Perception & Illusions: the Moon.

Shouldn't those be the same? An illusion is nothing more than a perception gone wrong. Maybe the most important part is that you will have to discover that your perception is wrong! Otherwise how would you know that what you saw (heard, et cetera) was an illusion?

Ever thought about the moon as an illusion?
No, don't get me wrong, I do not state that the moon is an illusion, no, it does exist, and we do see it, and it's there (at least, I believe it is, since personally I've never been there).
So how can the moon be an illusion?

When you look up at the sky, and there's a moon visible, you'll experience a yellow disc, far away. But if you see the moon somewhere at the horizon, you will see a larger disc. It still is far away, but it seems bigger. That could be the illusion?
In fact, it isn't. The illusions is when you see it up in the sky. At the horizon you see it in its full glory, full size, the real size. Up in the sky? Well, your brain knows that it is far away, very far away, and to experience that, and with no clues (as you have when you see it on the horizon) about its actual size, the brain makes it smaller than it really is.

So the illusion is not what you perceive. What you perceive is correct, there is a moon, and it's far, far away, unreachable for an average person. But, in order to perceive that, you brain delivers an illusion, a smaller moon.


for further explanation: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/20jun_moonillusion.htm

perception & safety again

In Dutch newspapers we find lately quite a lot of news about dogs, mostly about agressive dogs. In Belgium several children are wounded, one even deadly. In Great Brittain also several children are wounded quite seriously. In the Netherlands, apparently there are several regions you don't wanna go for a walk, several cities and villages where it is very unwise to let your children play outside.

So what's the matter here? Are dogs becoming more agressive? Are agressive dogs becoming more popular? Are agressive dogs becoming a 'hot' topic? Are newspaper taken over by 'cat-people'?
How do we perceive dogs? Are we becoming more cautious? And why? The answer: based on what we read, hear and see. Since the dog-news now is appearing on television it apparently is getting a serious problem? Or is it not? And how do we know?

Most crazy article did I read this morning (in "Dagblad van het Noorden" a regional newspaper): "Dogowners often do not know what risks he's taking". The advice is take assurance. Yeah, that does help those children, doesn't it?

Usability and Perception (2)

Usability is still a good thing, and it still is not the same as functionality, but usually when the functionality is well designed a product is easier to use, so we spent a lot of time on the right functionality. But is it wise to do so? Always?

Let’s start with a few examples where usability gets in the way of the product. When I am asked to take a look at a game to improve its usability, what should I do? In a shoot-em-up I could introduce a “Kill All Opponents-button”. Wow, end of game with the highest functionality possible! Or could I come up with an inpenetretable vehicle, some super tank, with an arsenal of weapons, an never-ending powersupply, a.s.o. But where would that leave the game?
A racing game with a super-car, that also has a super automatic pilot, so after a test-lap it would know all perks of the track. In the race I could put my hands behind my head, lean back, and win the race. Wow that would be fun, wouldn’t it?

Hey, what am I telling you here? Usability isn’t such a good idea? Hmm, let’s take a look at another example, because what do people when they can choose freely between a functional and a less functional design?

I live in the Netherlands, which is a bike-country. Lots of people even have more than one bike. One for daily use, one for their free time, weekends, sport, a.s.o. Children cycle to and from school, many employees cycle to their places of work. I go to the station by bike, take a train, and at the end walk to my place of work. When my place of work is moved further away from the station, I will decide whether I will buy a second bike to use in Leeuwarden or a folding bike that I can take with me in the train. And I surely are no exception.

Consider the case that somebody goes from home to work each day by bike, and he or she has to cycle a distance of about 10 kilometers. There are two routes to choose from. One is more or less a straight line, along a highway, it is the shortest way, just under 10 kilometers. The other is on the other side of the same highway, it is little longer because it meanders a bit, passing some trees and bushes, partly around a small lake, a.s.o. Although it is over 12 kilometers long, most people would prefer that for their daily route. Maybe not on a Monday-morning when they overslept, but in general they would prefer the longer route.

Why do people do such things? The answer is simple: because they prefer it. This is very important: People prefer what they like! Seems like kicking in an open door, doesn’t it? Yeah, sure. Then why are not all products designed that way?

Usability and Perception

Is usability a good thing? Quite a question, since this has been the focus of my profession for so many years. It is one of the most important aspects for me as an Interaction Designer. I do like the puzzling involved, the satisfaction when I succeed in combining apparently conflicting elements, especially when in the end people just liked to use my interface.

