Usability & Interaction Design Failures

← Back to Domain-Specific Families

Abstractions about how interfaces succeed or fail for users, including accessibility and Fitts's Law, biases like distinction bias, and specific failure modes such as mode errors, touch-target misses and progressive-disclosure breakdowns.

13 abstractions in this family — domain-specific abstractions that sit near one another in structural-signature space (k-means over structural-signature embeddings). Each is shown with its short description.

• Accessibility — The design commitment to keep a system perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust for the full distribution of intended users including the sensory, motor, cognitive, and infrastructural tails — by designing to those tails rather than to the median.
• Discoverability Failure — Diagnose why a working feature goes unused: the capability exists and functions perfectly, but no signal on any surface the user samples announces it, so the user's option set is bounded by the visible interface and the feature is operationally nonexistent.
• Distinction Bias — Overweight attribute differences between options evaluated side by side relative to the weight those differences carry when each option is met alone, so preferences formed at the point of choice (joint mode) overpredict the utility actually experienced in use (separate mode).
• Fitts's Law — Predict how long an aimed reach takes as a logarithmic function of target distance over target width — MT = a + b·log₂(2D/W) — treating the movement as transmission across a finite-throughput motor channel.
• Microcopy Ambiguity — The HCI failure where a terse interface label admits more than one reading, so the user decompresses it against a prior different from the designer's and acts correctly on the wrong interpretation.
• Mode Error — The interaction failure in which the same user action is interpreted differently by a system depending on a hidden mode the user does not perceive — the user acts correctly for the mode they believe is active, and the system, in the actually active mode, does something else.
• Progressive-Disclosure Failure — Diagnose an interface's usability breakdowns as a single mistuning between its staging schedule and the readiness of the users and tasks it actually meets, read off by whether too much is hidden or too much exposed.
• Robust Accessibility — Author web content so its load-bearing meaning lives in structural markup and the accessibility tree rather than in presentational accidents, so any current or future assistive technology — including ones the author cannot test against — can recover the intent through the same shared API.
• Screen-Reader Ambiguity — An interface's visual structure carries semantic information never encoded into the machine-readable accessibility tree, so an assistive-technology user — navigating only that projection — encounters an interface stripped of the organization a sighted user relies on.
• Steering Law — An empirically calibrated human-movement law relating continuous bounded-path traversal time to the integral of reciprocal local corridor width.
• Touch Target Size — The HCI rule that interactive elements be large and well-spaced enough for the operating population's worst-case input precision to hit reliably — grounded in Fitts's Law and codified as platform minimums like 44pt or 48dp.
• Touch-Target Miss — Reclassify a mistyped tap from operator error to interface defect by reading the miss rate off the mismatch between a control's target geometry and the operator population's motor precision — a geometric scan Fitts's Law makes quantitative.
• Walkability — Score how well a built environment supports travel on foot by measuring two conjunctive halves — whether daily destinations sit within walking range and whether the paths between them are safe and continuous — so a low number points at the binding deficit.