Learning Reflections / 3

The user didn't mess up, the design failed them. That's been the message that stood out to me most this week. It even occurred to me that how I phrase issues in usability test reports is blaming the user. Users don't read the content. Users couldn't find the link. Users never made it through the registration process. Wow. I never realized how that is subtly sending the message that the issues are really the user's fault. I will be changing my phrasing. Immediately. Instead, the content was too dense and not easily scanned for meaning. Links were not clearly marked. The registration process is too long and leads to high abandon rates. That's more accurate.

Yes, Don Norman is shifting my view of design issues. I spent my week at a hotel conference center. There were two buildings connected by a courtyard. I passed multiple times daily between these two buildings. The doors leading outside had a pull handle. The side of the door used for entering buildings had a push bar -- the type you usually see for exits. It took me several days of "messing up"  before I learned the inverse design of these doors. I watched as others stood baffled, trying to push a door that they knew had a pull handle but that clearly should be pushed, because that's what we do at commercial exit doors. It was cognitive dissonance for all of us. And I think we all felt a little silly pushing instead of pulling and vice versa. But, no, it wasn't us that failed. It was the design. Not the user doesn't understand how doors operate. Rather, door does not follow well-known design patterns.