Unfortunately there always seemed to be a discrepancy between functionality and usability that I never could could lay my finger on. I value the opinions of Jacob Nielsen, I liked to read his books, every two week I read his column with a lot of interest. (subscribe to Jacob's column: the Alertbox at http://www.useit.com)

You probably know that feeling that something is missing and you can't see it, like it's just around some corner in your mind. Strangely enough -with my fascination for perception- I just missed the influence of perception on usability!

Actually there are two kinds of usability, ‘Usability’ (normal or 'straight' usability) and 'Perceived Usability'. And there is a big difference between the two of them. For instance, users are less likely to use an interface which usability is not perceived, compared to an interface where it is. And please note that this does not say anything about the real usability of the interface!

I used to play Roland Synthesizers (I also played others but I do prefer Roland, I like their sound). At one point, at the institute I was working for, I used a quite complex instrument with lots of possibilities, a great sound. I was very much in love with its sound and wanted to buy one for myself. Unfortunately I did not have the money at that time, and afterwards it was too late, they did not make them anymore, it did not sell, because it looked too complex.

You have to understand that a synthersizer is a complex instrument, especially when you can put several layers of sound onto each other. You have to program each layer separately, compare the result of each change, decide whether this is the sound you were looking for (usually not, at least not in the first try), and then you have to decide what to change in what layer, and so on.
Life for a synthesizer-player is so much easier when you have an overview of the settings in each layer. Otherwise it is like planning a complex route on a map, with only one eye, looking through a small tube.

Unfortunately it did sell bad: too many knobs and sliders and things. The next generation synthesizer did have an 'alpha-wheel' and a small screen. It was very hard to use, but it did look simple. So it sold much better. So much for perceived usability!

The perception of Safety

To start with: sorry!
I couldn't imagine what the start of the new academic year would be like! Many changes here, new colleagues who trust me to know everything (I don't), new students, old students, old cases that pop up. This year I also teach first-year students, which is strange, because it means I have to train them to do things in certain ways, while next year I have to tell them to forget I ever said so.... On the other hand I can look into buzz-marketing and viral-marketing, subjects that fascinate me.

Recently I talked with some students about decision making, and how hard it is for us to dedice rationally. All decisions we make seem to be emotional decisions.
Even when we buy expensive objects, our final decision is emotional. If you happen not ot believe me, look at the stats: Last year the sale of cabriolet cars went up about 15%. In the Netherlands..... That small country where it rains every other day. Very rational, huh....

Even more illustrative is our perception of safety. Most people I know drive a car (except me, I even don't have a license). Everybody is happy that cars are so much safer to day, with airbags, ABS and stuff like that. "Every airbag enhances the safety of the vehicle."
But does it?

The safest car I can imagine would be a car that never would be in an accident. You have to agree on that, don't you?
So which car is hardly ever involved in an accident, and which car is at the top of the list?
Well, I am afraid that at the top of the list are cars that do have airbags as wel as ABS, underneath that are cars that have either airbags or ABS....
Apparently all those systems make us go faster a little bit.
So, in fact, all those systems that are meant to make us safer, actually are the source of more accidents.
So which cars in fact are the safest? Well, one that was hardly ever involved in an accident was the Citroën 2CV (Citroen Deux-Chevaux, 'the tin snail', 'the duck' or 'the ugly duck').

People who ever drove one, will agree they never had an accident with it. Why? Well, you watch out, because it is a cute car, but you definitely don't want to be in an accident with it! So you go in lengths ot prevent it. You take your own responsability, instead of letting the car do that for you!

Does this have to do anything with decision making? Oh yes. If we argue rationally, we discovered that car which is perceived as being unsafe, in fact is the safest car. So what if we enhance that fact, and substitute the airbag at the driver seat with a steel pin? It would be there, waiting for you from behind the steering wheel, pointing at you. And you wouldn't be in any accident, would you? Which is very very safe.
Rational people would vote for a political party, that would promote binding installation of such a pin, in every car.
Sometimes I actually think it would be better if wouldn't base our decisions on emotional reasons. Apparently we are a sentimental lot.

