Critical Power Tools Chapter Two
Extreme Usability and Technical Communication by Bradley
Dilger
In Chapter Two of Critical
Power Tools Bradley Dilger argues, basically, that technology is killing us
softly. In differentiating between technical practices of “usability” and
“extreme usability” he argues that, though potentially user-centered, the
ideology of “extreme usability” that has come to dominate discourses on
technology draws our focus away from the mechanisms behind technology and
technical discourse and obscures issues of labor, power, and ideology which
both users and technical communicators must remain aware of. If usability is
like a power plant, providing users a light by which to navigate the dark
recesses of technological communication, extreme usability is the gigantic
mutated Godzilla-esque monster rampaging across the technical landscape,
leveling any attempts at meaningful discourse. At the risk of making things too
easy on the reader, here is my customarily bulleted breakdown of the argument:
The Problem
Dilger writes that “Practitioners of extreme usability
repeatedly invoke ease…in their definition of usability. This is no accident: extreme
usability is, in fact, usability made easy, a simplified usability profoundly
and problematically distinct from the robust, more carefully developed concepts
of usability from which it was derived” (Location 690). The problem with this
growing ethic of “keeping it simple” lies, according to Dilger, in its origins.
The concept of ease, he writes, is historically tied to capitalism and the
ethic of productivity connected to modern technology. Where before technology
was valued for productivity in the workplace and concepts of ease were rooted
in the home and leisure (and in the feminine), the rise of automated
technologies saw a shift in ideology when the ease and simplicity of
technological operation became tied directly to the productivity of the user.
Dilger writes that “As more automatic or
‘computerized’ products appeared, marketing emphasized not only labor-saving
properties, but ease of use” (Location 739) and that, despite resistance,
“opponents of usability were unable to overcome the massive power of ease, and
it has become the most dominant force shaping the design and use of
technological systems – following the transactional logic of consumer culture
in which it first developed” (751).
The danger of this is that, as technology becomes tied to
more and more aspects of our lives (as with email), the lines between
technology and ideology begin to blur. Dilger argues that extreme usability
“extends the ideological framework of ease… Like ease, extreme usability
encourages an out-of-pocket rejection of difficulty and complexity, displaces
agency and control to external experts, and represses critique and critical use
of technology in the name of productivity and efficiency” (751). In short, ease
of use leads to relentlessly pragmatic thinking, which cannot be disrupted
because complications are not pragmatic. This removal of agency from the user
may seem more gentle than older models, but the disempowerment remains
nonetheless.
The Solution
At the risk of going against the very complications that Dilger
calls for (now that I think about it, my approach to this blog has been
extraordinarily influenced by the need to efficiently “produce” in a short
period of time), the solution to this problem lies not so much in what to do as
in what not to do.
When streamlining becomes the ultimate goal of technical
communication, Dilger argues “the effects of extreme usability become
recursive: By advancing a concept of usability shaped by the ideology of ease,
the methodologies of usability come under attack as well” (828). Put simply, if
ease is king, people will believe everything should be easy (and cheap),
including the process of making things easier.
The solution to this recursion, then, is to avoid “best
practices” approaches to teaching usability, since this approach “is made
easier not only by reducing its cost, time, and complexity, but by restricting
or excluding consideration of cultural forces from usability testing and
assessment” (Location 878). According to Dilger “if the intent of usability is
the development of user-centered technological systems and practices of communication,
then despite its difficulty, we need to engage culture” when dealing with and
teaching technology (Location 900). We need to root technology not in
context-free (and thus simpler) locations like the lab, but in subjective,
contextual environments of the users’ everyday life.
Connections
There are, throughout the text, clear connections to
Johnson’s concept of “user-centered technology.” Dilger cites Johnson directly
in attacking the novice/expert binary inherent in extreme usability, and
attempts to defend his methodology by arguing that “If we fail to explicity
acknowledge culture in our definitions…we risk giving back recent gains in the
popularity of user-centered development” (Location 923).
Chapter one seems to locate this idea of extreme usability
in an older model of technical communication called the “translation view”
which demands that, for communication to be “easy” it must pre-suppose the
neutrality of scientific and capitalistic communications (Location 633). It may
be easier to ignore the ethics of our technologies, but this can have dire
results. The consequences of this are explored further in chapter three where
Moses and Katz argue that email’s ease of use is the result of, and the
extension of, a capitalistic emphasis on efficiency where “Ideologically, work
and leisure have become virtually interchangeable” (Location 1049). Due to the
recurring emphasis on productivity and the encroaching “ease” of email, we now,
as a consequence, even want our interpersonal relationships to be effortless
and quick!
Questions
My question, as usual, is heretically pragmatic. In calling
for a more “situated” method of testing and writing about technology, Dilger
writes that, in spite of the difficulty, teaching a slower, less ease-centric
method of technological communication is the only way to cleave to Johnson’s
original vision of user-centered pedagogy (Location 953). However, as the
book’s introduction points out, the University system itself is not immune to
the allure of extreme usability: “The corporatization of the university –
including the move toward more (economically) efficient pedagogical models…can
work to squelch critique on an institutional level” (location 207). Given the
short timeframe in which we, as instructors, can interact with our students,
and considering the material and economical demands posed by University
administration, where do we locate the responsibility for implementing the
changes posed by Dilger? Is it the duty of the teacher to “sneak” critical and
cultural discussion into the curriculum between the pre-approved best practices
model? Or would Dilger put the onus on administrators to push more directly for
change? How do you fight the system when the system is so seductively
easy?
This is no fluke: desperate usability is, in reality, usability made calm, a streamlined usability profoundly further problematically usability tools unusual from the hale, better carefully developed images of usability from which it was derived.
ReplyDelete