Previous entry: "23-August-2001 -- Book Review: Don't Make Me Think" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "23-August-2001 -- INTERACTIONARY - Sports for design training and team building"

08/23/2001 Archived Entry: "23-August-2001 -- Perception of Usability"

WebWord Comment -- I'm working on an idea for an article. Here is how it goes. In marketing, we care more about getting people to believe that a product has some quality than to actually give the product the quality. For example, we care more that people think that a car is red than if that car is literally red. As long as everyone thinks the car is red, then it is red. When the car is red in the mind, it is red. It might actually be blue, but if people think it is red, then, well, it is red, at least as far as the marketing folks are concerned. Now, suppose we transplant this idea to usability. Do we really need to care about usability or the perception of usability? While you might start to argue that usability folks measure actual behavior and all that jazz, the reality is that usability is based on the actions associated with the perception of usability, not usability itself. Let's take another example. If one web site takes seven seconds to load and another takes twelve seconds to load, then should we automatically say that one page loads faster for users? I emphatically say NO. Spool's research tells us that slower loading sites can be perceived as being "faster" when users are able to easily complete their tasks. Therfore, we cannot simply say that faster download time makes web sites more usable. However, we can say that perceived download time, and thus perceived usability, is important, not actual download time. The result is that we need to understand how users think, not just how they act. Gathering data via observations of real tasks is not enough. We must understand how people derive their judgements of usability.

Replies: 16 comments

Um, silly question: What's the difference between usabilty and perceived usability?

Posted by Jason Osgood @ 08/23/2001 02:15 AM EST

A constructivistic view:
I totally agree with John that what counts is in the "eye of the beholder". It's an old discussion, but still valid. What a person/user perceives will heavily depend on their model of the(ir) world. The brain constructs rather than perceives. We all refer to a plus/minus consensual world, but basically every communication process holds pitfalls (between humans and between man and machine). So the example of the download time is a very good one that perceived usability depends not only on "external" conditions like downloadtime but also on the "ecology of the users mind". I think this paradoxon will remain: a "highly usable site" can be o.k. to one user and cause big troubles to an other user, even to the same user during different sessions.

Posted by Michael Bechinie @ 08/23/2001 05:30 AM EST

Maybe that's the whole point: the difference between usabilty and perceived usability. I'd be interested to read the article.

Posted by Edwin van Geelen @ 08/23/2001 07:16 AM EST

One of the things I like about usability is it helps us focus on problems the user WILL encounter as opposed to problems that will remain theoretical. Usability is an extension of marketing - once the client has been enticed to buy / research / test, usability can complete the transaction. It makes sense, therefore, to view it in the context that users may believe something to be "great to use" simply because of likeable factors. But perhaps that simply tells us that the tools we use to measure usability need enhanced sophistication, perhaps by including more marketing or phycological elements?

Posted by David Sim @ 08/23/2001 08:51 AM EST

I'd have to say that there's little difference between the two. The only exception I can imagine is if the marketing department cranked out a "usability" campaign, attempting to brainwash users (or potential users) that their site had superior usability. Example: Travelocity advertises that it's site is more usable than Orbitz in an attempt to build brand. But if you're measuring actual experience, then I think their synonymous or at best only marginally, academically different.

Posted by Brendan @ 08/23/2001 09:03 AM EST

Learn the basics first. Until you can differentiate good data from bad, you will not be able to differentiate usability from perceived usability. Quoting Jared's marketing ploys as reliable "research" clearly demonstrates that you are in over your head. Or is this just a marketing ploy of your own?

Posted by Ron Zeno @ 08/23/2001 09:59 AM EST

Another marketing perspective to consider is that advertising is sometimes for the benefit of the consumer who already owns the product - to make them feel good about their decision to purchase (perhaps limiting the buyer's remorse phenomenon). "Boy, I'm glad I bought the Red Car instead of the Gray one - look how cool it looks in that commercial..." In fact, in a recent NPR interview one former marketing director of a large advertising firm suggested that this is the primary reason for advertising. While I think most would agree that's a minority view perhaps it has implications for usability practitioners when looking at the relationship between marketing and usability. That is, for those already doing usability work it becomes important to hear that others have also jumped on-board. Continual exposure to other's achievements in usability is good for those filling the role of practitioner and evangelist.

Posted by Greg @ 08/23/2001 10:20 AM EST

The first thing you learn in marketing is that marketing is about creating value. That, or course, implies UCD. In fact, according to Ward Hanson's "Principles of Internet Marketing", marketers should have a clear idea of UCD and should also play a role in the creation and improvement of UCDed products.

Unfortunately, theory is far from the truth. Self-proclaimed Internet marketers (who know nothing about the Internet nor its user-empowering characteristics) are lost in a sea of retarded hot-words such as "globalization" and "localization". Despite the fact that they're principles of UCD, nobody mentions UCD 'cause it probably has an unmarketable name.

So instead of creating any real value for the user, pseudo-marketers simply fake value, thinking that the empowered user will fall for it.

For these reasons, I believe it's time for the UCD community to brush up on its marketing knowledge. I've been gearing up for a year now... I'm going to cleanse the Earth of pseudo-marketers.

