Humans have been communicating with images long before they communicated using words. Graphical user interfaces incorporate visual imagery through interface elements. They add interactivity to a user interface providing touchpoints for the user to navigate. The navigational components on a GUI are represented by icons, buttons, tab bars, and so on. Digital devices are starting to move on to provide more visual cues than textual content. This is done so as to speed up data perception, save up space on the screen and increase the memorability of the elements via visual images. But to what extent do people understand or perceive the visual cues for a certain task? Will your perception and understanding be similar to mine?
The rapid development of technology in a developing country like ours has seen the emergence of various technologies much cheaper than in previous years. But to use the technologies, many of the users need to make a rapid technology leap.
The problems faced by these people are not entirely related to computer illiteracy, but rather many of them are also illiterate or have very limited reading and writing abilities. To what extent is textual literacy a barrier to the recognition of icons and other UI elements on digital devices? When we talk about literacy, there is structured and non-structured. Structured is what we learn at school and unstructured learning is what we learn from everyday life and experiences, like visual, observation, tactile, musical, and so on. Words, however, are perceived information: you need to have studied and learned a language as a prerequisite to understanding its meaning.
We have always been exposed to icons and buttons. Before interacting with digital devices, I have been exposed to visual imagery that is associated with a concept or an object. For instance, public signs (symbols), Logos, labels and symbols on the print medium, tactile buttons on remote, switches, and calculators. Adopting and understanding UI elements on our first desktop took some time as certain icons that represent a function was not perceived the same by me. For instance, the save icon on the desktop is universally depicted as a floppy disk. The icon made sense for my father but not to me as I have not used a floppy disk before. Similarly, late adopters of technology might have a hard time to recognize and perceive icons as users are from various countries, cultural backgrounds have different sets of beliefs and expectations. How do we design user interface components inclusive of illiterate and non-e-literate users?
“Many of the symbols used in current technologies, including those on cell phones, were derived from computer interfaces which use office metaphors, whereas the variety of backgrounds of users now extends far beyond office workers. Among the many types of users, there are farmers, fishermen, and food sellers, none of whom have ever been exposed to modern technology before. Icons using the cultural and often Western concepts, such as musical notes may not make sense to many users. “- (Alan H.S. Chan, Aditya W. Mahastama, Tri S. Saptadi. 2013.” Designing usable icons for the non-e-literate user.”). An icon might not be effective if the meaning conveyed is not interpreted correctly by the users. In one of the interviews they [1] came across, several users thought that an envelope icon is used to represent the function of transferring money, like how we have seen people add money into envelopes to give to others as a gift. That’s a custom followed by a group of people who may not have used envelopes for any other purposes other than that. Similarly, icons for GPS, Web, gaming, and so on might be perceived differently by different groups of people. How much contextual information can be provided on the phone interface that can provide them with a better understanding? This will not work for illiterate users. So, do we teach them to perceive icons in a way they understand or do we build icons in a way they would perceive them to be?
‘The Three-mile accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred in 1979. The control room contained badly designed control buttons that turned out to be the cause of the catastrophe. During the investigation, they discovered that the user interface in the reactor control room had big usability problems. Despite the critical valve being stuck open, a status indicator on the control panel could be interpreted to indicate that the valve was closed. In fact, the status light did not even indicate whether the valve was open or closed but only whether it was powered or not. The status indicator thus gave false evidence of a closed valve, and when the control room operators were unable to interpret the meaning of the light correctly, they could not correctly diagnose the problem for several hours. By this time, major damage had occurred.’ (Catastrophic design at the Three Mile Island Plant. IDF)
The design of a simple on/of a button and an accompanying status indicator could cause lives if not designed thoughtfully. I have come across various toggle switches that I find confusing. If the switch is ‘on’, I sometimes interpret it as the current state or as the action that occurs when I toggle it. This happens when there are on or off labels, green and red colors, checkmarks. Similarly, several users have unintentionally toggled the wrong action. Providing unnecessary visual cues can also confuse the users. As industries have adopted digital UI for their ease of functioning, designing interfaces with icons and buttons must be thoughtfully planned. Employees who are non-e-literate, late adopters of the technology will take time and repeated practice to understand and perceive the interface as the designer intended to. But why don’t we design for them? Creating an Inclusive design solution can produce better outcomes for the user’s learnability. Understanding and observing the target audience in a naturalist study can give the designer better insights.
References
• [1] Alan H.S. Chan, Aditya W. Mahastama, Tri S. Saptadi. 2013.” Designing usable icons for the non-e-literate users.”
• Catatrophic design at the Three Mile Island Plant. IDF