Back

I don't know what's the problem, but for the last ten minutes I have been trying to type "I am back" as a title. As soon as I use the spacebar, all I had typed changes to questionmarks (? ?? ???? as a title doesn't seem appropriate)
I was hoping this type of problems should be fixed by now, partly because I wasn't feeling too well towards the holidays (been too busy too long..... and I hoped it just was me, causing the problems). So I hoped for a fresh start with regular postings (at least once a week). This type of problems doesn't help.
Well I see what can be done, maybe copy & paste will do the trick. We'll see.
CU soon!

troubles

I am not sure about the reason, but the last few posts didn't get through. I don't know why, but it sure isn't motivating.
Bit too busy at the moment, but I'll try again.
"Honor thy Errors as a Hidden Intention", hopefully my next subject.
This one did have a title: "Troubles", I wonder why.....

Serendipity

Yes, it is not an everyday term, is it? Well, so is perception for normal people. Luckily you don't have to be aware of it to have it, use it or come across its effects. But lets start with a definition for everybody that doesn't use the term serendipity on a daily basis.

"Serendipity:
Discovering something by accident while investigating something quite different".

In etymological sense the term is based upon a persian fairytale "The Three Princes of Serendip" (Serendip being the Persian name for Sri Lanka). Another definition I'll probably never forget since I read it the first time: "Looking for a needle in a haystack, and rolling out of it with the farmer's daughter".

The importance of serendipity
Quite a lot of people think serendipity a bit awkward. It can't be trained, it can't be planned, you cannot depend on it. It's a bit like intuition. It can be very powerful, but can you count on it to happen?
In my experience there is a way to train it, by using it and trusting it. I do trust my intuition. When I 'feel' that something is not good I trust that feel, and respond accordingly. The more often I used it, the more I could trust it!

Since I am a teacher, of course it doesn't stop with 'feeling', no student would accept that! So I have to analyze and find out what it is that made me 'feel'. (And that is good, because I learn quite a lot that way). And although I sometimes had to think long and hard, it never let me down for years!

In my opinion, serendipity acts in the same way, although i consider it less a 'tool' than intuition. Essential in serendipity is, in my opinion, your state of mind. You have to have an open mind for it to happen (the same goes for intuition, by the way). (and even if it doesn't happen an open mind is a great good!)
For instance, say about ten people are looking at the same thing. Nobody sees anything worth noticing. Then an eleventh person walks along (looking for something completely different) and notices the importance of something that the others fail to see. That is what serendipity is, although it doesn't have to be a new person, but it helps to have a fresh mind (going to the toilet helps, a coffee-break helps, a.s.o.)

Juicy Salif
Some of my favourite objects are the result of serendipity. One of them that made me feel a visceral urge to buy, was the Juicy Salif. Although I even did not know what it was, I did not know what it could do (or that I could do with it), or even what the price was, I knew I did want it.
The object is designed by Philip Starck, who at that time hadn't planned to design anything, but simply was hungry. He was sitting in a restaurant in Paris (as I remember it) and had ordered some octopus. While waiting he was doodling on a paper napkin. Starting in the lower left corner he doodled an octopus, in the right top corner he had designed the Juicy Salif. Most examples of serendipity you will find in scientific fields (although not everybody likes to admit that.....)

Also there are several discussions about the nature of serendipity: is it Science? (hardly) Is it just dumb luck? (not nearly) Is it art ("Serendipity is the art of making an unsought finding." Pek van Andel)? (maybe) Is it a state of mind (yes)?
You can find lists of examples of serendipity anywhere on the net, but among those examples you'll find America (discovered by Columbus who in fact was looking for a way to India).
I finish with a quote by Isaac Asimov that I like very much, and which is very appropriate:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...!'".

Faster Connections

Nobody likes to wait. Interesting is the effect when more speed is available. It is only for a short period of time that people are dazzled by it. As soon as they are used to the speed, they hate the new waiting periods, short as they may seem now....
Faster downloads will be available soon, apparently:
"In the presentation, ARRIS Group Inc. chief executive Robert Stanzione downloaded a 30-second, 300-megabyte television commercial in a few seconds and watched it long before a standard modem worked through an estimated download time of 16 minutes."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070508/D8P0GDVG0.html

On-Screen Keyboards

More and more projects are done concerning applications for PDA's, mobile phones a.s.o. Quite a lot of those include the use of a keyboard which often is a keyboard on-screen. Since I did a study (during my study Interaction Design) for Philips (Philips Media Benelux) and IPO (Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven University of Technology) concerning the use of on-screen keyboards (or 'soft keyboards'), I feel urged to a few remarks on the subject.

