If someone is trying to achieve a task and they are not provided with sufficient help or training to complete that task, does this increase or reduce their performance? Many would argue that not being handed everything on a silver platter is a great way to induce someone to progress, to find their own way, teach themselves and come out stronger. Others would say that it is unfair to expect someone to carry out a task when they do not know how to do it, or haven’t had sufficient training to do it well.
I would argue that whether it is good to challenge the person (by expecting them to do something they are not trained to do) or to help the person in completing the task (by providing training of some description), depends on two things:
- Will they be able to complete the task without help? (will they be able to train themselves, or seek help from some other source)
- Will they find the challenge challenging? (will they be spurred on to complete the task or just walk away)
Now, don’t worry, this isn’t going to devolve into a debate about the capitalist school of hard-knocks vs the soft-touch school of socialism. What I’m talking about here is interaction design in computer systems.
Sometimes it’s great to be challenged by a computer system. Games are a fantastic example … it wouldn’t be half as fun if the puzzles were all simple, the moves all explained and the enemies all ludicrously easy to kill. But challenging users in the wrong places, or the wrong ways, can lead to them walking away from your system … and possibly not even completing the task.
Often when designing human computer interaction for computer systems, we lose sight of there being both a place and a time to challenge the user. Reading the next unread email should NOT be a massive celebral challenge. Working out where the button to create a new document is shouldn’t either. When the task at hand is not the system itself, we should aim to make the system fade into the background. Using the system should not become the task itself.
So why are games different? Well, they’re not in all ways. Figuring out how to slam that opponent into a wall should only be challenging in terms of the game AI, not the controls. A recent OK/Cancel alighted on this particular issue, when comparing some seasoned gamers to their cartoon avatars. The skill should not just be in using the controls, but interpreting and predicting the game itself.
Why is it even necessary to talk about this? Go to the Interface Hall of Shame for some great examples. Too often we are producing great systems which challenge users in the wrong places, in the wrong ways. When they have an alternative to the system even if that is abandoning the task or *shudder* performing it hardcopy, the loser is the system … and so the developers
Comments (5) Permalink
February 4th, 2004 at 4:44 PM
It depends on the management style suited to the task at hand. Theory X managers are Taylorist and dont expect you to know anything (Frederick Taylor 20’s Fordism). Douglas McGregor porposed Theory Y managers based on studies by Elton Mayo (the Hawthorne studies) which showed people were much more liable to work when they knew they were being cared for, and people thought they had potential. Modern research suggests that a midsize modern IT firm requires strictly Theory Y management if your subordinate is skilled. So if this person is given a task they are not trained to do – time to switch styles to a Taylorist “directed learning” style if there is absolutely nobody available to do it. This has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism though!
Both styles from Organisational Behaviour theory. Just my pinch of salt hope it helps.
February 4th, 2004 at 5:04 PM
How does it apply to interaction with computer systems though? Can they and should they be didactic? How do they know that their user needs direction?
February 4th, 2004 at 5:17 PM
IMHO your choice of system guides newbies into using it quickly – you may not have chosen the current system.
Is your subject actually having basic difficulties interacting with the computer system? Describe the “challenge” he/she thinks is hampering efforts … and whether there is any willingness to learn at all …
It could be laziness or soldiering with the masses. Soldiering is the single biggest loss of work performance in any industry. It occurs when there is a collective spirit to do “just enough to get by” and hence the notion of average performance. Not much you can do about soldiering, tho some like Maslow say (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html) people will willingly WANT TO increase their performance if certain “needs” in the upper quarter are met.
February 7th, 2004 at 7:18 PM
Looking at the examples they have from Automate Pro, I’m almost grateful for Lutus Notes… 😉
(Also, apparently having the Cancel button before the post button is confusing. I can confirm this as I nearly cancelled this comment instead of posting it.)
February 8th, 2004 at 8:48 PM
Amit, what I’m talking about is when the system interface itself gets in the way of the user achieving their ACTUAL task — that which the system is meant to be facilitating. I know all the Organisational Behaviour stuff, but that is very much about managing people … not having a system manage people’s interaction with it. People like and need to be challenged, but usually by the work itself, not by the tools used to complete the work. Would a carpenter use a malformed hammer?
Do you like it when you’re trying to write up a document for the latest uni project and you can’t figure out how to do something, say automatically construct the table of contents? Should the software have presented you with this challenge or made it very easy for you, given that your primary task is getting the document written and published to hand in?
Mili, I think the Cancel button coming first is becoming something of a convention with blogging systems (I find the LJ order disconcerting, as yours is the only LJ I comment on or even visit) — although I’m sure the folks over at Movable Type would take your comments onboard 😉