Training Isn’t Always the Answer

This post originally appeared in the now-defunct Central Texas Instructional Design blog on this date.

I was recently working with a client who wanted training to change the behavior exhibited by users of a custom application. The application presented three sets of color-coded choices. I was told, “We want the users to present the green options in almost every case. When those aren’t appropriate for some reason, they should present the yellow ones. But only rarely—when the green and yellow aren’t suitable—should they present the red ones.”

“So what are they doing now? Are they only presenting the green options?” I asked.

“Right. Why is that?”

These three colors—green, yellow, and red—are so embedded in American culture that we automatically assign meaning to them.

• Green means go. Anything colored green must be the action we should take.
• Yellow means caution. Users assumed that they were being cautioned against using the yellow options.
• Red means stop. Users assumed that these were things they were being told not to do despite screen instructions to the contrary.

I suggested that my client could save time and money by changing the color coding instead of trying to reprogram a cultural imperative. Even if successful, the training would have to be repeated periodically as new people were brought into the organization. Although I am no expert on the psychology of color, I suggested using green, light green, and blue-green backgrounds for the choices.

Instead of paying for training development and delivery and lost productivity while staff was in training, my client had a web master change three classes on a style sheet and send a note explaining why.