Posted on 29th April 2024

The forgotten contexts of technology use

On factory floors, out at sea, in garden offices and cosy cafes, digital devices are used pretty much everywhere you can think. They're used by people of all kinds for a myriad of reasons. In the tech industry we make a lot of noise about researching, designing and optimising our products to meet our users' needs in different environments. But increasingly I've noticed we seem to be forgetting or ignoring some users operating in particular contexts.

Here's a few of the specific groups of people I think we are starting to fail:

Changes to the development frameworks and design systems of digital products used by such people can result in them having to fundamentally change the way they work. Rather than supporting a more diverse range of users and usage contexts, some big tech companies seem to view who they support as a bargaining exercise. As if support for some users must be dropped in favour of support for others. Prioritisation is of course a part of pragmatic working, but in some cases it seems to be being done without sufficient evidence being presented to support it.

When big tech gets it wrong

In Microsoft's new .NET MAUI development platform, the decision was made to remove features to support keyboard users. In specific contexts developers may need to alter the order in which form fields are given focus (using the Tab & Shift-Tab convention). This can be due to a table that should be filled in row or column order first. It may also be required due to a layout the developers are not allowed to change. Allowing developers to control this can even support giving the user themselves the option to change the order in which those form fields are selected, depending on their preference.

In most cases re-designing the form to represent semantic ordering is a better solution. But due to the kinds of constraints designers and developers often have to work with, it's not always possible. Nor might different stakeholders of an existing product agree on the chosen semantic flow.

By removing the existing mechanism for developers to change the keyboard focus ordering, the product owner has made a deliberate choice to force developers to change their apps to continue supporting a significant segment of users. The intention to create a new API to improve accessibility is a noble reasoning, but what is in question is whether this needed to result in removal of an existing feature creating a 'breaking change'. And it doesn't explain why the solution is only partially complete by not taking into account the need to explicitly prevent some form elements from being focusable. Of course budgets may have something to do with it, but I would ask the question - if Microsoft cannot afford to support the most diverse range of users - who can?

We have historically failed those that need assistive technology like screen readers, so I broadly agree with the aims of this change. But this example highlights a lack of connection with the multitude of real people in the real world who use digital products. I wonder whether people making these decisions have ever sat on the end of a tech support line, or met in-person with users aggrieved about the fact that a feature they rely on has been taken away.

Thoughtful design sometimes means making difficult decisions. But I'm not convinced that enough of us genuinely empathise with users, and are consciously aware of the impact of our decisions on them.

In the case of the above example a seemingly well presented argument is made for the changes and yet on examination there is a lot of conjecture doing the heavy lifting. No tangible evidence is presented in the ticket that describes the justification for this change and worryingly the discussion all very inward looking. There is no indication that Microsoft talked directly to any external developers or users about it.

Why it matters and what we can do about it

A cynic might say some big tech companies are increasingly choosing not to prioritise those who they see as using outdated forms of technology or obsolete ways of working, regardless of what proportion of thier users they represent. Or perhaps they just don't care about certain types of user. It could also be that those responsible for decisions made at these companies have never encountered certain users and ways of working in their own careers, so struggle to empathise with them. Or that they aren't doing the necessary research needed to discover and understand thier needs.

As something of an optimist, I favour the last explanation mainly because that holds the key to actually improving the situation.

Take a different example: Designers these days are encouraged to avoid 'hover' (mouse roll-over) actions in products because they don't work on a device with a touch-screen. But if user research highlights that some users find tooltips helpful, we shouldn't remove them or avoid adding them to a product just because of this design tenet. It is possible to have a design that to supports roll-over features like tooltips, but is also optimised in such a way they are not strictly necessary. I would call this a progressive approach, as opposed to a regressive one. I believe we can build apps that support harmonious interactions across all platforms and support many different context of use.

In short, we don't have to make things worse for people who use a keyboard and mouse to make them better for people who use a touch screen. Ultimately we have to move beyond thinking about the 'mobile' vs 'desktop' dichotomy because neither term provides any real information about the context of use. The forgotten contexts of technology use represent real people's lives, not just different types of digital devices and screen sizes.

My advice to anyone in tech who cares about this would be to simply talk to a truly diverse range of real people like end-users, developers and support staff. Talk to your elderly relatives or neighbours about their experiences of tech, talk to your plumber about it, talk to the tech support team, talk to your kids... basically just try to meet and discuss this stuff as much as you can before you make an important decision. And beware the confirmation bias that we are all susceptible to.

If, after all that talking and research, you still have to make a decision that involves a trade-off which inconveniences certain users, please make an effort to present the actual data that supports your rationale.

So far in my limited UX experience, I've been struck how with every user interview or usability test I've carried out, I've always come away with at least one useful piece of insight I never would have gained without this human interaction. Principles and ideology learned from past research and experiences can be useful and informative, but communicating with people directly is actually the key to making sure no-one gets forgotten when you develop technology.