Posted by Francis Wu @ 08/23/2001 10:53 AM EST

In your example of the two sites, one has a long download but easy task performance, the other has a short download but more difficult task performance. Usability is a collection of lots of little things that build to acheive a single thing we call usability. Some things are more important than others in this combination. I would argue that easy task performance is more important than download time (depending, of course, on how long that download time is) so the first site would have a higher usability than the second. When a measured usability differs from a perceived usability, I would say that the measured usability is flawed - it concentrated on something that wasn't as important as other things to the total usability. While truth and market truth are concrete things with concrete differences, true usability isn't concrete. It's heuristic. Who's to say that perceived usability and true usability aren't the same thing? When they seem to differ, it's probably the case that the "true usability" isn't accurately measuring the real usability.

Posted by Chris Nott @ 08/23/2001 12:41 PM EST

==================================
Perceived usability comes from good (aesthetic) visual design.

Even if the usability of the interface is improved,people will ALWAYS attribute the ease of use and improvements to the aesthetic design.

So match up your usable interfaces with good industrial design.

http://www.sony.co.jp/inpaku/sonydesign/en/
==================================

Posted by sigpipe @ 08/23/2001 02:11 PM EST

Perceived of quality has always been the final arbiter rather than the actual quality.

Quick example: anyone want to buy some Firestone tires? I'm pretty confident they've fixed their problems if you put them to an independent quality assessment, but I for one ain't touching 'em.

Perception isn't just some marketing ploy, it's a recognition that the values are in the eye of the beholder. A Rolls Royce is clearly better built than a Cadillac, but it's not a satisfactory solution if you can't afford it.

Certainly this can be influenced by marketing--but only up to a point. Look at this summer's blockbuster movies, which have had the highest box office drop-offs in history. (For example, if I remember correctly, "Planet of the Apes" did 60% less business the second weekend.) Hollywood's tried to explain it away, but the bottom line is that huge marketing hype got people into the theaters on opening weekend--and then word got out that the movies sucked.

I'd argue that examining perception of usability goes beyond just "perceived usability." For example, perception of load time can be tweaked just as architects tweak our perception of space. Think those flat spots in the middle of a grand staircase are there so you can rest. Think again, they're actually there to lengthen the perceived distance and make the staircase feel "grander."

As John's touched on, we need to look at how broader contexts can affect perceptions of specific usability criteria. For example, VisiCalc was a usability disaster but people bought computers just to use it because it provided enough value--it allowed them do to stuff they've never done before. (Could VisiCalc done even better if it had been easier to use, sure, but that doesn't negate my point.)

Posted by George Olsen @ 08/23/2001 02:30 PM EST

There is a fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. Most people already know what they think is red. Your job as a marketer is to find that shade most people think is red -- then paint the car that color. If marketing got people to think up was down and red was blue, we'd all be buying $6 bags of dog food for $19.95 shipping from a sock puppet -- whether or not we own a pet. Today's cynical consumer is a rebellion against the "down is up" school of marketing.

Posted by JS @ 08/23/2001 05:47 PM EST

Re: Difference between percieved and actual usability.

This is regularly answered in user testing, when you have a poor (but good looking) interface.
People tend to think that it must be a good design, so blame themselves if they cannot complete a task. How good and/or professional the design looks seems to have more influence on perceived usability than peoples ability to complete tasks.

This is a generalisation of course! Anyone reading this is probably well aware of usability as an issue and would not be so quick to blame themselves.

Posted by Alastair Campbell @ 08/24/2001 04:59 AM EST

(sigh)

I'm not the philosophical type, but marketing is a battle fought in the customer's mind. (You have read "Positioning", right? If not, you absolutely must.)

What is the truth? It is what we perceive it to be. Is that flower beautiful? It is if you think it is. Is that site usable? It is if you think it is. Is that bloke a good person? Only if you think so. Someone else may disagree with you.

In marketing, the better product doesn't always win. Quality too is a perception in the minds of people. To quote Al Ries, is a Mercedes better quality than a BMW? Are you sure?

So... my point is that what people perceive becomes reality for them. There is hence no difference between perceived usability and real usability :))

I'll stop rambling now.

Posted by Madhu @ 08/24/2001 12:57 PM EST

Interesting point. I was thinking about something similar; if a user think that the site is a usable site, does it really matter whether or not the site is in fact usable or not according to usability principles? This differentation between usability and perception of usability might explain why there is a disconnect between what happens during one-on-one usability testing and what users say on a questionnaire measuring their subjective appreciation of an interface.

But then the same 'disconnect' between the survey results and the results of the one-on-one usability testing could be explained to the fact that the questionnaire was not measuring what it was supposed to be measuring..

Yves

Posted by Yves Rannou @ 11/27/2001 10:43 AM EST

Interesting point. I was thinking about something similar; if a user think that the site is a usable site, does it really matter whether or not the site is in fact usable or not according to usability principles? These concepts might very well explain why there is a normally a 'disconnect' between what happens during a one-on-one usability testing and what users answer on a questionnaire measuring their subjective appreciation of the interface being evaluated.

Yves

Posted by Yves Rannou @ 11/27/2001 10:45 AM EST

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/