1. Do not use the QWERTY-layout for the default keyboard.
Originally keyboards that came with typewriters were alphabetical. Those keyboards were mechanical devices that used a kind of small hammers (with a character on the end) to produce a character on a sheet of paper. When you typed with a certain speed, often the hammers would collide and get stuck. You had to stop then, so in the end the overall speed was not too good.

A different layout became popular (amongst the manufacturers), especially since the inventor sold his idea (the QWERTY-layout, I believe it was to Remington). In this layout, the most used letters were assigned to the weaker (slower) fingers, thus resulting in a slower speed, but effectively in a faster speed, concerning the whole proces.

Since the invention of the IBM electric ball-typewriter the need for the QWERTTY-layout has gone, but we got stuck with it, the alternative being reschooling every typist in the world.
A design that could deliver more speed than the alphabetical keyboard is the Dalton-layout.

2. Use the Alphabetical Layout as a default
Most people know the Alphabet quite well. Even experienced typists do know the alphabet better than the QWERTY-layout. They do know the QWERTY-layout, of course, but most of it is muscle-memory (That is what you use when you need money. Even if you know your code by heart, most people have to make the moves with their fingers to remember the exact code). The Alphabet was learned when you were very young, you do have a profound fuzzy knowledge of it. You know that the 'T' is near the end, while the 'F' is near the beginning, which is enough for fast 'hunt & peck'.

3. The underlying usability is more important than the keyboard-layout.
This was my main conclusion in the end. I felt I had the obligation to mention (not everybody was pleased with that, since officially it was outside the scope of my research. Well, in that case, call it a case of serendipity).
A great example of underlying usability is the search-functionality as used in OS X on Apple Computers. It is sufficient to provide the first characters and you can scroll from there.

Last but not least:
4. Let the user choose its favourite keyboard-layout
Test may show that an Alphabetical layout is faster, but that doesn't mean that it is in the perception of the user. If he/she prefers another layout (and that may very wel be because he/she perceives the QWERTY-layout to be faster), let him/her choose! It may be an emotional decision, but if it makes somebody happy, we should not prevent it.

More information
Different keyboard-layout in different languages (did you know there even is a Dutch keyboard-layout?)

Cultural Illusions

It was not my intention to write about illusions that much, but you know teachers, they love to explain. So illusions again, simply to answer the question what I consider to be cultural illusions.
Let me show you an example:

Of course, we all see a zebra, that is not the illusion. The question is what do you perceive from a zebra? Apparently most white people see a white animal with black stripes, whihttp://www2.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifle most black africans see a black animal with white stripes.
I guess the next picture (from the University of Bergamo) is cultural free?

By the way, in search of information about the use of post-its for user testing I found a link to an article about its use for brainstorming, but also a link to a "proper zebra-crossing":
http://hiddenchemistry.com/proper-zebra-crossings/

I am not so very sure that foregoing example is a real cultural illusion, but the next is. Look at these stairs:

Again, the illusion is not whether these are stairs or not, but how do you perceive them. Are they going up? Or are they going down?
Apparently most Europeans and Americans perceive these stairs as 'going up', while people from countries where the direction for reading is from right to left look upon these stairs as going down.

It makes me wonder if the same goes for the next stairs:

Are these stairs going up or going down? Based upon what?

Let me finish with the most interesting stairs, several illusions appear together here:

If you want to know more about it, read the accompanying article: http://www.quantonics.com/Stairs_As_Perceived_by_Our_Quantum_Stages.html

Tunnel-vision

Tunnel-vision is a proces where clues seem to lead us in a certain direction, whereafter following information seems to justify our presumption.
The first time I heard about it, was concerning an investigation by the police, where the investigating officers jumped to a conclusion in the first stages of an ongoing investigation. Thereupon all clues that conflicted with their conclusion were ignored (to be "of no importance" of "inconclusive") while clues that reinforced their idea were accentuated.
And yes, an innocent men was sent to prison for over 10 years....
Recently I came across the same problem with two students working on their final project. In an early stage they had a good brainwave, got a good idea (and the idea still is), but in the following research they just looked at facts that supported their initial design, while ignoring conflicting facts. And that is just no the right way a research should be executed. (And right so, because in their subsequent research they did find reasons to alter their original design, so came up with a better product in the end!)
And now we, apparently we fall for the same trap. Consider the following pictures:



Do you see any parallel lines? In the upper picture it is evident, but what about the lower? No? Neither do I. Nevertheless the horizontal line are parallel, although you can't see so. (Don't believe me, check!)

