A few years ago, a research study ‚Äď purportedly from Cambridge University ‚Äď grabbed quite a bit of attention. The study said that the order of letters within words was really not so important to reading. Just to reinforce the point, the email that circulated the Internet included a dramatic demonstration, something like the following:
...In fact, sentences in whcih lettres aer transpsoed (or jubmled up), as in the setnence you are now raeding, aer no more difficult to raed tahn setnencse in whcih teh lettres aer in teh rihgt oerdr...
Readers were convinced. They could read that sentence. It really didn't feel hard. Human brains are amazing, aren't they? Viral marketing took over.
Everybody got the email messages. Psycholinguists and linguists (researchers particularly interested in how language works ‚Äď I'm one) got the email twice a day.
Have you ever had that same experience in the interface design world?
Some sort of a "prevailing wisdom" about what citizens/ consumers/ staff need percolates up. A reasonable-sounding (folk usability) explanation is generated to explain why. Often there is an interesting user anecdote that led to the explanation in the first place.
The usability team ‚Äď sensing a mismatch ‚Äď tries to push back with explanations and similar examples. But the momentum of folk explanations continues to build...
It happens a lot, actually.
One way to deal with a prevailing "received wisdom" is to clearly show that it's not accurate. Typically, this means drawing on existing evidence and (perhaps) extending current theory to show why the naive theory isn't quite right.
When the jumbled words email came out, psycholinguists did that. They tried to fight back against the folk psychology intuition with detailed scientific explanations, invoking well-understood constructs like top-down processing, phonetic neighborhood activation and race-based models of lexical access.
Their alternative explanations were also based in experimental science. They presented logically argued steps leading to an obvious conclusion: the Cambridge study didn't make sense. To no avail. Converts to the Cambridge-order-doesn't-matter-school-of-reading felt they also had "data." They could read the sentence, after all.
Eventually most of the psycholinguists/ linguists/ cognitive scientists (including me) gave up on trying to fix it. When the email arrived (again), they just cringed (again), hit delete (again) and secretly hoped it wouldn't come up (again) at the next family get-together.
The case of the jumbled words has a happy ending, though. Rayner, White, Johnson, Liversedge (2006) stepped up to provide evidence that seems to work to debunk the jumbled words legend for lay people. They report both current eye-tracking studies and previous work (Rayner & Kaiser, 1975) that captures the relative difficulty (or cognitive cost) of reading sentences with words that have
Their work shows that:
The last statement ‚Äď if you make something more complicated to do, it gets harder to do it ‚Äď seems so obvious. So why was it so hard to convince people it's true?
Psycholinguists' attempts to debunk the urban legend didn't work because they provided explanations by cognitive scientists framed for cognitive scientists. In fact, the early counter-explanations are based on solid research. But to draw the right conclusions, listeners had to:
In contrast, the Cambridge study email presented a simple premise with one simple example to back it up. It presented one example in isolation:
If yuo can raed this yuor brian wroks.
Work hard to understand the alternative or accept the explanation that seems obvious because you've experienced it. Which would you choose?
Perhaps psycholinguists would have enjoyed more traction if, instead of offering a mini-lecture on lexical access, they offered the following one counter example with a relative baseline to compare against:
No, really... Which is easier?
a. if oyu nac eadr shti rouy narbi swork.
b. If yuo can raed this yuor brian wroks.
c. If you can read this, your brain works.
Sure, this explanation is less explanatory. But the goal was debunking the jumbled letters myth, not to enlist a new psycholinguist.
Usability professionals fall into the same trap.
Because we are enthusiastic, we try to educate colleagues indiscriminately. We are effusive about affordances and primary noun analyses. We explain why the method used in user-centered design is the right one; how the logic of the interaction works; the gestalt of the visual hierarchy. We present detailed findings of usability tests when, perhaps a single "WOW!" moment from the usability testing highlights tape would do the trick.
Though none of the lessons are about language processing, there are several lessons to be learned from the "Cambridge study"...
Rayner, K., White, S., Johnson, R., Liversedge, S. (2006). Raeding Wrods with jumbled Lettres; There is a cost. Psychological Science 17(3), 192-193.
Rayner, K., & Kaiser, J.S. (1975). Reading mutilated text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 301‚Äď306.
Kath, thanks for addressing this issue. This email has been bugging me for a long time. Your third point, about the "adaptability of people" is the reason poorly designed interfaces are still with us. A very well written article, Ron.
Useful article. Many times in my field, QA Usability Testing, I hear this same argument‚Äď "but the design works", "we can find the information", "it works as designed". Strenuous arguments including logic don't always convince. A couple of examples of ways "they" might have trouble using the interface do work! As my late, great grandma said, "It depends on whose ox is being gored!"
Good article. Dr. Schaffer makes a good point when he relates the jumbled words to business consequences. I think a jumbled interface will have a negative effect on the interface, very unprofessional.
It is interesting having looked into this urban legend, however I approach this theory from a marketing point of view and argue, it's readable and diffferent than what the brain is expecting to see, so it draws the eye. I'd be interested in feedback regarding the theory that because the text is different than what the brain expects, the eye is more likely to be drawn to the text.
That darned language study:
I have actually sent debunking e-mails once or twice. But the debunking e-mail has to be right. The usual version of the "study result" is that as long as you leave the first and last letter of each word in the right place, the order of the other letters does not matter. If you stick to sentences made up of short words, this is quite difficult to disprove with an example ‚Äď with a four-letter word, only one "wrong" spelling is possible. You have to use an example with long words to show that the length of words can have a sacgnnnftiiit [significant] effect on the practical value of the conclusion.
Here's something I agree with violently...
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ‚Äúcookies‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúweb beacons‚ÄĚ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users‚Äô PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ‚Äúdummy‚ÄĚ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users‚Äô experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI‚Äôs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI‚Äôs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant ‚Äėper module‚Äô processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.