Usability

The success of all productive human endeavor unswervingly depends on whether or not our contrivances can actually be used. If we can work it (even poorly) we use it; otherwise, we discard it. This is our most fundamental, qualitative metric for measuring the goodness of any purposeful object---how well can me we make it do what it is supposed to do? It is also, almost unquestionably, the most difficult of all design challenges. Making something is hard enough; making it well enough to actually be usable requires incredible precision, dedication, and expertise. Usability is not for wimps.

Functional Does Not Equal Usable

Like that subtitle? I had to resist picking a geekier phrasing that would have amused me and a small group of potential readers. Examples, written in the style of modern programming languages, include Functional <> Usable or perhaps assert(!functional.Equals(usable)). Writing an essay is a great exercise in distingushing between functionality and usability. Had I selected a more obscure choice of words for the heading, I would have been technically accurate but not particularly clear. Functional does not equal usable.

The functional state of an object or an idea is a confirmation of operation. It's either true or false, yes or no, functioning or malfunctioning. Flip the switch and the lights go on, or alternately, turn the key and watch as nothing happens. Even contraptions that fail only some of the time are a hunk of junk; for us to consider it functional it has to always work, in sleet and snow and even if it has had a bad day.

Usability, however, is not black and white. It's a wide, spacious range, something I like to call the continuum of frustration. Way down at one end is the junk we throw at the wall while screaming dirty words, while at the other is the pleasure of using something that is "well designed". Unlike functionality, which is about as objective as an algebraic equation, usability is almost completely subjective. Something that irks me may comfort you, because you're smarter, better looking, or have been extensively trained to use the darned machine. What works for you doesn't work for me. Usable does not equal functional.

Basically, Nobody Knows This

The horrendously complicated technical details of modern life are necessarily (and thankfully) hidden beneath car hoods, cover panels, menu-driven interfaces and factories. Can you imagine if you had to be an expert in telecommunications engineering and signal theory to call your mother? You do need to know a few things about dialing prefixes: whether or not to include an area code, cases in which you need to tack on a "1" first, or if you're calling from the office and have to 10-key in a nuclear launch code to get an outside line. Phone networks, especially landlines, function with commendable, you-can-hear-a-pin-drop excellence. Telephone usability, though, could use some work.

It's really tough to tell the difference between a functional problem and a usability problem unless you are sufficiently versed in both disciplines. To continue beating up on the phone company, what is the cause of the widespread call quality problem for cellular networks? Are we really using substandard equipment, overloading the airwaves, or lacking the key physics knowledge required to update grocery shopping lists at a distance? Or, are cellphone user interfaces way too optimistic when reporting signal strength? Without a cadre of telco, handset, and software engineers, one cannot say.

How You Can Help

When deciding to pursue a certain article---be it mineral, technological, or bureacratic--- ask more than what it will do for you. Find out how it is used. Put it in the hands of people who have never seen it before and see if they can find the on switch. You will learn more about how people perceive the thing you are trying to adopt by observation than interrogation. And if you're not sure you can handle the above without help, hire a usability expert to assist.