This was first discovered during the redecoration of a pub in Bristol, the owner decided that he like black and white tile alternating on the outside of his pub. The tiles were to be set in stretching bond (each tile is placed with its center on top of the border between two tiles). When the decoration was finished, it didn't please the owner, of course, it was not what he intended. Nowadays the pub is famous all over the world because of its outside tiles.

For an explanation of the effect, read the article from Bristol.

Speaking of a tunnel


When you see the spirals, you realise that you can go deeper and deeper. Unfortunately you jumped to the conclusion that it are spirals that you see. I suggest you follow the cirkels with your finger to be absolutely sure. There really is no tunnel to go into. But at least now you know why it is called tunnel-vision!.

Illusions - I

Perception seems to be a key-item for me. When our mind plays tricks with us, we call that illusion. Several types of illusions do exist. We may encounter verbal illusions, visual illusions, cultural illusions (hmm, aren't they all, maybe I should look into that) a.s.o.

Illusions are as old as mankind. Wellknown examples as "Trompe d'oeil" (yes, there should be a link here, hmm, maybe when I find more time. For now just google yourself).


Very intriguing is what is called the "Hollow Face - illusion", several examples exist, which I will lead you to. Look at the accompanying picture, the little paper dragon. When you do not know what is the matter, you don't see anything unusual. Let's illustrate this with two movies:

1. The Hollow Face - illusion, face of Richard Gregory.

2. Charlie Chaplin - Hollow Face - illusion

This is all about assumption & perception. We know what we see, but our minds are unwilling to accept what it is that we see, so they create our own reality, and we are most happy with it. Try to stay happy when you look out your window and realise this is what we do every day.

For years I was very interested in virtual reality, only to find out, that reality already was quite virtual as it is. The same goes for 3-D objects. Some of us spend a lot of time creating them (not me, I'm just too lazy, although I did try some ray-tracing, years & years back). And always they are trying to create a type of reality that just waits to be rebuild in our heads.

Consider the next picture, especially tiles 'A' and 'B':


Myself, I was very intrigued by the fact that both surfaces have the same color. I mean, you don't SEE the same color! There are several ways to prove that they indeed have the same color. Use a colorpicker to check on the colors (I didn't want to believe it, so I did), or better view the movie:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/gaz/gaz-teaching/flash/plaid-movie.swf

Here, again, it is our assumption that creates the illusion, our minds 'enhance' the effect, by trying to create the picture that would be responsible for what we actually see. If those tiles look the same, than they should be a different color, because the upper one is in the light, while the lower surface is in the dark. If they're the same, they must be different!

We will encounter more of this in the future, because our minds keep on tricking us for all the right reasons, but in all different kind of ways. For now I leave you with the next example, where 'A' and 'B' again have the same color.

(so, for people who think I am quite grey: are you sure it's not just only in your mind?):-)

More from Richard Gregory:
http://www.richardgregory.org/experiments/index.htm

Want to make your own little dragon?
http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/dragon_illusion/
http://www.pontomidia.com.br/ricardo/greatweb/gathering_for_gardner_paper_dragon.html
Not just dragons, a skeleton too:
http://ravensblight.com/Illusion.html

Perception

Perception again, yes. Like I said, I think it is an interesting subject. Consider the following item:

We have four frigidaires, all of them are white.
Now answer the following questions:
What is the colour of the first frigidaire? ...
Yes, that is correct.
What is the colour of the second frigidaire? ...
Indeed, that is correct again.
Now can you tell me the colour of the third frigidaire? ...
Well, correct again. We're nearly there.
Tell me, what is the colour of the fourth frigidaire? ...
Correct, that was easy.
Now tell me, what does a cow drink? ...

Okay, if you say so....

I am not sure as how this works written as well, but if it didn't then try it with somebody. Just ask the questions, wait for the answer, then ask the next question.
This is an example of "priming".

