Usability (n): a term used to denote the ease with which people can employ a particular tool or other human-made object in order to achieve a particular goal. In human-computer interaction and computer science, usability usually refers to the elegance and clarity with which the user interface of a computer program or a web site is designed. (Wikipedia)

Usability is a term that has sprung up in the South African market lately in web application circles. Something that has been at the forefront of product design – online and offline - for many years overseas, has finally arrived on these shores in the field of online interface design – which can only be a good thing. Usability is becoming more relevant as the uptake of technology continues to proliferate, so perhaps a short introduction to the concept, would help you in the event that it walks up and taps you on the shoulder during the course of choosing and designing your company’s HR technology solution. Next month, I will look at the important principles behind usability, but for now, the basics.

So what is this usability malarkey all about? Drawing inspiration from multiple fields, and really more of a framework than a single entity, the concept of usability is best illustrated by way of several every-day examples.

Slipping under the radar Like one’s health, usability is one of those things that is only noticed when it is absent. There are many everyday products which are examples of good usability that go unnoticed, precisely because they succeed in achieving the task the user is trying to complete. An item does not need to be state of the art or highly crafted to be highly usable. Some of my favourites are the claw hammer, gumboots, the thermos flask, the stapler, and the common bicycle.

Going unnoticed is my first test of usability. The design should not get in the way – if it does, there’s usually a problem, what can often be called “design for design sake”, instead of design for users – which brings us on to the next item…

User-centred design

Usability – like beauty (and the two often go together) – is in the eye of the beholder, or user. So, it makes sense to start with the end user of your HRIS, be it employees or candidates, and find out what they require from the system being deployed. Sometimes they will tell you, sometimes you need to observe it, and sometimes you need to see ahead and work out what they really need for them. What this all means though, is getting to know your user. Research is invaluable in this regard. It is frightening how often people just assume that they know what their customers want instead of asking them. And asking can be daunting, because your different user groups have different requirements, capabilities and place emphasis on different things, but if you get this first step right, then you are finally in a position to deliver what the users actually want, and not what you think they do.

Users are different

Because nothing in life can ever be simple, users are different. One way that this manifests itself is in the level of proficiency of users. It might not be feasible to produce as many different products as there are user groups – cost might be one factor, preventing users from upgrading from beginner versions to expert versions through their product life cycle – so if something can be designed to adequately provide for the needs of users of all levels of ability, this is usually a good thing. A good example of this is the common keyboard. Because the device contains all the information necessary for beginner users (i.e. the letters are printed on the keys), it is perfectly usable by novices. More advanced users, however, will be able to use the device without even looking at it, and will achieve much “better” results – namely, quicker typing.

This ability to span the abilities of both beginner and expert users – and to facilitate the increase of proficiency with increased usage - is a characteristic of many highly usable designs, and is particularly important in maturing markets, where the needs of veteran users can still be catered for without compromising those of new entrants into the market.

Singularity of purpose

There is an old Russian proverb – or if there isn’t one, there should be – that says that you can’t chase two rabbits at once. To a degree, this is equally true of product design. Once you know what your users want, design accordingly. Those things that are most important should have a heavier weighting and be reflected in the design – in usability jargon, they should “be closer to the top”. Those things that are less important should be pushed down, reflecting their diminished usage or value.

Generally speaking, the more features and functionality that are put into a product, the more difficult it becomes to keep it simple and easy to use, and also the less focused on any specific task the overall package is.

Consider a Swiss army knife. In trying to cater for a range of possible user applications – cutting, sawing, opening tins and bottles, punching holes in leather, etc – the resulting tool does not actually excel at anything… instead of being an excellent something, it is an adequate everything. Which is not a bad thing on a camping trip, but no one in his or her right mind would use a pocketknife’s screwdriver function when a real screwdriver is to hand – the real thing is simply better at what it does, because it is focused on this task alone.

There are exceptions to this, where consumers often require products to do several things at once. A good example of this is the modern mobile phone, which at last count typically featured a calculator, a task list, a calendar, a clock, games, a radio, a camera, and a host of other items and functions. Such a phone is not implicitly unusable – it is possible to marry many features and functionality with usability, if sensitive to the users’ needs – though it becomes increasingly difficult to do so as more is thrown on the cart.

The “functionality iceberg” serves to illustrate the wisdom of bundling functionality excessively – a typical mobile phone user might use 5% - 10% - the tip - of their phone’s functionality, through a mixture of ignorance, lack of interest or inoperability.

As markets mature, so features uptake increases, and users discover the bulk of the features iceberg below the surface - but there are still many users who “stick with what they know”, fearful of venturing into unknown territory on something as everyday as their own phone. What all of this means, then, is that usability is really about making things usable for the user. Not rocket science really – and kind of what you’d expect.

About the author carl warburg is director of operations at litmus digital, a south African agency specialising in usable digital solutions. Litmus digital is a strategic partner of specialist HR technology company graylink and is currently supporting the development of graylink’s soon-to-be released Version 2 e-recruitment solution. Prior to starting litmus digital, carl worked in London for 8 years at razorfish and digitalTMW, delivering digital projects with strong usability focuses, for the likes of British Airways, Diageo, Nissan and Natwest.