Whether it is walking across the street or browsing Web sites on the Internet, we need to know “how” to do something to be able to successfully navigate and perform tasks. Of course, we can and do learn how to perform many novel tasks from scratch, but much of what we do are familiar tasks carried out with few if any changes to our normal way of doing it.
We rely on a certain kind of mental representation of that task domain – one that is procedural and can guide us step by step through it. This type of mental representation is the goal of training and is refined through practice.
But what happens when you are confronted with an entirely new task domain, but you don’t know that and instead assume it is a familiar one? That is where our mental representations can cause confusion or even danger in certain circumstances.
As designers of software, Web sites, or any other type of environment where users interact in a procedural manner to accomplish tasks, we need to understand the nature of this type of mental representation and make sure we support its development to meet the needs of each user in such a manner (e.g., user-centered design) that they can transfer and translate their understanding across similar task domains, such as designing an operating system or word processing interface in a way that promotes bridging of prior knowledge and experience.
To have some fun with this important concept and try to identify it in the context of customer experience, let’s consider the case of a person who can’t make sense of a restaurant setting and winds up not being served.
There is a story about Isaac Bashevis Singer, the Nobel Prize-winning Polish-born author, who upon emigrating to New York City in the mid-20th century came upon a restaurant and sat down waiting for his first meal in the US.
He waited quite a while, all along noticing that many waiters and waitresses were busily walking by his table with trays of food destined for other tables, but no one stopped to take his order.
Out of desperation, he grabbed the arm of one of these people and demanded that his order was taken.
It was only then that Isaac learned that his type of mental representation was inappropriate for explaining how things worked in this restaurant.
Now given that this story takes place in New York City quite some time ago, you may not be able to fully describe what specific type of restaurant Isaac chose, but a more general type that is still popular today would suffice (besides, I will tell you the name of that restaurant in my reply to this post).
Q: What type of restaurant did Isaac choose?
Q: What is the name for this type of mental representation?
When you think you have the answers (or even if you don’t, but are curious), read the comment in reply that I have posted to see the answers to these questions.
See you there,
Doc
Answer to: What kind of restaurant is this?
Q: What type of restaurant did Isaac choose?
A: He chose a cafeteria-style restaurant that was called the Automat (no longer exists as a chain, but there are some related instances – see link below).
No one is served by wait staff, but rather the customers would go up to counters (just as in a cafeteria), but instead of picking food items from a shelf or asking for hot plates from the cooking staff, the customer would have to insert the indicated amount of coins for a particular item that was displayed in a window. When the coins were inserted, the customer would have to turn a knob and then open the small glass door and pull out the food (and close the door). Staff in the kitchen would regularly resupply food items on a large cylinder containing many levels of that food item.
Early automation! 😉
Q: What is the name for this type of mental representation?
A: This type of representation is called a schema. It is a propositional representation of how someone should act in a given context.
Although many sources make the concepts of mental models and schemas equivalent, it is useful to distinguish between them in terms of how we think and act – especially in novel and complex situations (like a new computer or software interface).
What makes mental models different from schemas is that the former is a systematic view of a domain whereas the schema is a plan for action. When mental models are executed to solve a problem, one or more schemas may be invoked to act upon that systematic understanding for a particular task.
Understanding how users make these representations when using computers and software is very important in informing design at the earliest stages of defining the problem space right through evaluating design prototypes.
“A map is not the territory” – and though there are limits to our knowledge, our mental models and schemas are what we use to make sense of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation
If a mental model were a map of a given domain, then a schema would be the “driving” directions for navigating it.
Here is a link to an online article entitled, Mental Models and Usability:
http://www.lauradove.info/reports/mental%20models.htm
Has your schema of a given domain ever been mismatched like Isaac’s or otherwise insufficient? Your thoughts on the use of schemas (and/or mental models) in what you (or users) do are welcome in reply.
Thanks,
Doc
German Automatic Restaurant
Thanks Doc for helping me gain a better grasp in the difference between mental models and schemas. I have had many instances like Isaac but one that came to mind in particular is switching between Mac and PC. For years my home and work computers had been PC. Then our school system switched to Macbook. It took me a little bit to adjust my “map” and “driving directions” however now I enjoy my Mac so much that I would have difficulty with the PC systems and programs. At the school where I teach students are accustomed to using the My Big Campus platform for learning. However, they take an online class in a program called Moodle. This class has not been transferred to the new platform yet and when the kids get started in the class teachers have to give students a new schema so they can navigate this platform and class successfully.
Thanks Beth, for sharing two excellent examples of how we use mental models and schemas at work and in a learning (and teaching) context. Sharing this understanding with learners and guiding them in forming useful mental models and schemas can keep them from the equivalent of “waiting for waiters in an Automat!”