. Enter a valid IP address. The IP address must be of the form of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx”.

What really irked me was that the developers had no clue to user interface guidelines. They were using a Windows application, but they were not following the Windows User Experience Guidelines, but again even Microsoft doesn’t follow it at times.

Image via Flickr user:twindx

Chip in with your thoughts on error messages and designing for contingencies…

Initially I went about my tasks understanding AS/400 screens and ensuring they were recreated in the web application. Everything was fine on paper and screen. Nothing struck me as untoward. Only when I went back to the AS/400 documentation, I realised that working with the command-line interface was easier than the graphical interface. It was then I recalled a term called “device switching”.

Device Switching happens when a user switches between using two input devices. mostly a mouse and a keyboard. Marlin C. Brown in his book, Human-Computer Interface Design Guidelines, talks about this mouse-keyboard switching.

8.10 Mouse-Keyboard Switching

Avoid frequent mouse-keyboard switches.

Avoid requiring users to make frequent changes form keyboard to mouse. In keyboard-intensive tasks, such as word processing, provide the necessary functions on the keyboard (for example, cursor control keys) to permit the user to perform the task from the keyboard. Frequent changes from keyboard to mouse and back interfere with the flow, and thus the efficiency, of keyboard tasks. The users must reorient their hands to the keyboard after each mouse use.

Mouse & Keyboard, via Flickr user: stopthegears

The AS/400 application has been in use for more than two decades and that users have become proficient in using the keyboard. The AS/400 application, being a data entry intensive application and by virtue of its longevity, had ensured that users have a mental model of screens built into their minds and they have memorised the key sequences to use and navigate through the system.

As a result, I went back to the application and ensured that that tabbing order was in the same sequence as that of the green screen. This took care of the issue of frequent device switching associated with graphical interfaces.

The lesson I learnt from this was to test screens and forms for device switching issues. The lower the number of switches that occur, the better the usability of that screen or form would be.

What is usability?

I would define ‘usability’ as ‘the art and science of making things usable’.

Isn’t every product usable?

Yes. Every product is usable. That’s why they are created/manufactured. This holds true for services also.

Then, how does usability come into the picture?

Products are designed to satisfy a need or a want. A mobile phone allows you to be ‘contactable’. A music system allows you to listen to music; a television to watch live sports. These are the basic needs that a product ‘must’ satisfy. That’s why you buy a product. Usability, as I mentioned, makes these things usable, like say, a well-designed remote for your television/music system usually by enhancing your interactions with a product.

Let me put it in another way: Life is full of interactions. You interact with various people and products daily. To make a call on your phone, you interact with your phone by pressing a few keys to call someone or a single key to receive a call. Usability is making these interactions subtle or unnoticable. Do you know how many keys you press to make a call? You never realise it. Every product has these interactions. Some interactions make you cringe like ‘being put on hold while trying to call customer care’. Some are completely unnoticable like calling someone on your mobile.

How is it both an art and a science?

It is a science as the process of making things usable is a scientific and measurable process. It is an art because a good usable product brings a bit of emotion in your interactions with it.

I will be updating this post frequently.