DesignAday

My name is Jack Moffett. I am an Interaction Designer with over ten years of experience. According to Herb Simon, that makes me an expert, so I must have something worth sharing. I have started this venture as an exercise to spur critical thinking about my chosen profession. I hope that others may find it thought provoking as well.

DesignAday will present a brief thought about Design every weekday.
Apr 30
Permalink

Select What?

Before I left for Japan, I added AT&T’s international roaming to my mobile plan. After selecting the services that I wanted to add (voice, SMS, and data), I was presented with this screen.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why the instructions are to select an “Effective/Expiration Date”, rather than just an effective date. This step is to pick the date that the service starts. You don’t pick an expiration date. There is a big difference between selecting a start date and an expiration date. If you take the label beside the radio button literally, you would think that it was going to start and expire on the same day. The first time I went through the process, I assumed that the service would expire automatically at the end of my billing period. That, of course, didn’t happen, and I had to call them to have them remove it retroactively. I bet they could significantly reduce customer support calls by changing the wording on this screen.

Comments (View)
Apr 09
Permalink

Oh no they didn’t!

I assumed the headline was tongue-in-cheek link bait. Wired would know better than to publish something so mind-numbingly stupid. “Car Tech Isn’t Failing. Owners and Infotainment Interfaces Are”. That has to be a joke, right? What’s the date on this article? No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day joke, and it’s not from 1996.

The gist of the article is that computer systems in cars have become very reliable—very few software bugs are reported. This apparently means, then, that any problems drivers have using the infotainment systems are due to their own stupidity. It’s the user’s fault.

Really?

Here are a few quotes from the article that blew my head gasket:

Reynier [owner of a small interactive design agency] admits that “it’s definitely user error. I never have the idea that something is broken.”

While investigating whether the current explosion of automotive technology will cause owners of a [sic] late-model cars to visit a shop more often, everyone we spoke with agreed that he [sic] biggest failure with in-car technology has little to do with vehicle systems and more to do with owners.

“The hardware itself is really pretty bulletproof,” Kato adds. “It’s very robust and reliable. Occasionally we’ll get a bad hard drive or a bad screen. We are having challenges, but it has less to do with the components of the vehicle and more with dealing with customers on how to properly pair their phones.”

And what is the solution to this problem? Is it to improve the usability of the user interfaces? Is it to make sure that the software is not becoming a distraction to the driver, giving them very clear choices that require little thought and minimal attention? No, apparently the solution is to educate drivers on the correct way to use the software. They’re stupid, remember?

To address this problem, luxury brands like Cadillac, Lexus and BMW are staffing dealerships with dedicated tech support specialists, and even everyman automaker Chevy recently doubled its “connected customer specialist” staff stationed around the country from 25 to 50.

Here’s a better idea: automobile manufacturers should pull their heads out of their gas tanks and, instead of doubling their support staffs, hire interaction designers to improve their software. Address the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms. But I wouldn’t recommend hiring Reynier’s firm.

And while I’m at it, here’s some free advice for Wired. Hire a proofreader, and have Doug Newcomb read some articles on Co.Design or Boxes and Arrows.

Credit: Dan Saffer get’s the blame for initiating this tirade.

Comments (View)
Sep 05
Permalink

In the Details: Too Simple

I’ve written about simplification many times in the past. Here’s a perfect example of simplifying an interface to a fault.

In Mac OS X Mountain Lion, iCal was subject to several changes. It’s alarms have been integrated with the new Notification Center. Previously, when an alert displayed for an iCal alarm, it included the option to set a snooze period. I might set an alarm to go off 10 minutes before a teleconference, but then set it to snooze for 5 minutes when it goes off. The new alerts, however, only provide a Snooze button. There is no way to specify the length of time, nor does it tell you how long it will snooze. I pressed the Snooze button once just to find out how long it would go. It’s a fifteen-minute snooze. That’s rather long. I doubt I’ll use it very often.

