Gandhiji's Perspective of Pluralistic Usability

“I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number.
It means in its nakedness that in order to observe the supposed good of fifty-one percent,the interest of forty nine percent may be or should be sacrificed.
It is a heartless doctrine and has done harm to humanity.The only real dignified human doctrine is the greatest good of all.” Mahatma Gandhi

If the essence of this quote is applied to present state of usability practices, it reveals the weakness of statistics based design decisions taken during user testing and feedback sessions. From the perspective of usability experts or designers, it is very convenient to justify design decisions based on what majority of users demanded. Such user feedback is often very representative and based on tiny sample of users. But in the light of Gandhiji’s quote, it is quite possible that one might be doing gross injustice to users in minority proportion.

This thought gives rise to the idea of ‘pluralistic usability’ wherein the concerns, design expectations, requirements of ‘not just the representative sample of users’ or ‘not just the majority of users’ but ‘all the users’ need to be considered. It reaffirms the challenge of user study involving diverse dimensions of users such as physical, mental, educational, professional, linguistic, social, cultural,religious, historical, political, geographical and what not. Such exhaustive user study is paramount for any software product design activity. The techniques and methods need to be designed to transcend the geographic barriers for reaching out to users. One may consider reading my small experimentation of reaching out to large number of users through remote usability. At the same time, one has to appreciate the fact that software products need to be designed, developed and delivered in a resource bound format. Also one needs to understand the meaning of ‘pluralistic usability’ within the scope of software and its targeted users. There could be one solution with lot of customizability or many different solutions for addressing the plurality of users. The designers may or may not succeed in designing for all users in literal sense; but feeling the gravity and magnitude of this challenge, can show us our limitations; and motivate us to push these limiting boundaries further.

Afterthoughts:

* There is scope of new exploration in the contradiction between ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ (the approach followed in usability testing) and ‘the greatest good of all’ (I understand this as the real goal of pluralistic usability). Actually, what we do in ‘participatory design approach’ is also a form of democratization. It is intended to win acceptance from diverse people (users in our context).

* The greatest good of all’ isn’t really an impossible ideal. The wide range of customizable features (often not provided in a very usable manner) offered in the software products are meant to address the needs of different kinds of users. It is an effort to achieve ‘the greatest good of all’ within the limits of targeted users of the given product. The professionals are already inching towards this goal though not knowing that Gandhiji has already worded it so profoundly. It leaves no place for 80-20, 51-49 or whatever percentages.

* The interesting thing is Gandhiji said something 5/6 decades back, which is so profound and so fitting in our context of usability.

* After all, isn’t usability meant to liberate the users from usability problems….

How do users Read your Website?

Commenting on how users read the web, usability expert Jakob Nielsen believes that actually, "They don't."

Flawless spelling, eye catching pictures and bright colours on a website are all very well but research suggests that visitors will most often scan a page before delving into detailed reading. Usability has become a popular buzz word in web design but in the past, usability guidelines relied on common sense or basic user testing with websites. However, in the past few years, accurate eye tracking technology has enabled researchers to pinpoint exactly how websites are read, revealing the common 'hotspots' which attract users.

Many findings from eye tracking studies adhere to well known usability rules and also go hand in hand with good accessibility practice. But there are some more surprising results which show that focusing on the more basic layout issues could boost the usability of your organisation's website.

EYE TRACKING RESEARCH
Using technology which records minute eye movements, a number of researchers have carried out studies into web usability and accessibility
Experts including Jakob Nielsen and the Poynter Institute are amongst those who lead the way in this field. These key findings might help your organisation to improve the design of your website, in turn ensuring its accessibility and usability:
- Nielsen has found that only 16 per cent of users read a page word by word - most users will scan, letting their eyes flit over areas of interest before going back and reading areas of interest in more detail.
- So, a thoughtlessly designed page, with distracting pictures or links within the text is like an obstacle course, leading visitors off the course of the page they have visited.
- Web pages are often read in an F or E pattern, with users more likely to read longer sentences at the top of a page and less as they scroll down.
- Users are excellent at blocking out what they don't want to view - this includes some pictures and banner advertising where they don't want to see it.
- Pictures are not always eye catching - they can often be ignored. Good images should provide useful information which links into the text. Users respond best to real people rather than models, and subjects who look directly into the camera.
- The top left of a web page is a 'hotspot', which attracts most viewing from visitors. The far right columns and bottom section are the least viewed areas.
- To grab users' attention, you should use relevant snappy headers and blurbs, and use half the amount of text which you would in non-web writing. Longer paragraphs seem to discourage viewing - even one sentence paragraphs are fine.
- One column layouts perform better in viewing tests - users seem to be more used to this standard and simple format.

GOOD PRACTICE
Many websites, public and private sector fall down on usability tests, but there are examples of good practice out there which can be taken as inspiration:

RNIB: This charity site uses small but relevant thumbnail style pictures to add colour and interest. These are attractive but do not drag the eye away from reading the text around them.
Short and to the point descriptors are also used which summarise sub-pages, and these are placed strategically in the top-centre hotspot.

