Study: Most Children Strongly Opposed To Children’s Healthcare

Thanks, The Onion. Happy Monday everybody.

Jono DiCarlo at Mozilla Labs documented his feelings about user interface design in a great post titled These Things I Believe. While I do not agree with him across the board, he does make some interesting points, and helps guide software developers toward the (great user experience) light. I’ll call out a few of his assertions here:

Software is for humans, not computers

This is the only absolute truth in the world of technology. Software architectures change, programming languages go through cycles of popularity, and code design patterns will be preferred by some over others. At the end of the day, though, the software we build is always being built to help some human be more productive, happy, or both, even if it literally has no user interface. Before building your next piece of software, I implore you to ask yourself how this software will make the world a better place, as Jono suggests.

People use computers to connect with other people

’nuff said. This is the only reason 99% of people use computers at all. (If you’re reading this, you’re probably not part of the 99%. That’s ok though, because you are not your user.)

There’s no such thing as free software

Open Source software is, by and large, really difficult to use. I would never leave my mom alone in a room with Linux, it’s just too cruel. Like Jono says, “Linux is only free if the value of my time is zero.”

The job of the UI Designer is to provide what the users need, not what they say they need

This paradoxical statement succinctly defines what it is that I do for 40+ hours every week. There are various methods that provide clues as to what users really need, other methods that design for those clues, and still other methods that test whether the users’ needs have been fulfilled. What I do at work all day is carry out those methods.

User interface design can be approached scientifically. But usually isn’t.

This is where Jono and I will disagree. He lays out a list of metrics that can bring about statistically significant results when it comes to usability testing software. My clients frequently argue to me that if we drive down the number of clicks in an application it will be easier to use. I don’t care about click counts. I’ve seen well liked software with high click counts, and hated software with low click counts. On top of this, while gathering metrics based on click counts, frequency of use, time on task, error rates, and error frequency may get you some information about your software (which is good), these methods never tell you how to fix the problems. Real world, in-situ usability testing will tell you these problems, and suggest solutions.

It is a sin to waste the user’s time, break the user’s train of thought, or lose the user’s work.

Yup, sin is the right word to use here. Have you sinned lately?

Thanks to Jono for creating this list. Maybe one day I’ll make one of my own.

As your local Interaction Design opinion one-stop-shop, I feel obliged to weigh in on Aurora, Adaptive Path’s newest concept series in collaboration with Mozilla Labs. First off, if you haven’t watched the videos they’ve published so far, do that first:

Aurora (Part 1) from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

Aurora (Part 2) from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

Aurora (Part 3) from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

There are a few more videos on the way, but those should be good enough to kick off a little commentary.

First off, it should be noted that envisionment videos like these have become an often used tool for Interaction Designers. When you’re intent on creating an experience that does not yet exist out in the world, an envisionment video invites viewers to see how people might be impacted by new technologies, and allows technologists to begin to build the future. Bill Buxton describes Envisionment Videos in his already classic Sketching User Experiences:

As their name suggests, these are clips that are created to communicate some holistic view showing an envisioned system in context. Unlike many of the examples that we have seen, they go beyond just presenting a demo. Rather, they usually are built around a narrative that tries to capture a way of working with technology, as opposed to the design specifics of the device itself…Overall, they are very much part of the story-telling tradition of design.” - Bill Buxton

If you’d like some more examples of envisionment videos, I recommend checking out the ones Buxton discusses in his book:

• Sketch-a-move
• Office of the Professional
• Apple Computer’s Knowledge Navigator
• Clearboard

One of my favorite envisionment videos is HP’s Cooltown, which is extremely polished, but a cool look at the “future” nonetheless. Unfortunately, it seems that the concepts in HP’s video have not come to fruition, at least in a way that impacts HP’s wallet. That’s the way of many of these videos, though. They tend to be so forward looking that one company could not hope to build tools to enable all of the concepts in the sketch, at least in the short term. But, the videos can be used as a guide to the company’s long term future. For example, we’re seeing concepts from Apple’s Knowledge Navigator come to fruition only now, many years after the release of the video.