Another example, answer the next questions:
"May a woman marry the friend of her daughter?" ... "May a man marry the mother of his sister?" ... "May a man marry the sister of his widow?" ...
Guesses are that about eighty percent of the people will say 'yes' to the last question. The right answer, of course, should be 'no'.
(If you don't see it, ask yourself: what does 'widow' say about him?).

It is interesting to see what goes wrong here. Apparently our minds get set on a track and then it is difficult to change. It illustrates that we only use a part of the information that we get.
But even if we only use a part of all the available information things can go wrong. Read the following words:

That was not too hard, was it? Just a few names of colors. Piece of cake.
Now look again, but now do not read the names, but name the colors you actually see, the colors of the words.
Maybe still a piece of cake, but quite a different cake, is it not? It should not be too hard, but it is.

This is an example of conflicting information. It should not be any problem if the words were f.e. Icelandic, or in Japanese characters (unless you were from Iceland, resp. Japan, of course). Young children who still have to learn to read, but already know their colors do not see any problem.
We get two sets of information: (1) the color and (2) the text. When those two match there is no problem, but when they don't...
This effect is called "the Stroop-effect", named after Dr. John Ridley Stroop who did describe the effect first in 1935.

Want to try some more 'stroop'?
go http://www.dcity.org/braingames/stroop/
When you like those braingames, have a good intuition, and an understanding of statistics I suggest to play the "3-doors game".

More about priming?
Priming: Priming is an acuteness to stimuli because of exposure to a certain event or experience. For example, an individual who has just purchased a new car may now start to notice with more frequency other people driving her same make and model. This person has been primed to recognize more readily a car like hers because of the experience she has driving and owning one.(http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Priming)
wikipedia
the priming theory
Want to try an experiment?

Groningen University Museum

One of my main interests always is perception. We do not see what's there, we see what we see, we percieve. That is true for images (I will write about that soon), but it is also true for text. Look at the following question:
"How many animals of each type did Moses take with him in the arc?"

Usually the answer will be "2 animals of each kind". Apart from problems of biological nature (male & female doesn't count for snails a.o.), the answer should be "none".
None? Yes, because it was not Moses but Noach, that built the arc.....
And no, this is not just a joke I hope you fell for, it is an illustration of the way our mind works. A problem does not have to be complete, there may be some mistake in the information, it is not a problem for us, as illustrated before. We, people, are very good in fuzzy information.
Take a look at the following picture.

You probably recognize the sentence, it is used to introduce you to a new font. It is used because it contains all the letters in the alphabet. Why I did put it here?
Well, did you notice anything wrong? Maybe you did, but you probably did not.
Read the sentence. Say the sentence. Say the sentence again, now without looking at the picture. Still without looking at it, count the number of words in the sentence.
Now look at the picture and count the words again. Notice anything strange?

This is what our mind does. It perceives. It perceives what it thinks is meant, and all 'ballast' is filtered out. More examples are available at the "Groninger Universiteitsmuseum". When you are in (or near) Groningen, I recommend a visit. It is almost free, it is very interesting (it helps if you understand Dutch), and it is Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 7a.

UNIVERSITEITSMUSEUM
Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 7a
9712 EA Groningen
tel. 050-3635083/3635562
Tuesday to sunday, 13.00 - 17.00
until May 13

Groninger Universiteitsmuseum
Bent u een goed verstaander?

User Testing - II

Cheap and Easy again! This time: Paper Prototyping. Again it is most useful when done in the early stages of development. It may be used for the whole design or just for parts of it, or both.
The most important rule: Don't make it look nice!
Usually this is very difficult when you are a graphic designer by heart, but it is so important to get results that make sense. When you just sketch with a felt-tip then you make it your speaking partner (one of the real end-users) much easier to help, suggest, or sketch with you. When you cook up a shiny design-proposition, it will look much more ready for an end-user, and you will only get feedback on details. The distance between buttons, the amount of shine on a bevel, and so on:
You always get feedback on the level of detail you provide a user with.

I used to make sketches in Flash (and yes, they were just sketches), but I learned that I got so much more basic information when I took just some paper, some felt-tips, a pair of scissors and some stickies (yes I am Dutch but I do mean those yellow attachable papers). When you make a rough sketch you get basic information, when you make a detailed sketch you get detailed information (but not the basix!), when you make a glossy sketch you just get glossy information.

