Humanware-Practical Usability Engineering

Chapter 1

What is humanware?

Why is humanware so important?

Where in the product is the humanware?

Who develops humanware?

Why is the human factor inhuman?

Products which succeed today, and even more so tomorrow, are the ones which are easy to use, look after and repair-and easy to dispose of when they have done their job. For most products, the cost of using and looking after them is greater than their purchase price. Purchasers are becoming increasingly aware of this. Manufacturers are also awakening to the fact. Thus the growing interest in humanware, the aspects of a product which help people to use and look after it.

Handling a product (use, care, repair and disposal) often cost a lot more than the purchase. Humanware, or aspects which make it easy for people to handle the product, thus has a great effect on the total lifetime cost.

What is included in humanware?

Humanware does not only consist of conventional information; it embraces everything which communicates with the human user, e.g. instrument panels, controls, screen dialogues and the appearance of components to be assembled (even markings on components which ease dissembly and sorting for recycling). Humanware can help people to do the right thing, and to avoid doing the wrong thing.

Here are some examples of humanware:

Humanware also includes information which helps users to understand and utilise special features of the product, or ways of improving its function. These are added values which help the product to compete on market where there are equivalent products which lack this information.

Humanware can be placed more or less close to the product and its use. It can be placed:

The further we put the humanware from the product, the less cost-effective it tends to be. The most cost-effective humanware is integrated into the product, especially when we can get the product to behave kindly to people.

The inhuman factor

Handling errors are usually blamed on the human factor, especially when the person involved has died and is thus unable to put up any defence. If you take a closer look at the sequence of events you usually find that the humanware performed badly in the situation in question. Often a whole chain of unfortunate conditions have contributed.

We need a code of ethics for designing humanware. If incorrect handling of the product can cause serious injury or damage, we have to apply generous safety margins in the humanware. We should preferably prevent incorrect handling by means of design. If this is impossible we must give the user the best possible chances of acting correctly.

The person who designed a machine is not only jointly responsible for what happens; he or she must assume the main responsibility when something is incorrectly handled (except of course in case of pure sabotage, or blatant misuse of the product). After all, according to modern product legislation the manufacturer can also be held responsible for incorrect handling. Perhaps it should also be regarded as an infringement of the code of ethics to blame the human factor.

Users must also stop taking the blame when something does not work. It seems to be a very common human reaction to regard oneself as too stupid when failing to handle a product successfully, or to understand the instructions. Perhaps it would be better for all concerned to regard the product as being incompletely developed.

Create a common language

The humanware for a product is the language which allows it to cooperate with a human being. A developer working intensively on a product can all too easily create a private language which can be difficult for users to understand (especially if the two parties belong to different language families or knowledge cultures, e.g. technician/non-technician, computer expert/process expert).

This language consists of conscious and unconscious signals. For example, an alarm signal can mean one thing to the designer who knows how the alarm circuits are constructed, and something else to an operator who only sees the alarm message.

When we decide where to place the interface between human and product we have some degree of freedom, and we should look for a solution where both are doing what they are best at. Traditionally, efforts were made to adapt the human to the product (by means of information, education, training). But better functioning and economy can usually be achieved by trying to adapt the product to people, their potentials and their limitations. To do this we have to know how human beings function, for example, when receiving and interpreting signals, making decisions and taking action. We must understand that by helping users in some ways we can make better use of their abilities in other ways.

By creating orderliness (structure) in controls, panels, screen

images and program logic we can make it easier for human beings to understand, remember and make sensible decisions. By nuancing signals from the product we can help the user to discover what is important, and not get stuck in unimportant aspects. By making reasonable demands on the user’s memory we can decrease the risk of memory errors and leave space for creative work. By reducing the amount of work which each stage demands of users to the amount we are sure they can manage, we can avoid short circuiting.

A person’s abilities will also be dependent on the working situation. Just like other components, a human being functions best within a certain environmental range. Of course we can select individuals who function better than others (and this is done in the case of fighter pilots, for example) but then the price is higher, as it is in the case of other specially resistant components.

Some of the limits within which humans and products are to cooperate are obvious. For example, an indicator lamp must emit light which is within the wavelength range visible to man. Other things are not so obvious, as the fact that a code must be kept within the limits of the human short term memory.

The human being is a complex system component. The job of adapting design to humans is very stimulating-at least in cases where the development work has not gone so far that human solutions are impossible.

