Pop-Up

This entry is part 38 of 44 in the series Words

I-am-not-worthyThere is an electronic medical record program (EMR) called DocuTAP that I use at one of my jobs. It’s not bad overall, and it’s the top-rated Urgent Care Center EMR. But, as with every EMR, it can be improved. In many ways.

I just ran across another new way in which it can be improved. This is a small issue, almost trivial. But as we discussed in Kludge, little issues, when they occur frequently, can have major impacts on usability, efficiency, and user satisfaction.

What’s the issue? In a particular circumstance, the computer doesn’t pay attention. It ignores me when. If this happened once or twice, I wouldn’t think too much about it. But since the computer keeps ignoring what I say on a regular basis, I start to think it’s deaf, incompetent, or maybe it’s just being mean. Read the rest of this entry
»

Share

Clicks

This entry is part 39 of 44 in the series Words

Mouse CursorsUser experience (“UX” to the cognoscenti) is a burgeoning field. Used to be we called this computer usability, user interface design or user interaction design. It was focused mostly on software such as word processors, spreadsheets, industrial control software, airplane cockpits, and medical applications. But, given how much money can be made on the web, UX focus is now quite tightly on web usability, particularly e-commerce websites.

Early efforts at assessing usability were crude. For the most part, they are still crude. Early on, usabilitists (I just made that up) would count the clicks needed to perform a task. Cutting down the number of clicks was a simple way to make at least this particular task faster.

But these days, the Web UX community sees “counting clicks” as unbearably primitive and déclassée. As UX grew out of usability and user interaction design, and focused tightly on web-page design, dogma evolved, including “All pages should be accessible in 3 clicks.” But this dogma was later debunked: “Three clicks is a myth.” When people are browsing the web, more than 3 clicks are fine, as long as you continuously have “the scent of information” – that is, your clicks each result in more, and perhaps more specifically useful, information.

Read the rest of this entry
»

Share

Bad Apple

This entry is part 40 of 44 in the series Words

I don’t own, nor have I ever owned, any Apple products. I tell people I’m not cool enough to own anything Apple. Indeed, as I was writing this post, I just also wrote a Windows batch file; very not-cool.Rotten Apple

For a long time, I felt marginalized. But with the latest versions of Android and Windows, I am finally starting to feel a bit more cool. And I like Windows 10—this update brings many subtle interface changes which, taken as a whole, make my computer much more usable.

In a previous post, I discussed skeuomorphism: the attempt to make a computer screen look like a physical object. Apple played with skeuomorphism, some say to excess. User-interaction gurus despise gratuitous skeuomorphism like master Stickley cabinetmakers despise wood-grain vinyl. But Apple finally got away from this, eliminated much decoration and made user interfaces more usable.

Read the rest of this entry
»

Share

Testing

This entry is part 41 of 44 in the series Words

The Federal government has warped the fabric of healthcare. By giving away money. They’ve done this both to doctors’ offices and hospitals, for “meaningful use” of healthcare information technology. You get the money only if you use software that the Feds certified to meet their criteria. This is supposed to get us to rapidly have interoperable, highly-functional and easy-to-use electronic health records. But… yes, there’s always a but.American Flag Waving

One of the Federal electronic health record criteria is that the software has been tested for usability. And there’s the rub.

On February 21, 2012, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published (NISTIR 7804) Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records. This establishes a process for usability testing, the EHR Usability Protocol (EUP):  The EUP is a three-step process … (1) EHR Application Analysis, (2) EHR User Interface Expert Review, and (3) EHR User Interface Validation Testing.

Federally-certified vendors of electronic health records have to use a User Center Design process (UCD), for testing the usability of their software. They must test their software against a minimum of fifteen end-users according to the certification rules. Specifically, they must:

  1. Tell which user-centered design process they used, and if it is not a standard process such as the NIST EHR usability protocol above, provide a detailed explanation of how it works.
  2. Provide user-centered design test results for eight specific different EHR capabilities.
  3. Once the product is certified, make the usability testing reports public, with how many and what kind of users tested the software.

(During this whole blog post and any discussion of the issues raised by it, you must understand that the term “electronic health record” includes other functions of a Hospital Information System, such as computer-based practitioner order entry. Not my definition, but the Feds and in particular NIST seem to think that ordering medications is a function of a medical record system.)

Read the rest of this entry
»

Share

Bold

This entry is part 42 of 44 in the series Words

Sometimes usability is just typography. Or perhaps common sense. Look at the following demographic section at the top of a LabCorp lab report. (Yes, I like to name names. It’s OK: truth is an absolute defense against claims of slander.)

Imagine you’re working in a very busy ED and the follow-up nurse hands you a lab report with this at the top. Quick: How old is this patient? Male or female?

Patient-Details-1

My reaction: AAAARGH! Yes, the reason I picked this example is because it really bothers me. And, because it provides a really good bad example which is excellent for teaching purposes.

Read the rest of this entry
»

Share