OLPC - An Exercise in "Reckless" Love

I admire the concept behind the one-laptop-per-child project (OLPC). Kids get free laptops and access to all knowledge available on the Internet. What's not to like?

Is this really what we want to teach?
Well, first of all, we should take note that not all knowledge is equal. Opening the door to the sorts of information on the Internet without a structured lesson plan to teach them how to ascertain fact from fiction and the good from the bad accessible on the Internet is irresponsible. Hopefully those who will be taking charge of this program when it reaches the kids realize that.

Sugar's Interface
But there's more. A few months ago, at the behest of David Armano, I downloaded an emulator for its operating system, Sugar, and started to feel like my grandparents must have felt when I was teaching them how to do something -- anything -- in Windows, only worse. I had considerable trouble figuring it out. Part of this was due to the fact that the emulator I used bogged down my computer, but the other part of it was that the interface was not at all predictive.

My personal difficulty in using the OS might not be representative. After all, I'm not the audience, and if there is one thing I've learned through usability testing, it's that I cannot assume that my likes and dislikes reflects that of the audience.

Test First, Then Release
What really concerns me about the project isn't my own difficulty, but that the developers did not engage in any iterative user testing whatsoever. They instead opted for a system they called "demo or die." Renowned and hated usability expert Jakob Nielsen called the process "reckless." ("The Face of the $100 Laptop")

What's more, one developer following the project from the beginning, who Business Week called a "user-interface design guru" reflected absolute ignorance about what a user tests are, opting to erroneously call them "focus groups."

Self-Centered Design
I've heard people complain about usability tests slowing down the process or handcuffing the creative process before, and it always amazes me. The reality is that usability tests are helpful tools in  user-centered design.

If we design interfaces for ourselves, we ensure that only people like us can use it. If only people like us will use it, that approach might work, but very often we are hampered by our own frames of reference, which make our product still difficult for others to understand.

Also, there is no interface on Earth that is free from the need to be designed with some sort of restraint. That's what designers do. They are limited by budget, time, scope, their own personal knowledge and the resources they have at their disposal. Usability needs to be a part of their design consideration.

Increasing the usability of any design increases the chances that it will be used. User testing actually helps in this endeavor. So if the goal is good, as it is in the OLPC project, then failing to be diligent in increasing its adoption rate by utilizing simple, cost-effective usability tests turns out to be reckless after all. - Cam Beck

Hat tip to 90 Percent of Everything for insight into this process and the link to the Business Week article.

Comments

[Mario]

Usability is a key element of product development in the Testing & Validation phase. Feedback and some testing should be solicited within the development phase as well, so as to minimize the cost of rework and increase the speed to market.

And usability testing isn't that difficult either; it can be a simple process carried out two mornings every few months like Krug advocates, and review results over lunch. I think the punchline is to defeat that pesky Curse of Knowledge

[Cam Beck]

Mario - I think that's exactly right. The Curse of Knowledge in this case is our own worldviews and habits, which tend to be difficult to break on our own.