2.4.1 Definition of User-Friendly Design
Interestingly, much of the theory-centered literature on eLearning tends to be focused within the realm of Higher Education. Likewise, much of the application of eLearning now occurs within business and industry settings (Richey, Morrison, and Foxon, 2007). Within all settings, the principles of both ‘user-friendly’ design and ‘learner-friendly design’ need to be applied for effective learning via courseware. Perhaps given that web-based learning is relatively new and innovative, there is a range of opinions on the user-friendly and learner- friendly design for courseware. When it comes to the user-friendly design there is general consensus amongst experts in web design on usability heuristics, although these are constantly evolving as web browsers develop and users become more familiar with Internet technology (Nielson and Loranger, 2006). There is however an ellipsis in the research on the
impact of user-friendly design, which addresses the ‘user’ as a ‘learner’ (Zaharias, 2006a). In particular, the influence user-friendly design has on learning via courseware.
Traditionally the goal of user-friendly design is to make websites ‘easy-to-use’, with the intended outcome being increased web traffic, online sales, and productivity. As such, the development of user-friendly design is generally ‘user-centric’, and revolves around the needs and limitations of the end-user. There is a strong literature base on the role and features of user-friendly design, as they apply to general website design (Nielson and Loranger, 2006; McCracken and Wolfe, 2004). When it comes to defining user-friendly design Myhill, Le and Le (1999) point out that the term means different things to different software designers and their clients, however the focus is about shifting attention towards the needs of the end-users. They point out that one of the main focuses of user-friendly design is the design of the interface is easy to use. Most definitions of user-friendly design are synonymous with the concept of usability. They include an interest in: (a) the technical elements of the software and hardware, such as whether the technology is functioning according to the expectations of the end-user (for instance, is the software designed according to the technical limitations of the hardware and software?); (b) the characteristics of the end-user, such as whether users are novices to the technology or highly computer literate (this may help decide what sort of help tools may be relevant); and (c) elements of the interface design, such as the screen design and layout, aesthetics, and interface design (for instance, is the site aesthetically attractive, does the ‘look and feel’ represent the target site’s audience, and is the site easy to navigate?).
Perhaps one of the reasons why the definition of user-friendly design is so loose within the literature is that only a decade ago the World Wide Web was seen as a very new technology (Nielson and Loranger, 2006). Although educational and other types of computer aided learning software existed, the use of these tools was much less common within educational institutions such as Higher Education. Nielson and Loranger (2006) point out that people “expect a lot of Web sites today, and they are less and less tolerant of bad design” (p.xvii). They define usability as:
“a quality attribute relating to how easy something is to use. More specifically, it refers to how quickly can learn something, how efficient they are while using it, how memorable it is, how error-prone it is, and how much users like using it” (p.xvii). Internet.com provides a more generic definition of user-friendly design. They refer to user- friendly design as “anything which makes it easier for novices to use a computer” (www, 2008). They point out that examples of user-friendliness in software are menu-driven systems, as opposed to command driven systems, the use of graphical user interfaces (GUI), and the use of online help systems. MSN’s online Encarta dictionary defies user- friendly software as that which is “easy to operate, easy to understand, easy to deal with”
(www, 2007). In her article on the link between online training and usability, Holly Dolezalek (2004) defines usability as a “a generic term of design features that enable something – a software package, a Web-based course – to be user-friendly”. Dolezalek (2004) quotes Marcia Connor – the CEO of the company Ageless Learner, who believes that “High usability means a system is easy to learn and remember, efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and quick to recover from errors” (p.32). In the article, Connors points out that usability is often missing in online training programs, and says that this may result in inconsistent design (different interfaces and navigation). As a result, she believes that learners are inconvenienced because they need to learn how to use the system, before they can learn the material. According to Connors, part of the reason why poor usability design occurs within online learning is that designers either have knowledge of ‘visual design’ or ‘technology augmented education’, “but almost never of both” (p.32). She points out “instructional design is important, but it simply not enough when a company is trying to develop a product that will be used and returned to” (p.32).