Charities Commission: Colourful pictures are used sparingly - there is only one on the homepage and the rest of the design interest comes from the bright colour scheme. The most important information is boxed off in the top left of the page - priority viewing for users.
The menu on the right is highlighted in orange to attract users' attention - research has found that right-justified menus can be attention grabbing as they appear on the opposite side to what users are used to.

DIRECTGOV: This sub page contains relatively little information on the face of it - the text is sparse but punchy and headers in particular are to the point. Hyperlinks direct users to the information they need and fast. This makes for a very effective public service website. There is a clear menu to the left, but also a clear, differently coloured menu of related links to the right which directs users' gazes to the right.

Oxfam: Large pictures are used on the Oxfam site, but again, they match the text's subject well and are not posed, model shots. Headers are simple and straightforward and the text is limited to a few sentences which link to drop down menus, an interactive map and other sub pages which contain more in depth information.
Bright blue, banner-ad style links connect the page to Oxfam's charity campaigns and encourage donations - these are placed on the right of the page, which has been found to be an effective area for ads, despite being out of the main F-area.

SHARPEN UP YOUR WEBSITE
Every organisation is different, but reaching the widest possible target audience should be a target for every website. If eye tracking studies are anything to go by, many non profits could benefit by taking into account these findings and investing in some thoughtful web design.

What an Idea Sir ji

Let’s recall the oft aired ad of Idea on our TVs. The tech savvy Sir ji, principal of the school, arranges the class room sessions through mobile phone for all those kids who fail to get admission in his school. Very Effective indeed!

But, Sir ji should’ve actually consulted a Usability consultant, ask me why?

Well, first let me tell you what Usability is… Effective, Efficient and Satisfaction.

How well an application fits into users' needs is it's Effectiveness and Sir ji scores full marks here.

How well the whole process comes across to its audience is its Efficiency, here Sir ji fails to score good marks, because the output from this phone would be pretty feeble as the kids are listening to the lecture in open air. Possibility of errors and poor understanding of lectures would result due to system’s bad audio output.

Satisfaction of any system, application or thing is highest when it is used for the first time, to retain the same level of positive satisfaction for subsequent uses the application in context need to be Effective and Efficient. When all these 3 attributes combined are in good measure positive User Experience is achieved.

Therefore,

Sir ji must attach the mobile phone through which lectures are delivered to a good audio system and enhance the output quality.

To give a real class room experience to the kids, he must live telecast the class room sessions to all those deprived kids.

Then I would say What an Idea Sir ji.

Who moved my Users?

Remember the allegorical, ‘who moved my cheese?’ written by Spencer Johnson? Story of two mice “Sniff” and “Scurry” and two men “Hem” and “Haw”. It describes how to deal with change in one's work and life.

Here I make an analogy, continuously successful companies are like the two mice and once upon a time successful are the two men.

The companies that are successful with their businesses don’t relax and sit back to bask in glory, instead they anticipate the future situations and keep the search for cheese, in this context, the users and ensure the cheese filled stations are always accessible, no matter what the competition is. These companies are always taking stock of the situation and ready for change, hence when the situation demands for change their transition is smooth and no jerks are felt.

On the other hand are the two men, that is, companies that are living on past laurels and reluctant to accept the change, which eventually pay the price when they realize their cheese is moved, users have stopped patronizing their products.

Every monopoly business eventually gets over crowded and their blue oceans turn into red in a matter of time.

Moral of the story, be ready for change and change quickly, don’t relax.

Change Happens

They Keep Moving The Cheese

Anticipate Change

Get Ready For The Cheese To Move

Monitor Change

Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old - Monitor the User behaviour and their needs

Adapt To Change Quickly

The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese

Change

Move With The Cheese - move with times and competition

Enjoy Change!

Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese! - enjoy the user loyalty

Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again & Again

They Keep Moving The Cheese - retain your users.

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

Sounds familiar? yes, you're right, it's said by none other than the great Pablo Picasso himself. How this saying applies to today's online products?
We've been seeing the art of copying rampant and well accepted in our internet domain. Everyone wants to own their "own" Facebook or MySpace or Linkedin or whatever the flavor of the month is. So they copy it, trying to emulate some successful online community or the most happening application. But then it fails, big time. And they scratch their heads and abandon any non-traditional efforts claiming that they just don't work.
So what's the difference between copying and stealing? When you copy, you're trying to be like something or someone else. When you steal, you make it your own. Did you hear that? You make it your own. And when you make something your own, it becomes part of who you are, you internalize it.
We've seen this happen, too. And many times, the program that is "stolen" is improved upon because the company owns it. It becomes part of their DNA. It's much more than a tactic or a means to an end. It becomes a part of the very brand and the business is woven around it to make it a new product all together.
So before you decide to copy whatever social community tools are hot this month, first take a look inside and make sure you're ready to own it. If it's right for you and you can improve on it then steal away. You might just create the next thing everyone else will try to copy.
Because, mere copying leaves you clueless about the product's potential and mileage that can be achieved out of it, you don't know who the product users are and their expectations.
Therefore, whenever you see a path breaking product and want to own it, Just Steal, don't Copy.