First, please answer these two question:
1. Mike completed piano level IX while Jennifer passed level III, who plays piano better?
2. Mike got a certificate of Japanese language level I while Jennifer got level III, who is better at Japanese?
We usually meet a handful of indexes or certifications presented in form of number but still feel confused about the meaning that those numbers stand for. First class scholarship implies greater accomplishment than Third class scholarship. But a five star hotel is much more luxury than a three star hotel. Certainly you are clear about scholarship and star-alliance because you touch this concept quite often in your daily life. But if you are not enthusiastic at Chinese Chess, how can you that less the number of level represents more excellence?
This is a daily usability problem and you can find it everywhere. When I was in China, I have never figure out what should I wear if the wearing-index is 4 or should I go to third-class hospital or first-class hospital (Now I know third-class is best from google).
So, what’s the reason behind this perceptual difficulty?
In my opinion, the reason is that numbers can only tell us the relationship in several aspects like greater or less, bigger or smaller, longer or shorter. However, there are more relationships that cannot simply be interpreted in such aspects. Take the car-washing index in China as an example, why six means more suitable for washing than five does? Why more severe the level disability can be represented in greater numbers of level? If the relationship between objects or situations cannot be interpreted quantitatively, then they are not good to be classified in numbers.
Now let us see the answer of the two questions in the beginning of this article: Mike plays better at piano and also be better at Japanese. So a new question arises: even it is good to adopt quantitative interpretations, there exists a problem of direction: should the number of level be greater if the situation is more positive or negative? Sometimes greater numbers will give people the feeling of positive but in some situation it is just opposite, for example, the class of cabin. Such phenomenon may rooted in some historical or social tradition or because of the difference of people’s perception.
OK, then how to reduce the trouble of quantitative classification? I think there are several points that needs designers’ attention. First method is to use more text. A good example is the classification in airplane: we have first-class, business class and economical class. Thus, for example, the cold-catching index can be turned to”easy to catch cold”, “ possible to catch cold” and “normal”. Presenting in color is also a great idea, color is broadly used in such as weather map or terror alert level.
If we have to use numbers, I have two suggestions: 1. keep it the same as the international standards or custom. 2. If there is no universal principal, then it would be better to do some user test to determine from which interpretation will the users get an easier acceptance and better understanding.
Number is just a very tiny detail in usability design, but it still result in bunch of problems. As a designer, we must be sensitive and vigilant to this details.
2 comments:
I think you bring up a really good point that can be applied to many other aspects of human life -- namely, information without context is mostly useless. Numbers are a particularly good example because making numbers useful is actually a pretty involved process when you think about it.
First of all, numbers need units. Saying that the temperature is 20 is meaningless, and worse it can be misleading. 20 degrees C is much different that 20 degrees F. Sometimes we even have to invent the units, as in your example of hotels being rated in "stars." Even so, this is still not useful information. We need to know how many and how few stars a hotel can have. A four star hotel is a dump if it's 4 out of 100 stars. That same hotel is looking pretty good if it's 4 out of 5 stars, however.
The craziest thing is that we apply all this abstraction to measure things when it's not even the number that's important. Do I care if it's 40 degrees F outside, or do I really just want to know if I need a coat? Likewise, how do I know that a 4 star hotel will suit me? Maybe I would just much rather know that it's comfortable enough for the money.
I think this relates to an important design decision. As engineers we are bombarded with numbers, numbers, numbers. But what really has meaning, and what are the users of our designs really looking to know?
Good post Chen.
This is an interesting point, Chen.
I have a feeling that the style of the numbering system might depend upon how extreme situations can be defined. For instance, in the case of learning piano, the worst-at-piano end of the spectrum is very well defined - having no experience whatsoever. The best-at-piano end of the spectrum is a little more fuzzy, though. People studying piano might want simply to improve, rather than reach some qualitative goal point. Because the starting point is defined and the ending point isn't, the starting point gets called level one.
Students of Japanese have a similar starting point (not knowing Japanese), but there is a commonly established goal (fluency). Both points are defined here, but the focus is on the common goal, so fluency is described as level one.
On an airplane, there isn't necessarily an extreme top or bottom end of the spectrum of passenger, but the passengers in the front of the plane might want to believe that they are at the "best" end of the spectrum, with everyone else below them. There can be an infinite number of levels below them, but the numbering scheme doesn't allow for anything better than first class.
Can anyone think of examples where level one isn't associated with the end of the spectrum that is best-defined or a common goal?
Post a Comment