More information:
Usability net about Prototyping
Shawn Medero's article on paper prototyping, very useful!
Dutch movie on how to use paper prototyping. Thank you, Ruben!
5 tips, including the "incredibly intelligent mouse"

Remark: I just found out, although I call those yellow attachable papers stickies, they're actually called Post-it. thank you Alda.

Read Kathy Sierra's article "Don't make the Demo look Done", where this picture is from.

Don't Believe the Hype: The 21 Biggest Technology Flops

Go "Don't Believe the Hype: The 21 Biggest Technology Flops
Sometimes just too early (Apple's Newton), sometimes too late, sometimes just plain stupid (Irridium, Bob). But will we learn from it?
What will we learn from it?
Anyway, read it, and if you want to, vote for one

Usability vs Experience

Usually people look upon me as a usability-enthusiast, an evangelist even. To be honest, I was. In fact I still am, but only so far. When I started as an Interaction Designer my focus was on making it easy for users to use products, make it understandable, make things transparent. Important was to use the right labels, the way the information should be constructed, aso. The reason that I started my study Interaction Design was that I always had the feeling that "things weren't right", "it should be possible to make to make things better". Then I stumbled upon Psychology of Everyday Things by Donald A. Norman. And suddenly I understood: "Wow, things can be done! You just have to design them in a better way". So I took up Interaction Design, concentrating on cognitive ergonomics, usability.

But I always had the feeling there was something more. I couldn't exactly put my finger on it, but the feeling was that I seemed to miss something. Again it was Don Norman, he then published Emotional Design. And again things fell in place. After that I discovered Train of Thoughts, by John Lenker.
So I finally grew up and understood why people used SMS, despite of its horrible interface (instead of typing 10 numbers and speaking what they had to say, people punched 10 numbers and kept punching to get the message across). Like I understood before about games, games have to be exciting, it does not matter if they look good (ouch!), it's just the box that it is sold in has to look good. And the same goes for websites, people don't visits a site because it looks good, but because they find the needed information there, preferably fast. And I could go on this way.

Since I live in the Netherlands, and we are a cycling country, just one more example I used in my classes. When you cycle from home to school (or your office or whatever) each morning and you have a choice between two routes, one along the highway straight on for several miles, the other on the other side of the same highway but it meanders along a stream, leads you through a few trees, but also is a mile longer. When you're in a hurry, you will take the fastest route. But when people have the time, a majority will choose the longer route, just because it is more appealing, more pleasant to use.
Indeed, just so much for functionality, for usability. That's only a part of our lives.

Emotional or Rational?

Making decisions is hard? For most people it is, for some it even is hard to overcome. Since the weather just has gone sunny, you may find yourself standing in line for an ice-cream, in front of you a whole family trying to decide whether they shall take chocolat, banana-vanille or "boerenjongens" (literaly: Country boys, in this case: icecream with brandied raisins). They were even trying to be rational about it (if we all take chocolat, then little... aso)

Unfortunately, people are not very good in rational decisions for everyday use. We tend to trust our mental models (and we should!) and make emotional decisions. This is smart, because usually we do not have time to make a rational decision ("if I take a Papsi Max instead then it is low on sugar, but a Cherry-coke... Oh, no, I am late for class... Or shall I take a Rivella instead? It is also low in sugar and it's got this extraordinary taste, but maybe I should take a drink without bubbles, because that's gonna make me feel... Oh hell, I'll just have a black coffee. Oh, wait, there's also Wiener Melange in the new machine, I haven't tried it yet," aso aso).

Imagine this while driving a car? With another car driving towards you? (No, you're not playing chicken, you're trying to get the kid to school, to be in time for your work, and trying to decide what to eat tonight.) If you start thinking rational about the car in front of you, you may never know what you will eat tonight. You just don't have the time.
Suppose I have a long rope, from one building to another, say 10 meters up in the air (I had some left from my kid's kite), and I would ask you to test its strength by hanging at it.
You would say "no". (And that's probably why I won't ask you).

Is this a rational decision?

No, it isn't. You didn't take time to think about. You didn't need to, but therefor it is an emotional decision. Just be glad we are good at emotional decisions.

SMART!