When it comes to long-term vision, I believe that the “just-in-time” philosophy causes Agile methods to fall apart. See, from the Interaction Design point of view, technological innovation occurs to solve big & ugly human problems. Agile methods encourage developers to build the simplest thing that works in the hope that incrementally (and sometimes iteratively) big & ugly human problems will be solved. But the whole solutions to the big & ugly problems are often not the sum of their parts. More often than not, it takes a long-term strategy to solve these issues.

I’m not saying that the Interaction Design and Agile Development points of view are too incongruous to come to terms. Quite the opposite, in fact. Long-term visioning Interaction Designers and just-in-time Agile developers should be able to come together to solve those big & ugly human problems, but must agree that their day-to-day goals are not the same. I’ve seen too many Interaction Designers called in (myself included) to tweak an already developed application’s interface when the entire vision of the product is unclear.

I just returned last night from the Agile 2008 conference, and if there’s anything I learned there, it’s that Interaction Design and Agile Development are friends, not foes. However, we need to work together to understand our separate goals and outputs. At the end of the day, both groups need to be successful if we want to build great software.

So Agilists, let’s think about long-term vision a little bit. Let’s create some quick & dirty visions of the future. Then let’s build the heck out of them.

And finally, to return to Aurora, I simply want to say that I am really enjoying the videos. Is this what the future of the web browser will really look like? If the other videos I mentioned are any indication, probably not. Still, there are some fantastic concepts packed into those short videos, and we have a lot to learn from them. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of those concepts do see the light of day, and at the same time I won’t be holding my breath.

(If you’re reading this from a feed reader, you’ll want to jump to my site so you can see the images.)

Today I want to talk about something a bit academic. More of a thinking game than anything else. I chose to start with Graphic Design because, well, it seems a bit more established as a field than Interaction Design and I think there’s a lot we could learn from them.

In two-dimensional graphic design, a core set of elements have been defined to specify the designer’s most basic toolset. These three elements can be combined to create a rich array of visual objects that give the designer near limitless options. Let me explain visually:

Consider the Point

A Point simply denotes a position in space. Many points in space can show contrast, and from an appropriate height will tend to show texture. This is the most basic of the basic graphic design elements. But oh so much can come of this simple dot.

Many Points Make a Line

If a Point is made the first time a piece of chalk is touched to a chalkboard, then a Line is created as that chalk is dragged across the surface. That Line is an infinite chain of Points, or the connection between two starting and ending points.

Lines create Shape

Moving the chalk perpendicularly to the original line creates an intersection. Multiple intersections eventually create shape. That is, when multiple Lines are strung together, they take Shape. Shape is where we begin to embrace the power of visual imagery. People will create meaning out of multiple shapes strung together, and the meaning that is elicited is the core goal of Graphic Design.

Where are my elements?

Of course, this is by no means all a Graphic Designer must know to be successful. This is just the start. In Part 2 of this series I’ll consider Dan Saffer’s Elements of Interaction Design. Prepare yourself for that.

And she’s right. I haven’t uploaded pictures in a long time. I’ve slowly stopped putting myself out there, up on the web. I don’t know why. Mostly I think it’s because I’ve been busy. I’ve been spending far too much time on planes. And at work. My brain has just spent too much time running.

I need to idle. I’m ready for a break. In 3 weeks Karen and I leave for Costa Rica. We’re not running away (this time). For now we’re just off for a quick vacation. Any recommendations? We’re looking for good stuff to do.

I’m home this week. It feels good so far. It feels like a real change of pace. Part of me just wants to stay here indefinitely. Travel is hard on the body and soul, and I’m in need of some repair.

Look out for some more substantive posts. Soon enough, my friends, soon enough. Tide yourself over with my sister’s adventures throughout the middle east.

Counting Crows via Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers via The Byrds:

So you wanna be a rock & roll star? Well listen now to what I say: Just get an electric guitar, take some time, and learn how to play.”