There is a strong literature base on the role and features of user-friendly design, as they apply to general website design (Nielson and Loranger, 2006; McCracken and Wolfe, 2004). The problem with general user-friendly design however is that it doesn’t take into account a context where learning is the intended outcome. Thus, a courseware may be user-friendly to a general audience, but learner-unfriendly for an audience whose primary aim is to use the courseware for learning. Researchers point out that uniting both instructional design and usability tends to be problematic within the literature and practice of courseware design, partly because there appears to be a lack of collaboration between experts within user- friendly and instructional design (Squires, 1999; Zaharias, 2004). There is a growing literature base, which supports the need for eLearning to take into accounts both learning theory and usability (Myhill, Le, and Le, 1999; Zaharias, 2004; Zaharias and Poulymenakou, 2006a; Danielson, Lockee, and Burton, 2000). This means developing web-based heuristics (guidelines for design) as they apply specifically to a context of learning. The need to create specific heuristics for courseware is supported by web-usability experts, such as Nielson and Loranger (2006), whom in their book Web Usability point out that specific usability design and evaluation should occur for specific/niche area websites. There is a growing literature base on design guidelines for eLearning according to experts (see Clark and Mayer, 2003), however there is a significant gap in the literature on the perspectives of learners when it comes to the user-friendly design of courseware.
2.4.2 General Heuristics for Web Site Design
Despite the growing awareness of the importance of user-friendly design within courseware, there continues to be a major gap in the literature on learner-centered heuristics for
courseware design. Some researchers believe that following general web guidelines can be useful. For example, Danielson et al. (2000) comment:
“the HCI field has its own experts and literature base; it is not necessary for all instructional designers to develop yet another expertise. Simply knowing basic interface design concepts will go far in the creation of effective Web-based instruction and the facilitation of learning in this electronic environment” (p.127).
The concern here however, is that researchers are not sure about which design guidelines impact upon learning. As a result, courseware may be user-friendly, but on the other hand it may not be learner-friendly (Myhill et al., 1999; Danielson et al., 2000). Zaharias and Poulymenakou (2006b) point out the challenge for most e-learning designers is that an established set of heuristics do not exist. They emphasise that many guidelines are not adequately adapted for web-based learning environments. Furthermore, that the perspectives of learners’ tend to be silenced, as much of the research focused on developing eLearning heuristics and evaluation methods reflect the views of experts. Thus, standards for user-friendly courseware design cannot evolve, until we have a clear understanding of how these features impact upon students. This research intends to addresses this gap in the research, by attempting to garner how aesthetics, screen design and layout, navigation, and usability impact upon learning.
Before new usability guidelines for web-based design can be established, it is important to look at existing guidelines. The University of Tasmania’s (UTAS) department of Web Services (2005) published its guide to web usability heuristic analysis. These included:
Flexibility and efficiency of use: catering to both novices and experienced users;
Recognition rather than recall: ensuring the user doesn’t have to memorize information from one screen to another;
Visibility of the system status: keeping users informed on what is going on; Match between the system and the real world: using the language of the users; Consistency and standards: following consistent design conventions;
Help and documentation: providing necessary help tools such as a search bar; Help users recognise, diagnose, and recover from errors;
Error prevention;
User-control and freedom: for instance, provide the tools ‘undo’ and ‘redo’; and
Aesthetic and minimalist design: include only what is necessary in the design (pp 1-2). In the September/October 2002 edition of iQ Magazine Jill Griffin provides a list of common usability attributes amongst highly usable e-commerce web sites. These include:
Intuitive: user’s can rely on common sense to navigate the web site;
Simple: web pages are straightforward and devoid of jargon or pointless graphics; Fast: pages are fast to download;
Reassuring: customers have clear feedback;
Consistent: there is consistent page design, content, and structure; Forgiving: customers can easily correct their errors and access help; and Pleasing: the web site it visually interesting and attractive.
