Universal Usability – Revisited

By Gerd Waloszek, SAP User Experience, SAP AG – March 3, 2010

My mother is in her mid 80s and lives about 700 km away from me. Regrettably, this long distance means that I can only visit her a few times a year. I was therefore intrigued by the idea of using computers, and particularly the Internet, to stay in closer contact. For example, rather than sending her photos of us through the mail, I thought that we could show my mother what's going on in and around our house by publishing photos on my personal homepage or on one of the numerous photo-sharing Websites. Moreover, we could even use the Internet to have video chats instead of talking on the phone. We could show her things that might interest her through the video, and we might then feel more strongly connected than we do on the phone. Sadly, however, my mother refuses to use a computer. She believes that a computer is far too complex for her and that she would not be able to handle it properly. Millions of elderly people all over the world have the same concerns and think and behave in the same way as my mother.

 

Meeting Universal Usability

The scenario above describes just one of the numerous circumstances that the field of Universal Usability (and similar directions like universal access, universal design, or accessibility) is concerned with. The term itself was introduced by Ben Shneiderman in 2000 and refers to the question: How can information and communications products and services (also called information and communication technologies, or ICT in short) be designed so that they can be used by every citizen? Elderly people are just one group of people that have difficulties with using ICT products and services, and there are many more: for example, young children, people with certain kinds of diseases or physical and cognitive disabilities, people on low incomes, and people in developing countries. In Universal Usability, edited by Jonathan Lazar and published in 2007 (see a review), you will find a comprehensive overview of social groups that require special attention when it comes to using ICT. The Universal Usability highlight topic published on our Website in late 2007 also discusses aspects of universal usability in a number of articles, and includes book reviews, links, references, and a glossary. For a detailed overview of the issues involved in universal usability, see the main article of the highlight topic, also entitled Universal Usability.

Seeing as there is already so much information about universal usability on our site, you may well be asking whether there is any point in publishing yet another article about this topic in this edition. Actually, there are several reasons for offering this article. First, in our anniversary edition, we would like to place the spotlight on topics that we have covered extensively on our Website in the past ten years. Which leads me directly to our second motivation, namely to once again direct our visitors' attention to this wealth of information. And finally, and this will be the topic of the remainder of this article, I would also like to present a few ideas connected with Shneiderman's "knowledge gap" that came to my mind when thinking about universal usability.

 

Meeting the Challenges of Universal Usability and Focusing on a Neglected One...

The starting point for establishing the field of universal usability was probably the recognition of the bewildering variety that has to be accommodated by designers of information and communication products and services. It includes technological variety as well as human diversity (rough categories for classifying these differences might be: physical, cognitive, and sociocultural) and may seem overwhelming at first glance. Shneiderman (2000) created a list of challenges for universal usability, and according to him, these three challenges are the main obstacles for making information and communication services available to every citizen, or as he puts it, "in attaining universal usability for Web-based and other [information and communication] services." The third item on his list is the challenge of bridging the gap between what users know and what they need to know for using ICT. In my opinion, this challenge is different from the other two, namely technological variety and human diversity. For me, it looked somewhat misplaced in the list and corresponded more or less to the category "computer literacy" within human diversity. And I have to admit that I have neglected this aspect more or less in previous articles. I will attempt a rapprochement here.

 

Coming from both Ends: Education and Design

How can Shneiderman's third challenge, the gap between what users know and what they need to know to be able to use ICT, be bridged? The challenge itself points the way to how we can address it, namely by education and design. It may be that, as a cognitive psychologist, Shneiderman primarily had the educational aspect in mind, but this is mere speculation. Why education AND design? My answer is as follows: From the word "know" in the description of the gap, we are pressed into thinking of education as a possible approach to bridging the gap first: All we need to do is educate users sufficiently so that they can use modern ICT.

However, education is expensive and, for some social groups, there are severe limitations to what education can achieve. For example, we cannot necessarily educate certain children or people with cognitive impairments to read or think coherently. Therefore, when attempting to bridge the gap, we not only need to move one reference point, the users' knowledge, but also the other one, the system's knowledge requirements, that is, the amount of knowledge that is required to use it successfully. Think of building a real bridge. Often, bridges are built from both ends and (hopefully) meet in the middle. In the case of universal usability, the "middle" may actually be closer to one of the two ends, depending on which user population is involved. In the case of young or elderly people, people with cognitive impairments, and many others, there are natural cognitive limits to what can be achieved through education. Technology and design therefore have to consider and close the gap. In other cases, physical impairments rule out certain designs and technologies. Thus, the design of a product may have to be adapted so that the prospective user group can handle it. In yet another case, the needs are even more basic: Lack of funds or of a sufficient technological infrastructure can prevent people from accessing ICT. However, leaving economical aspects aside, design and education are indeed approaches that, alone or in combination, can help bridge the knowledge gap.

 

Education: Software without Manuals?

