Scary Pictograms - Emotional Context of User-System Interaction
An observation: Pictograms that fuel negative emotions
During a recent visit to the dentist, I noticed a pictogram on one of the doors. (That’s one of those moments when the built in camera of your mobile phone comes in handy.)
Thankfully, I’m not afraid of going to the dentist – otherwise I think I would have been in (emotional) trouble. It’s interesting to see, that even seemingly simple, and more or less abstract, pictograms can have a significant emotional impact under certain circumstances. As for the dentist situation, it is quite charged with emotions (negative ones) for a lot of people. In these situations, a pictogram like the one in the picture is likely to fuel these negative emotions even further; people seem to have a tendency to attend to stimuli that match their current mood and also to interpret them in an “appropriate†way (consistent with their emotional state). For those who want to google: “Anxiety-congruent attention†or “Mood-congruent memory†are two starting points.
Physical and emotional context
For the larger usability perspective, this proves again, that usability is not inherent to an item per se. Instead, usability is always defined regarding the context of use. For the pictogram in the example, it may be effective and efficient in conveying what is done in the room behind the door, but it may certainly not be (emotionally) satisfying for some people. A pictogram that conveys the same message in a less frightening way would score higher usability-wise. The example also shows, that context means more than just work context, office layout, noise level etc. It also includes emotional context, i.e. the current mood, or emotional state of users. When designing pictograms, icons or interfaces in general, the focus is often on clarity. Which is very important of course. A design that the user cannot interpret correctly is worthless. But it may be worthwhile thinking about the emotional context in which the design will be used, even if “used†simply means “looked atâ€Â. Not all cases may be as obvious as the example given above. But still, contexts that are “emotionally charged†may exist in which the design will interact in a significant way with the mood of users (or perceivers, respectively) that goes beyond simply being “pleasing to the eye†or not.
Example: emotional context in case of public terminals used by middle-aged and older users
Imagine doing a usability test for one of those terminals that are located in supermarkets and that serve for redeeming bonus points that one collects during shopping. The user group consists of a large proportion of middle-aged and older men and women, a lot of whom tend to feel insecure or even anxious when interacting with such a system. When such a terminal is used, the context includes other shoppers walking by and generally a lot of people being around. Regarding physical context, maybe facts like lighting or noise level should be considered for design and evaluation. But regarding the emotional context, users feeling insecure and being aware of bystanders who could witness the user being “too stupid†to interact with the system can influence system perception and usage: users’ senses for anything that confirms their anxiety are sharpened. This should be considered during design and usability testing to avoid creating an interface that is clearly understandable but whose usability is suboptimal, nonetheless, because users feel insecure or even threatened by using it.
Options for providing extra comfort for users and why to do it
Measures to counter the potential anxiety while using such a system could, e.g., be friendly icon design (maybe even “funnyâ€Â* icon design – in contrast to a very matter-of-fact icon design) and excellent error prevention and tolerance of the system in form of informative feedback, useful contextual help etc. Even when a “standard†usability test shows that users have little problems with the system, those measures could give them the extra comfort they need for feeling safe during interaction – even when younger bystanders are looking over their shoulders. (Sometimes being sure that help is there provides confidence, even if one does not make use of it.) This may have an important influence on whether users interact with the system from time to time when they cannot avoid it or if they like using it whenever the occasion arises.
* disclaimer: humour in interface design is a factor that must be handled with extreme care and that would be well worth a post of its own.