Griffin’s article points out that poor usability may have a negative effect on both sales and corporate branding, and that common examples of poor usability include “Cluttered home pages, poorly organized information, confusing or complex navigation, slow loading pages, and frustrating check out processes” (www, para. 4, 2002).
Nielson and Loranger (2006) provide a more specific guide to heuristics. They point out that eight usability problems that haven’t changed in their study of web site usability include:
“Links that does not change colour when visited; Breaking the back button;
Opening new browser windows; Pop-up windows;
Design elements that look like advertisements; Violating Web-wide conventions;
Vaporous content and empty hype;
Dense content and unscannable text” (p.60).
They point out that despite radical changes in the technology, usability standards haven’t radically changed. They believe that this is because “usability is a matter of human behaviour, and people does not change much from one generation to another” (p.84). Haven just provided a list of some of the more common usability guidelines in the literature, we can now move on to some of the more specific user-friendly guidelines for courseware.
2.4.3 User-Friendly Design for Courseware
Zaharias and Poulymenakou (2006b) point out the need to address ‘users’ as ‘learners’, in order to build systems that are both usable and pedagogically meaningful. They emphasise the need for user-centered design to become learner-centered design. This means incorporating both usability principles and learning theories. They point out that the goal for learner-centered design is to “design software that makes people want to learn and know how to learn, beyond the computer task at hand” (p.88). They believe that it is crucial for the learner-centered design paradigm to take into context metacognitive skills (learning how to learn), constructivistic tenets, affect and motivation to learn. They also recognise however, that it is not clear how such concepts and instructional design techniques can be integrated with human-centered (user-friendly) design methods. This research does not seek to create its own comprehensive list of heuristics for user-friendly courseware design. Rather, it seeks to look at some existing user-friendly heuristics for courseware, and investigates how learners’ perceive these heuristics compared to academics and instructional designers.
Particular attention is paid in regards to how aspects of the user-friendly design, such as screen design and layout or navigation, may impact upon the ability for learners’ to learn online. The research also investigates learners’ perceptions of learner-friendly courseware design, such as their opinions on problem-based open-ended learning environments, which are popularly associated with designs based on constructivistic epistemologies. The purpose is not to provide a comprehensive framework for learner-friendly courseware design, but to look at how the learner-friendly design may impact upon the design of courseware according to the participants’ whom use it.
Panagiotis and Poulymenakou (2006c) point out following general web guidelines can be useful, however these stem from e-commerce frameworks and not all heuristics (guidelines) can be applied direct to the design of courseware. They point out that the problem is that an established set of guidelines, adapting heuristics and usability standards for eLearning, is yet to be developed. Their literature review quotes a number of studies that have attempted to adapt general web-based heuristics for courseware design. For instance they quote Soloway and Preece’s (1999) study, which takes Jakob Nielson’s (1994) heuristics and adapts them to social constructivist tenets. Their proposed heuristics for courseware design included: Heuristic One: Match between designer and learner models;
Heuristic Two: Navigational fidelity;
Heuristic Three: Appropriate levels of learner control; Heuristic Four: Prevention of cognitive errors;
Heuristic Five: Understandable and meaningful symbolic representations; Heuristic Six: Support personally6 significant approaches to learning;
Heuristic Seven: Strategies for cognitive error, recognition, diagnosis and recovery; and Heuristic Eight: Match with the curriculum.
Panagiotis and Poulymenakou (2006c) also quote Reeves et al’s (2002) study, which provided fifteen heuristics emerging fro a combination of instructional design and usability heuristics, which are used to evaluate the usability of courseware. In “Instructional Design Heuristics for E-Learning Evaluation” Reeves et al’s (2002) protocol for the heuristic evaluation of courseware includes the following fifteen heuristics:
Heuristic One - Visibility of the system status: keep the user informed about what is happening;
Heuristic Two - Match between the system and the real world: use familiar metaphors and language;
Heuristic Three - Error recovery and exiting: allow easy recovery from input errors; Heuristic Four - Consistency and standards: use general software conventions; Heuristics Five - Error prevention: prevent common problems;
Heuristics Six - Navigation support: design intuitive navigation;
Heuristic Eight - Help and documentation: provide readily accessible user-help;
Heuristic Nine - Interactivity: provide content-related interactions and tasks which support meaningful learning;
Heuristic Ten - Message design: present information according to the rules of information processing;
Heuristic Eleven - Learning design: Design in accordance with sound principles of learning theory;
Heuristic Twelve - Media Integration: include media with clear pedagogical and motivational purpose:
Heuristic Thirteen - Instructional assessment: provide assessments aligned to the objectives;
Heuristic Fourteen - Resources: provide learning-related resources; and Heuristic Fifteen - Feedback: provide contextual and relevant feedback.