Quality assurance

It is easier to ensure quality of the humanware if responsibility for its development is kept separate from the development of the soft-and hardware. Of course there must be a close cooperation between all those involved in developing the product. But unless somebody has primary responsibility for the humanware it can easily take second place (obviously, priority is given to getting the product to work technically).

A suitable organisation could look like this:

Besides this organisation, there will also be a need for suitable working methods and access to necessary laboratory resources (for making prototypes and for carrying out functional testing of the humanware) if the development of the humanware is to give satisfactory results.

For a long time there have been criteria for evaluating the quality of hardware. Similar criteria have also been developed for software. Even for organisation of the development and manufacture of a product there are set quality codes today. On the other hand the quality criteria for humanware are still very vague.

This could possibly be due to lack of interest. Humans are adaptable, and can even manage impossible machines-until the day comes when they are caught in a stress situation, or a competitor comes out with a simpler machine on the market.

It could also be connected with the fact that it is difficult to functionally test a machine if one also has to include the unpredictable human factor.

But as we become better at controlling the quality of machinery and software, humanware will become the major area waiting for rationalised treatment.

More advanced products place growing demands on human beings-or on humanware.

The measure of humanware quality is how well it meets the demands which can reasonably be placed on ease of use and care (difficulty in learning, concentration and the effort demanded of the human, how many and which handling errors can be tolerated).

Handling a fighter plane in a battle situation places greater demands on the operator than handling a washing machine, but it also presupposes much more training and experience. Training, courses and experience are usually an expensive form of humanware. But if failure of the interplay between human and machine has catastrophic consequences, it would be wise to invest in a more expensive form of humanware.

Extensive training also demands that the users are motivated for the work. Today it can be difficult even to get technical specialists motivated. Technology is changing so fast that the hard-won knowledge is only up-to-date for a short time. This applies not least to service and trouble-shooting. Here

humanware is needed that reduces the learning work while still providing the required effect.

Humans are the starting point

Work on humanware must start with the human being. Economy and technology of course create limits. However, most things can be solved technically today. Neither does economy often create any problems if the humanware is designed during early stages of development, so that it does not demand costly redesigning of hardware and software.

The working methods should include analyses of functions, working situations and users as a basis for design. Prototypes should be produced and used for testing the humanware. This functional testing should be performed on test subjects who are as similar as possible to the real users, and in as realistic conditions as possible.

It is also important for the person who has developed the humanware to be able to study it later on in the field. Experience gained from this can be used for a possible new version of the product or in the development of new products.

Work on development of humanware is admittedly performed in one way or another today. It is often carried out as a sideline to the development of machinery or software. In companies that do have specialists they are often only used as consultants to the designers.

However, there a few companies that have got further. In some cases they begin by developing the humanware, and only when it is proved to function satisfactorily do they design the requisite machinery and software. But it is not always possible to produce a realistic prototype before certain parts of the software and machinery development are completed.

Part assignment

Today it is unusual for one single person to answer for the entire development of a product. Usually a group of specialists are involved. Here is an organisation for such a group:

Product manager (system manager) Leads the development work and sees that the product is optimised for the market (including choice of functions and the balance between hardware, software and humanware).

Hardware developer

Cooperates with the humanware developers, e.g. in choice and placing of components and in designing for ease of access during service.

Software developer

Cooperates with the humanware developers regarding what the computer is to do and what people have to do. A standardised interface between the program which steers the hardware and the parts of the program that contain humanware can save development time and simplify future revisions of any of these parts of programs.

Humanware developer

Must have personal responsibility for seeing that the human-ware functions as intended. Must be able to decide what humanware is needed, choose a suitable form for it, design it (possibly in cooperation with the developers of the hardware and software) and test it to make sure that it functions.

Who develops the humanware?

The question of who is suitable to develop humanware can vary from company to company. The profession is hardly established. It is a question of finding people with a suitable background and with an ability to develop themselves and the new activity. It is important to have independent responsibility for the humanware and not just to have this job as a sideline. Here are some professions among which suitable candidates could be found:

developer/designer (<advantage: is already within the organisation, disadvantage: may not have much experience of studying user reactions), ergonomist (<advantage: specially educated, disadvantage: they are much too few in number, and have in many countries traditionally been concerned more with physiological than psychological ergonomy),

technical communicator (<advantage: the qualified ones perform functional tests of their printed information and should be able to broaden their field of work, but must in that case be involved in the project right from the start, disadvantage: sometimes do not work close enough to the development, and are in some cases too concentrated on the production of information on paper),

service/support personnel {advantage: can have extensive experience of things that go wrong in real life, disadvantage: probably have no experience of functionally testing humanware),

aesthetic designers, especially those who are specialised in product design (<advantage: can also give the product an attractive appearance, disadvantage: risk that some idea of beauty that happens to be in fashion will be allowed to steer and take over from functionality).