Well, when you put it that way, it seems pretty simple really. Now I should go take this inspiration & do something with it…

“You’ll be bothered from time to time by storms, fog, snow. When you are, think of those who went through it before you, and say to yourself, ‘What they could do, I can do.’”

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Wind, Sand, and Stars, 5

No deeper applicable meaning, just thought it was a good quote.

So often we assume that the problems we are solving for are “pure”, even if they are somewhat complex. The images we see in advertisements help this base assumption survive, and so we don’t think to go a little deeper in our analysis of a problem before we jump right in to offering a solution.

The things we see in an Ikea showroom assume “pure” use patterns

But problems in the real world are almost always more complex than we can initially imagine. Deep down, we all know this. Our actions and activities are filled with complexities that we rarely think about. Real patterns of use are never represented the same way as they are on the Ikea showroom floor. We all accidentally leave books on the table…to the disappointment of those we live with. Sometimes it helps to look at an extreme case. Check out Possessed, a video about people who suffer from Hoarding:

POSSESSED from Martin Hampton on Vimeo.

Sure, these people are an extreme case, and as such they make up a case that is rarely ever considered by Ikea. Still, I’d imagine that there is a little Hoarder in all of us. This is why I recommend that my clients do user research before we begin designing solutions. I want to see the imperfections that exist out there…all the little “tricks of the trade” that people use to get things done. Yup, the real world is messy, but by getting out there and seeing some of the mess, we can design solutions to better support our users.

Here’s what I ate this weekend:

• Homemade Tortellini Primavera
• Fried egg sandwich with chicken sausage and breakfast potatoes at M. Henry
• Double Decker Taco at Taco Bell
• Red curry mussels, Mediterranean salad trio, plus shared Bouillabaisse & Grilled Buffalo Ribeye (steak), and carrot cake at Uncommon Ground
• Cereal with banana at home
• Cinnamon Bun at Ann Sather
• Char Dog with fries at Poochies

I’m STUFFED. This was an excellent food weekend. My favorite meal was at Uncommon Ground…but you really just can’t go wrong there. Ahh Chicago…

I think I partially made up for all the eating with a nice run this afternoon.

One of my little delights in life comes when I see a website or tool that I use has been refreshed. This morning, I was surprised to notice that LinkedIn has a new look. Check it out:

There’s a nice entry up on the LinkedIn Blog that talks about the three major changes:

1. System Navigation
2. Profile Snapshot
3. Customizable Widgets Panel

Of course, I don’t think the redesign can really be summarized by these 3 independent features. The fact is that the site has a completely new feel, and I doubt if you asked an everyday user what changed since yesterday they certainly would not list those three items. Instead, they would likely remark about the sweeping changes overall…then they would perhaps notice the feature changes.

Fighting the Backlash

Redesigns like this can be extremely challenging to implement for a company like LinkedIn. Not so much in the sense that they’re difficult to build technically, but for the backlash that is sure to follow. Already one user has commented on the blog asking for the ability to access the old version:

I was shocked by the new interface cause I was addicted to former layout for 4 years as I was shocked by the new layout of Office 2007 … I’m still using Word 2003.

So … Is it possible to have for some time to come (3 or 4 months) the choice to switch on and off the new interface.”

Carmelo Cutuli
Technomanager
www.cutuli.it

I never really understood the mentality that one would want to switch back and forth between old and new versions of a tool in order to learn the new one. So often in the physical world we leave our old junk behind, like when we trade in an old car for the updated model. But I guess that’s the difference between physical and digital: if you really wanted the old version back you’d be able to get it. Alternatively, there’s no way to get the old version of LinkedIn back. It’s completely gone (until LinkedIn decides to give access to it).

I’ve often thought about whether it would be possible to truly incrementally release design changes like the ones LinkedIn did. If they released small changes each week, would it have the same desired effect? I doubt it. Sometimes you just need to release a new design upon the world…it is jarring to some, but others will be impressed.

Count me in among the impressed. Well done, LinkedIn.

View Josh’s LinkedIn Profile