Zaharias and Poulymenakou (2006c) point out that the problem with existing usability heuristics, is that they tend to reflect the views of experts, as opposed to learners. Furthermore, they also believe that much of the work needs further elaboration and empirical validation. Their design guidelines for asynchronous eLearning attempts to adopt a learner- centered approach that accommodates the traditional web usability and research from the area of instructional design. Their nine design guidelines include:
Design Guideline 1 - Design interactive content: This includes illustrating concepts with specific examples, using activities to gain the attention of, and motivate learners, providing access to meaningful interactions when there are long sections of text, providing access to resources appropriate to the learning context and for use in the real world; and developing media to highlight critical concepts, rather than entertaining and distracting learners;
Design Guideline 2 – Provide constructive and instructional feedback: This includes providing where appropriate, higher order assessments (e.g. case studies, discussion topics) over lower-order assessments (e.g. simple quizzes), and providing feedback tailored to content/task/activity being studied by the learner;
Design Guideline 3 – Support Navigation: This includes allowing the learner to exit when needed but returning to the closest logical point when needed, providing an example of the hierarchy of the course content, providing paths showing where the learner is at the moment, and giving descriptive names of the course content;
Design Guideline 4 – Promote Visual Design: Place important information in areas most likely to attract learners’ attention, ensure text and graphics are legible, ensure fonts are easy to read in print and on-screen versions of content;
Design Guideline 5 – Provide Learner Guidance: Include an overview and summary, offer tools that support learning (e.g. glossary, resources), provide clear learning objectives;
Design Guideline 6 – Design for Learning: Provide opportunities and support for learning through collaborative interaction with others (e.g. discussion), make it clear to the learner what is to be accomplished and what will be the learner gains, include activities that are both individual and group based, and provide learners with opportunities for reflection;
Design Guideline Seven – Make it Accessible: Make courseware easy to install, uninstall and launch, make courseware free from technical problems (e.g. hyperlink and programming errors);
Design Guideline Eight – Enhance Learnability: Design course layout so that learners can develop learning activities without extensive consultation of online help, develop the course so that learners can start the course (e.g. registering for the course) using only online assistance, provide hints so that learners should know what they should do if they get stuck or have questions;
Design Guideline Nine – Inspire Motivation to Learn: Incorporate novel characteristics, stimulate further inquiry, make it enjoyable and interesting, allow for learner to make decisions, Provide learner with frequent and varied learning activities that increase learning success, and provide explicit criteria for learning success.
Panagiotis and Poulymenakou’s web usability guidelines are unique because they purposely take into account the research on learner-centered instructional design (2006c). Other design guidelines tend to provide ‘expert advice’ on design, without necessarily establishing why these guidelines are relevant to the process of learning or whether they’re informed by specific instructional design theory (See Swan, 2003; Keeton, Scheckley, and Kreji-Griggs, 2002; Janicki and Liegle, 2001; Chickering ad Ehrmann, 1996). As Panagiotis and Poulymenakou (2006c) make it clear, there is significant need for further research into the development and evaluation of web usability guidelines for learning. Although these researchers point out that more discussion of design guidelines for eLearning will take place in the future, according to them it is the empirical evaluation of courseware that will add significantly to designer’s pool of knowledge.
Again, when it comes to this research, it should be emphasised that the researcher does not set out to create an in-depth framework of design guidelines for generic courseware usability.