Three pieces of advice

Here are three simple pieces of advice that can lead to improved humanware:

1)   See that somebody is responsible for the humanware right from the start of the project (just as others are responsible for hardware and software).

2)   Create a conscious balance between hardware, software and humanware. Do not leave it to chance.

3)   Allot time and resources for testing the humanware.

I have deliberately avoided organising this book according to design of panels and controls in one place, easily assembled constructions in another, computer programs in another and instructions in yet another. This is because I am convinced that better total results are achieved by regarding these questions as an entirety-a question of humanware.

Summary

A lot of human effort is often needed in handling and care if a product is to function as intended. Good humanware reduces the cost of these human efforts and improves the outcome.

Humanware can consist of instructions and courses, but it is better placed as an integrated part of the product The more naturally a product behaves, the less need for extra information.

Some developer must be responsible for the humanware. Otherwise it can easily come to be regarded as being less important that the hardware and software. And see that it is tested in as realistic conditions as possible.

Do not blame the human factor when something goes wrong. Humans are as they are, and this must be borne in mind when developing the product and its humanware. The human factor must be taken into consideration while designing-not blamed when the product fails to function.

Exercises

Exercise Is

A cooking stove is to be developed in a new, microprocessor controlled model. How should the work be organised?

Exercise 2:

You only have the possibility of putting one single designer onto the development of a new product (hardware, software and humanware). How would you prefer to organise the designer’s work?

Exercise 3:

Many users of a new product have been found to make an error which means that the result is less good than it should be. As a result, competing products are giving better results, which would not be the case if the new product was used properly. To solve this problem the supplier of the new product has included a warning leaflet in the package. Are there any other ways of solving the problem? Suggest a few.

Suggested solutions on page 191.

Chapter 2

Man as a design unit

What can the designer use humans for?

Can human beings be mathematically modelled?

How does the brain function?

Why does the brain shut out certain signals?

Why is it unsuitable to intimidate people

into acting as required?

Man is a component in many technical systems, including the domestic ones like washing machines and video recorders. In design work humans should be treated as an important and necessary ingredient, something which is unfortunately often forgotten. One reason for this could be that the developers themselves are overqualified as users and trouble-shooters for their own products, and thus do not notice difficulties (which the developers can solve with obvious tricks). Another explanation is that humans are flexible and adapt themselves to difficult conditions-until something better comes along.

Humans are used for combined mental and manual operations. They receive and give out signals. They make decisions after processing the signals with the help of the contents of their own memories. They are extremely flexible-but unfortunately they have rather a high frequency of errors.

Humans communicate with machines (and thus indirectly with their designers):

The user’s brain, senses and hands are components which we must integrate into our design. If we take the human’s abilities and limitations into consideration we can achieve a better total result.

People vary. Their brains are made up in the same way, but the reference material in their brains and the strategies they have learnt for handling their surroundings are unique to each individual. That is why it is difficult to quantify humans as design units. It is impossible to calculate a person’s durability in a stress situation, for example. Some people can take a higher stress level than others. The boundaries are indistinct. What levels should we keep at?

Is there any sharp limit below which all people can do a job while nobody can manage it above this level of difficulty?

The question we have to ask ourselves is: Where is the design to be placed regarding difficulty in handling and using: at A, Β or C? If the aim is that everybody is to manage it, we put it at A. If we are only aiming at an elite (and are also prepared to provide intensive training) we can put it at C. The market will then of course be greatly limited, and can disappear altogether if a competitor brings out a product which is easier to handle and use. Maybe we can find a compromise within B, where we consciously sacrifice some, but retain a sufficient number.

The higher the level of difficulty we chose, the more the using and handling will cost. The lower we try to reach in level of difficulty, the more the development work will cost. The choice will be decided by comparing with competing products on the market.

It is of course impossible to calculate where these limits lie, or what safety margins are necessary, but by being conscious of the problems and by testing the products on representative users, we can greatly reduce the risk of failure.

The human brain is not a computer

We cannot compare the human brain with a computer. They do not only work in different ways; their functions also differ in character.