Certainly, calendar alerts have been simplified. The user doesn’t have to select a time period from a menu. It’s a binary decision: close it or snooze. But in this case, simplification is a red herring. It doesn’t save time if I puzzle over its behavior. It’s not easier to use if it isn’t useful.

Comments (View)
Jun 19
Permalink

User Interface Disasters

Most of the work I’ve done in my career has been on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense. The rest has been in major industries like oil and gas production or automobile servicing. It’s all very serious work, and there can be serious consequences when something doesn’t work the way it should. John Hillabin wrote an interesting article on Cracked.com titled 6 Disasters Caused by Poorly Designed User Interfaces. Despite the author’s snide attitude, the presented examples are quite sobering. The article acts as a good introduction to the topic, and I’d encourage you to explore the sources that the author links to, as they provide much more discussion, detail, and additional examples.

You’ll find similar examples in Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things, such as the tale of Lockheed L-1011 on page 44, Korean Air Flight 007 on page 129, and two more on  page 130. It also reminded me of one of Bruce Tognazzini’s posts from June of ’99: When Interfaces Kill: What Really Happened to John Denver.

Interaction design isn’t just about iPhone apps and internet shopping. There are critical systems that are in serious need of good design. It isn’t sexy work, and I’ll never get to present it at a conference, but it sure is making for an interesting and fulfilling career.

If you are interested in this type of career, get in touch. We’re currently trying to fill a couple positions in the D.C. area.

Comments (View)
Apr 25
Permalink

Simplify

My wife needed to make two copies of a DVD that I had created for her from an old VHS tape. She spent some amount of time finding the original video project I had created in iMovie and was trying to figure out what she needed to do to get it into iDVD so that she could burn the discs. I wasn’t home, but she called me to ask for assistance. I knew there was an easier way, but I wasn’t going to try to figure it out over the phone, so I told her to wait until I got home.

  1. Right-click on the DVD and select Duplicate.
  2. Once the copy is done, insert a new DVD, right-click on the copy, and select Burn to Disc.
  3. There’s no step 3.

It wasn’t all that long ago that you required specialized software to do that. I’m quick to point out that simplification is not always a good goal—some things are inherently complex, in which case we should strive for clarity. But, sometimes simplification is the perfect goal.

Comments (View)
Dec 14
Permalink

Design Vocabulary: Learnability

Having written about both Discoverability and Findability, I feel obligated to address Learnability as the next vocabulary term.

Learnability is not a term specific to Interaction Design. Dictionaries will provide definitions such as “the condition of being learnable” and “the ease with which something can be learned.” That’s clear enough, but the term does have more specific meaning when used in the context of Interaction Design. Here’s a definition from Usability First’s glossary:

a measure of the degree to which a user interface can be learned quickly and effectively. Learning time is the typical measure. User interfaces are typically easier to learn when they are designed to be easy to use based on core psychological properties, and when they are familiar. Familiarity may come from the fact that it follows standards or that the design follows a metaphor from people’s real world experience.

Tristan Louis breaks learnability down into five components:

  1. familiarity
  2. consistency
  3. generalizability
  4. predictability
  5. simplicity

While I would consider learnability to be a component of usability, it is often discussed in contrast to usability. For example, Jeff Atwood’s article, Usability vs. Learnability, quotes a passage from Joel Spolsky’s book, User Interface Design for Programmers:

It takes several weeks to learn how to drive a car. For the first few hours behind the wheel, the average teenager will swerve around like crazy. They will pitch, weave, lurch, and sway. If the car has a stick shift they will stall the engine in the middle of busy intersections in a truly terrifying fashion.

If you did a usability test of cars, you would be forced to conclude that they are simply unusable.

This is a crucial distinction. When you sit somebody down in a typical usability test, you’re really testing how learnable your interface is, not how usable it is. Learnability is important, but it’s not everything. Learnable user interfaces may be extremely cumbersome to experienced users. If you make people walk through a fifteen-step wizard to print, people will be pleased the first time, less pleased the second time, and downright ornery by the fifth time they go through your rigamarole.

