There Should Be Limits to Usability

The Medium Is the Message

It is not only what we experience and learn that matters; how we experience and learn is also vitally important. Human beings have always used tools, or technology, to expand their capabilities. As Marshall McLuhan noted, “the medium is the message.” Therefore, how we experience a message—the medium—influences how we perceive and react to it. Research shows that the brains of illiterate people are structurally different from those of people who are literate. Similarly, research on monkeys who are being trained to use tools has shown that strong growth occurs in the visual and motor areas they have used to control the tools. As we use tools, particularly knowledge?based tools, our brains adapt to them.

For example, compare the task of creating a hierarchical file structure using a command-line interface (CLI) versus using a graphic user interface (GUI). Using the DOS CLI, creating a file structure involved using the md < directory name >, or make directory, command and the cd < directory name >, or change directory, command. Using the Unix CLI, users can string commands together using shell scripting, giving them vastly greater control over what they are doing. Conversely, creating a file structure using a GUI requires a combination of mouse and keyboard actions and typically takes longer. While the GUI is simpler for a novice, it is also more restrictive and less powerful—for performing certain tasks—than its command-line cousins.

We can draw a comparison between logographic languages such as Chinese and alphabetic languages like English. Chinese children grasp the basics of writing in Chinese more slowly than their Western counterparts learn to write, but once they have grasped those basics, their rate of learning is much greater. The initial investment of Chinese children in learning to write is more substantial, but provides a better foundation for learning later in life.

Implications for UX Design

So, what does all of this mean for UX designers and their quest to make things ever?easier to use? First and foremost, there are domains where forcing the brain to work harder is a bad idea—for example, in emergency situations, when a user interface must present users with only the most relevant information to allow them to make a quick decision.

On the other hand, consider one of the most common types of applications: word processors. A word processor that highlights users’ spelling and grammar mistakes might lead users to assume that the application will capture all of the errors they make. As a result, people might employ the part of their brain that they use in checking spelling and grammar less often, and over time, disuse of that part of their brain could lead to a weakening of its neural connections. In other words, employing that part of their brain less leads to a reduction in their ability to spell well and use proper grammar.

The computing ecosystem is a double-edged sword for UX designers: On the one hand, we employ common interaction models, processes, icons, and so forth in our designs that, in most cases, let users quickly get up to speed in understanding the operation of multiple applications. So, users’ knowledge is highly transferable between computing systems.

But this commonality has, at the same time, reduced the flexibility with which users can respond. Because applications mostly work the same way, users’ brains are conditioned to go through particular steps to resolve similar issues. This is, in part, the success of the GUI paradigm. We can be productive within that paradigm, but it also shapes our thinking about what we can do. We have realized the goal of making computing power accessible to everyone. Now it’s time for a new goal: evolving computers into tools that help us to be more productive in the short term, without eroding our own capabilities over time. 

Reference

Courchesne, E., H. Chisum, and J. Townsend. “Neural Activity-Dependent Brain Changes in Development: Implications for Psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. Volume 6, 1994.