The Goldilocks Principle and usability testing

The “just right” idea lends itself very well to usability tests as a tool for iterating your interface designs.  Sorflaten asserts that the “just right” mindset frees designers from fear and judgments that can be hang-ups during the user interface design process.  “Abandon hope for a linear, premeditated path of reasoning to solutions” (humanfactors.com) during usability testing.  Instead, designers should let go of their unyielding, pre-conceived notions about how a design should look as an end product or what a problem solution set should be (in other words finality based on  the polar extremes), and just trust in the present process that unfolds during the usability test.  This mindset will enable designers to “test, iterate, and test until it’s just right” (humanfactors.com).

Balancing the present and the future

Staying in the present moment can often be a scary thing for designers—so much of a user interface design’s success hinges upon organization and good preparation, in other words, constantly looking towards and planning for the future.  Applying the Goldilocks principle will not  force designers to abandon planning and structure; when used properly, it can allow them to operate within a space of freedom and flexibility during the usability testing phase, fostering intuitive and free iterations that work in tandem with hypothesized problems and solutions .  Being mindful of both planning and the present process creates the sort of balance that defines the Goldilocks principle. It is what will ultimately make the user interface “just right.”

In case you are not familiar with the children’s story Goldilocks and the Three Bears it goes something like this: Goldilocks finds the three bears’ home abandoned and decides to go in and try out their beds and porridge.  There are three beds and three bowls of porridge and when she tries them they are either too hard or too cold, too soft or too hot, or just right.  So the whole message of the story is finding balance within polar extremes, finding what is “just right”.  Well this silly little story has engendered a scientific theory, the Goldilocks Principle, which can also be applied to user interface design according to John Sorflaten of Human Factors International (humanfactors.com).

The Goldilocks Principle

The Goldilocks Principle (also known as the Goldilocks Enigma) has its roots in science, specifically astrophysics.  Paul Davies, professor of physics at Arizona State University, coined the concept in his 2007 book “The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?”  In the book, Davies claims that certain universal fundamental physical constants are exactly in sync to make life on planet Earth possible. Thus, we have won a “cosmic jackpot,”— as Goldilocks would say, the conditions are “just right” for life.   This idea has spawned the Goldilocks Principle, which means “that something must fall within certain margins, as opposed to reaching extremes” (Wikipedia.com).  It is all about finding an equilibrium that avoids extremes.

Usability is one of the foundation stones of UX design, but as a concept and a design method it does not come without limitations. One of the main complaints offered by critics against usability is its inability to inspire a deep sense of interest and desire within users relative to the employment of a particular interface design.  Of course the fact that a user interface is well organized and structured (in other words usable) usually makes it, in most cases, popular, but it is not usability design alone that compels users to seek out and maintain a relationship with a given interface design.  For that, designers are learning that there needs to be a certain level of enjoyment and fun for the user. The notion of using fun and enjoyment to compel users is encapsulated by the relatively new design concept desirability.

Since interface designers are usually creating websites or applications with the end users in mind, it is only natural for designers to want to offer users the opportunity to customize.  In theory, it should make interface designs more attractive to users if they can infuse them with their own flair, a bit of their personality.  Google offers users the ability to customize their homepage, and many other websites (Yahoo, Pageflakes) offer customization options, too.  But is this really good for usability? The answer is a definite “maybe”. It really depends on the circumstances.  User interface customization can benefit both businesses and users if it is feasible and implemented properly.  But user interface customization can also be disastrous if a lot of time, money, and resources are invested on it only to find that users are rarely, if ever, using it.  Disastrous is not meant to imply that users will abandon the web site altogether —the disaster is the amount of time and resources wasted in creating and implementing something that is not used.

Customization versus Personalization: High risk and low risk

If you plan to use user interface customization there are two main ways of doing so:

•    Customization: Customization means the user actively tells the computer what features it wants to customize.  The user chooses the settings. An example of this is when a user chooses to have the weather of their hometown displayed on a new website each time they visit that site. Or setting a persona on the user’s browser window.

•    Personalization: Personalization means that the computer customizes the interface design based on its predictions about the current user’s interests and behaviors.  An example of this is when an eCommerce site suggests products a user might be interested in based on the user’s previous purchases or adjusts certain contents within the interface design based on the user’s profile or actions.