I have already noted that educating software users is both expensive and time-consuming. Companies spend huge amounts of money on teaching their employees how to use software. Typically, these are mostly users who do not fall into the category of "universal usability." Educating the target groups of universal usability is even more expensive and time-consuming. As a way out of the education dilemma, some people promote "software that needs no manuals", that is, software which is so intuitive and self-explanatory that users neither need to read manuals nor be educated in its use. Is this a solution to the education dilemma or just a myth?

I have come to the conclusion that it is the latter and would like to illustrate this with an example: When I started up my first Apple Macintosh computer on the evening I bought it – of course, without having looked at the manual – I was unable to use it because I had never heard of a double-click. The use of today's (and yesterday's) computer is based on a multitude of conventions. We take these conventions for granted, particularly after many years of using computers, and often are not even aware of them. Direct manipulation, for example, is oriented to simple physical actions, but is nevertheless a set of conventions that need to be acquired. We should remind ourselves that computer novices do not know any of them. Direct manipulation conventions may be learned fast and easily because they mostly correspond to physical actions. Other conventions, however, may never be learned – users may not even know of their existence (for example, I suspect that most users do not have a clear idea of the structure of the menu system on computers). Modern operating systems are created in a way that makes it easy to transfer knowledge from one application to another. Thus, because of my long experience with computers, I am able to approach most applications without reading the manuals first. Nevertheless, I have to consult the manual frequently if I need specific functionality. All in all, I cannot imagine that we can do without at least a minimum of "education", at least for software applications and services that have a certain amount of functionality. Software without manuals is only possible after certain conventions have been adopted and if applications do not require specific knowledge.

 

Design: Design Strategies for Universal Usability

After my digression into the educational aspect, I would like to address the other end of the gap: design. Which design approaches are used for universal usability projects and which can help bridge the gap? Jonathan Lazar (2007) distinguishes between two basic types of universal interface design strategies:

  • Universal Design: Applications and services with the potential to be used by all users. Government services or online communities are examples of these.
  • Non-Universal Design: Applications that are designed for a specific group of the population, such as people with Alzheimer's disease or dementia, or people with specific impairments. Other sectors of the population may not be able to use these applications or even find them useful. The goals of these applications are not universal: They are only meant to meet the needs of a specific user population, thereby broadening the range of people who can access information and communication technology.

The first approach probably corresponds more closely to the concept of "software without manuals," meaning that universal designs typically embody a certain simplicity that renders them usable for a large variety of people. Another "universal" design approach, called "multi-layer design," attempts to accommodate different users through multiple interfaces, such as multiple versions of adjustment controls, or variable numbers of options to select from. But the inherent complexity of these designs moves them outside of the scope of the "software without manuals" approach. It also makes them more expensive to build than single solutions. They may, however, be more cost-effective than a mix of distinct solutions.

Non-universal design may not be the design that universal usability proponents would like to promote in the first run. Nevertheless, such designs may be the only possible approach to reaching certain user groups. Tailor-made designs that satisfy the needs of specific user groups at both the physical and the cognitive level are often the only way of closing the knowledge gap. They can be made as simple as necessary in order to reduce the knowledge requirements and thus to satisfy the needs of children, elderly people, or people with physical or cognitive impairments.

 

Design: Meeting only the Basic Needs?

Finally, I would like to address an aspect that I would call "design diversity:" In his 2009 book, Design Meets Accessibility, which he characterizes as "a book about how the worlds of design and disability could inspire each other," Graham Pullin touches on an issue, which, while presented under the label of disability or accessibility, can probably be extended to a wide range of universal usability applications. How can designers and engineers educate each other so that they arrive at solutions that not only fit the basic needs of, for example disabled people or people with certain impairments, but also make them feel like accepted members of society? As an example, Pullin argues that hearing aids should not only be functional but also "fancy," following fashion trends and allowing their wearers (or users) to express their personality. Admittedly, in a large number of universal usability projects, the basic needs have to be addressed first, such as enabling access to ICT products or services. But once the basic needs have been satisfied, will it be possible to provide the respective groups with a variety of designs to choose from? At the moment, it looks as if this goal is not attainable, but I can imagine a time when it will be.

 

Final Word

At the beginning of my article, I reported that my mother refuses to use a computer, even though it might help her and her children's families to keep in closer contact despite the large physical distance between their respective homes. The most complex ITC products that she uses are a phone and a television set. How can we make using a computer as simple as using those two devices? Education will reach its limits here, because my mother is no longer willing to learn all the conventions that are required to operate a computer. We therefore need to approach this matter from the design side and create computers that make it very easy to use the Internet and other services. This is, at least, what my short tour of Shneiderman's knowledge gap has revealed.

 

References

  • Horton, Sarah (2005). Access by Design: A Guide to Universal Usability for Web Designers. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.
  • Lazar, Jonathan (Ed.) (2007). Universal Usability. Wiley & Sons. (Review)
  • Pullin, Graham (2009). Design Meets Disability. The MIT Press (Review)
  • Shneiderman, Ben (2000). Universal Usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 85-91 (PDF version; alternative link)

 

To top top