Sometimes all you care about is learnability: for example, if you expect to have only occasional users. An information kiosk at a tourist attraction is a good example; almost everybody who uses your interface will use it exactly once, so learnability is much more important than usability. But if you’re creating a word processor for professional writers, well, now usability is more important.

Now, I get what Joel is saying here, but I don’t believe he has his terminology quite right. I think he is using learnability where he should be using intuitiveness, and that may just have to be my next Design Vocabulary entry. If you sit somebody down in front of a UI for the first time, you will be testing how intuitive it is to use. If you want to test for learnability, I suggest that the test must be repeated over a number of sessions. Michael Wilson corroborates this claim in his informative article on the subject, When is Learnability More Important than Usability? That said, intuitiveness could really be considered as the ultimate achievement of learnability: the shortest possible learning time.

Michael also lists the factors that will most likely result in a user spending the time required to learn a given user interface:

  1. Importance
  2. Frequency
  3. Cost
  4. Alternatives
  5. Simplicity

All of these cited articles are useful in understanding learnability, but Justin Mifsud has the most complete perspective. In The Difference (And Relationship) Between Usability And Learnability, he explains that many writers “tend to over-emphasize on highlighting the distinction, yet they fail to discuss the relationship that exists between usability and learnability.” He goes on to site definitions put forth by IEEE and ISO, which classify learnability as a sub-characteristic of usability, on par with understandability, operability, and attractiveness, as well as Jakob Nielsen and Ben Schneiderman’s classification, which lists learnability as one of five parameters that define usability, its siblings being efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction.

Comments (View)
Sep 27
Permalink

Another Norman Door

We all know about Norman doors. If you don’t, stop reading my blog, and get yourself a copy of The Design of Everyday Things. Do it now!

My company moved into a new office building this morning. Our restrooms are single-use, so there are locks on the doors. In one day, there were multiple cases of the restrooms being locked while nobody was using them. The following memo had to be sent out to all employees.

This was something discovered today, so I thought I’d share it as it might affect restroom access.

  1. If you push the lock button in, the door locks. Turning the handle opens the door and unlocks it.
  2. If you turn the lock button, the door locks. Turning the handle opens the door, but it remains locked.

If option 2 happens and the door gets shut from the outside, a key will be required to enter the room again.

The lock visually affords twisting, behaving as locks I’ve encountered repeatedly in the past. Some door handle designer must have thought that this two-stage lock was a great idea. I can’t think of a good use case for it. A public restroom certainly isn’t one.

Comments (View)
Sep 08
Permalink

Tales from the Field: Learning the Hard Way

How can a multi-year, million dollar plus project get cancelled just before the product is deployed in the field?

  1. The client won’t allow contact with actual users. “We know what they need.”
  2. Requirements are dictated by one group of stakeholders while the needs of others are ignored.
  3. Multiple versions of the product are implemented without any type of user testing being performed.

The end result of this perfect storm may be a product that meets all of the contractual requirements, but it won’t actually fulfill the needs of the people that have to use it.

Comments (View)
Sep 20
Permalink

Norman Door

In the preface to the 2002 edition of The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman waxes philosophically about his legacy. He’s known for bad doors. Well, here’s another one. Doors like this one are found around WVU’s campus. The group that resides behind this one got tired of people not being able to figure out how to open the door, so they made a sign.

Comments (View)
Aug 03
Permalink

No, your users won’t thank you!

Many times have I heard a designer proclaim, “Do X, and your users will thank you for it.” Replace ‘Do X’ with any of the following:

  • Get bold text right…
  • Suppress the background for the body element in your print stylesheet…
  • Avoid unfriendly URLs…
  • Write descriptive link text…
  • Keep it simple and to the point…
  • Include meaningful, contextual error messages…
  • Use Verdana instead of Arial…

“…and your users will thank you for it.”

No. No they won’t. If you do your job well as a designer, your users won’t even notice what you have done. They won’t give your link text or font choice a second thought. They’ll go about their business, and at best, they may think, “Well, that was easy.” 

Comments (View)