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.

Adaptive Path’s Kumi Akiyoshi blogged a quick piece about the visual design of Aurora. I really love the exploratory designs that were created before deciding on the one we saw in the videos. I don’t necessarily love all of the features within them, but it is so important to create multiple design options before settling on the one that will be developed.

A visual design option for Adaptive Path’s Aurora, by Kumi Akiyoshi

Another design option (see more)

These examples show different options for the visual design, but you can generate ideas for anything you design. I do this all the time when I’m designing exactly how a feature will work. Anyway, go check out Kumi’s post. There’s lots more to see.

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.

Hello neglected blog readers. Just thought I’d let you know that I participated in A List Apart’s annual Survey for People Who Make Websites.

If you make websites, you should too.

Alright, I know, it’s Thursday. Still, we’re cutting ourselves some slack this week because tomorrow is a day off. Happy independence day everyone. Enjoy these:

1. 
   
   
2. 
   I know, random, right? Posted by flickr user hhhitshayley

A group of folks from the Indiana University School of Informatics (my alma mater) put together a video for Marty Siegel, my favorite professor. I think the video is great, and says a ton about the impact Marty has had on all of his students:

For those of you who are interested, I make an appearance around the 10:40 mark. Hope you enjoy it!

• Tico Turtle in La Fortuna
• The Costa Rican Army (Ants) carrying leaves & whole flowers
• Howler Monkey (butt)
• Pigs
• Holstein Cows
• Jersey Cows
• Quetzal birds
• Yellow Booby birds
• Dogs
• Lots of strange bugs
• Tilapia fish
• Owl
• Costa Rican Air Force (Vultures)

We’re also on the lookout for:

• Sloths
• Capuchin Monkeys
• Squirrel Monkeys
• More Howler Monkeys
• Colorful Frogs

All animals may apply.

No animals have been hurt in the making of this blog post.

Hola readers, I am writing to you from cloudy (and rainy) Monteverde, Costa Rica. Karen and I just arrived to the country yesterday, and am already having a blast.

It is gorgeous here. The drive to Monteverde was 4.5 hours long and the end was extreeeemly bumpy. We climbed to the top of a mountain on a tiny dirt road. Great stuff. I’ll post pictures when I get home.

Today we toured a cheese factory (great cheese). Tomorrow is a canopy tour. Monday is canyoning near Volcan Arenal. Woo!

More later when I’m on a faster internet connection (hopefully).

(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.

The last few days I’ve been reading Richard Florida’s Who’s Your City? In this book he talks about how populations centers have changed since the rise of the creative class. For the most part, Florida refutes Thomas Friedman’s theories in The World is Flat. Florida believes that where you live still matters, despite today’s advanced communication technologies. I definitely agree with this thesis. One can only do so much over a phone or internet connection. I have had my most rewarding moments in the workplace when I am able to sit and think about something with a coworker on a shared whiteboard.

Florida’s site has a Place Finder survey that attempts to rate which cities you should consider moving to. Here are my results:

1. San Francisco, CA
2. Chicago, IL - My current residence
3. Tel Aviv, Israel
4. New York, NY
5. Los Angeles, CA

I’m not so sure I agree on all counts, but it is quite an interesting result. One that I wasn’t expecting.

Of course, the survey is all self-report, so it’s definitely bound for some level of error. But still…it’s interesting to think about: in this ever so mobile era, where will any of us live a year from now?

If you’d like to take the survey, you can do it right now! Check it out: