Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com/usability-methods/hci-design-approaches/
A n t h r o p o m o r p h i c A p p r o a c h
The anthropomorphic approach to human-computer interaction involves designing a user interface to possess
human-like qualities. For instance, an interface may be designed to communicate with users in a human-
to-human manner, as if the computer empathizes with the user. Interface error messaging in often written
this way, such as, “We’re sorry, but that page cannot be found.” Another example is the use of avatars in
computer-based automation, as can be found in automated telephony systems. For example, when a voice-
response system cannot understand what the user has spoken, after several attempts it may reply in an
apologetic tone, “I’m sorry, I can’t understand you.”
Affordances
Human affordances are perceivable potential actions that a person can do with an object. In terms of HCI,
icons, folders, and buttons afford mouse-clicking, scrollbars afford sliding a button to view information
off-screen, and drop-down menus show the user a list of options from which to choose. Similarly, pleasant
sounds are used to indicate when a task has completed, signaling that the user may continue with the next
step in a process. Examples of this are notifications of calendar events, new emails, and the completion of a
file transfer.
Constraints
Constraints complement affordances by indicating the limitations of user actions. A grayed-out menu option
and an unpleasant sound (sometimes followed by an error message) indicate that the user cannot carry out a
particular action. Affordances and constraints can be designed to non-verbally guide user behaviors through
an interface and prevent user errors in a complex interface.
C o g n i t i v e A p p r o a c h
The cognitive approach to human-computer interaction considers the abilities of the human brain and
sensory-perception in order to develop a user interface that will support the end user.
Metaphoric Design
Using metaphors can be an effective way to communicate an abstract concept or procedure to users, as long
as the metaphor is used accurately. Computers use a “desktop” metaphor to represent data as document
files, folders, and applications. Metaphors rely on a user’s familiarity with another concept, as well as human
affordances, to help users understand the actions they can perform with their data based on the form it takes.
For instance, a user can move a file or folder into the “trashcan” to delete it.
A benefit of using metaphors in design is that users who can relate to the metaphor are able to learn to use a
new system very quickly. A potential problem can ensue, however, when users expect a metaphor to be fully
1 of 3 08/06/2010 3:39
Usability First - Methods - HCI Design Approaches | Usability First http://www.usabilityfirst.com/usability-methods/hci-design-approaches/
represented in a design, and in reality, only part of the metaphor has been implemented. For example,
Macintosh computers use the icon of a trashcan on the desktop, while PCs have a recycle bin. The recycle
bin does not actually “recycle” the data; instead it behaves like the Macintosh trash can and is used to
permanently delete files. On the other hand, in order to eject a mounted disc on a Macintosh, the user must
drag the icon of a CD-ROM to the trashcan. When this was first introduced, it was confusing to users
because they feared losing all the data on their CD-ROM. In more recent versions of the Mac OS, the
trashcan icon turns into an eject symbol when the user drags a mounted disc to the trashcan. This does not
make the metaphor flawless, but it does prevent some user confusion when they are ejecting the mounted
disc.
Empirical Approach
The empirical approach to HCI is useful for examining and comparing the usability of multiple conceptual
designs. This testing may be done during pre-production by counterbalancing design concepts and
conducting usability testing on each design concept. Often, users will appreciate specific elements of each
design concept, which may lead to the development of a composite conceptual design to test.
2 of 3 08/06/2010 3:39
U s a b i l i t y F i r s t - M e t h o d s - H C I D e s i g n A p p r o a c h e s | U s a b i l i t y F i r s t h t t p : / / w w w . u s a b i l i t y f i r s t . c o m / u s a b i l i t y - m e t h o d s / h c i - d e s i g n - a p p r o a c h e s /
In addition to a qualitative assessment of user preferences for a conceptual design, measuring users’ task
performance is important for determining how intuitive and user-friendly a web page is. A researcher who is
familiar with the tasks the web page has been designed to support will develop a set of test tasks that relate
to the task goals associated with the page. Users may be given one or more conceptual designs to test in a lab
setting to determine which is more user-friendly and intuitive. User performance can be assessed absolutely,
i.e., the user accomplishes or fails to complete a task, as well as relatively, based on pre-established criteria.
For instance, it may have been determined that users should be able to register for an account within five
minutes, and with no more than two errors. If the researcher observes otherwise, and even if the user finally
completes the task (perhaps after fifteen minutes and five errors), the time and number of errors may be
compared to the desired standard as well as to the alternate conceptual design for the web page.
A/B Testing
If two of three design concepts were rated highly during user testing, it may be advantageous to conduct an
A/B Test during post-production. One way to do this is to set up a Google Analytics account, which allows a
researcher to set up multiple variations of a web page to test. When a user visits the website, Google will
display one variation of the web page according to the end user’s IP address. As the user navigates the
website, Google tracks the user’s clicks to see if one version of the web page produces more sales than
another version. Other “conversion” goals may be tracked as well, such as registering a user account or
signing up for a newsletter.
R e f e r e n c e s
[1] Eberts, R. E. (1994). User interface design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [2] Card, S., Moran,
T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
© 2002–2010 Foraker – Provider of Usability & Web Design Services | All Rights Reserved
3 o f 3 0 8 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 0 3 : 3 9