This is terrible! Somehow I will have to find a way to make time to continue writing. Collecting drafts doesn't do any good (there is one on paper prototyping that I just don't seem to get finished)
TU Delft (Delft University of Technology) has found a way to make an accelerator pedal smarter! The way this is done is very nice. The driver gets feedback according to the distance to the vehicle ahead. But it does not provide a regular warning signal (the annoying blinking light or just as annoying beep), it just makes the pedal harder to press if you are too close.
Since people are very good in avoiding annoying signals (who still notices the annoying ads while surfing? Do you ever click them?), this is so smart. It doesn't take over (how annoying is that!), but it does help you to take notice in a non-obtrusive way.

Link to TU Delft (English)
Link naar TU Delft (Nederlands)
Direct link to the article

Perceptie

Zou iemand mayonaise lusten die legergroen van kleur is? Wat zou onze perceptie zijn? Bedorven? Of gewoon 'vreeeselijk'?
Hmmm, hoe krijg je iemand dan tot het eten van legergroene mayonaise?
Is eenvoudiger dan het lijkt, je geeft het gewoon een andere naam, dressing bijvoorbeeld.....
(dank Wouter Klootwijk)

User Testing - I

Cheap & Easy! That is, as far as costs are concerned, not the results.
Today we look at Card Sorting. Since real users are the people who have to work with what you are developing, it is important to know how they look at their tasks, what is their mental model? Which labels do they use? What is their terminology?

Card Sorting: What is it?.
Card Sorting is a method to get user-input even before you start to develop. It provides you with the user's view on the subject. Two methods: Open Card Sorting and Closed Card Sorting.
Open Card Sorting is done with blank cards, labels are provided by the end-users. Closed Card Sorting is done with labeled cards, users provide the position in their mental model.

Card Sorting: How do you do it?.
1. you have to collect some real end-users (the ones that really have to work with it), up to 15 should be sufficient, but less is OK, even 2 would help a lot.
2. you divide them into groups, about 5 persons each.
3. you provide them with cards, ca. 30 cards usually is OK and one or more felt-tips.

Open Card Sorting
4. Open Card Sorting: you ask your users to write down the issues that are important to them. Each item is written on a different card. When they are done:
5. ask your users to put the cards into stacks.
6. ask them to label each stack.
7. collect the stacks.

Closed Card Sorting
4. ask your users to put the cards into stacks.
5. ask them to label each stack.
6. collect the stacks.

Card Sorting: What does it do for you?
Card Sorting provides you with insight in the mental models that users use doing their tasks. It gives you the labels they think with, making it easier for you to taylor your design to their needs.

Tip: Provide your users with feedback, let them know they did make a difference!

More on Card Sorting:
www.infodesign.com - Usability Resources
www.boxesand arrows.com
Jacob Nielsen (www.useit.com) on Card Sorting
More on Mental Models
Wikipedia on mental models
Ruth Byrne's website on the subject
Don Norman's website, you should read anything Don has written.

User Tests

To make things usable it is important to do tests with (real!!!) users. It is important to do the tests with real end-users who will use the application, the web-site, or whatever needs to be tested. Testing by designers/developers doesn't do anything, they know the application, they are profound with computers, they are NOT the average user.
Are user tests profitable? Oh yes, they are, look it up at Jacob Nielsen's site (http://www.useit.com), you will find several items about the subject in his Alertbox. (You can sign up for his newletter)

Of course User testing is much more profitable when you do it cheaper. And you can do it cheaper! Much cheaper! For quite a long period I was hired either to do user tests or to do a heuristic evaluation (providing comments as a usability specialist). This can be quite time-consuming for a website with more than just a few pages or a complicated application, and therefor expensive. But even more important: you are very limited in what you can do. For instance, you do not make people happy telling them to do it all over again. Not if it is the result of several months of hard labour..... Nevertheless, sometimes the only reasonable advise is just to do that.
And always I thought: "why didn't you come sooner?" It would have been easier for me, cheaper for you, and much better for the poor sod that has to work with it.

The next posts will be about how to do tests (as a design team, you will not have to hire a usability specialist, although if you wish, you can mail me...) I will write about card sorting and paper mock-ups with linx for more background information.

Corporate Identity

Should a university have a corporate identity?
Of course it should have some identity, a logo and so on, but what about guidelines, styleguides? Should they be strict? And how strict should they be? For instance, should different faculties be able to have a different identity? (Well, actually, they do. But can you notice?)

Large companies usually have large styleguides. Most of them are books (folders, so they are extendable) with already too many pages (300 pages is no exception.....). Examples that I know of include IBM, Apple, Microsoft, but also the city of Groningen (Netherlands).
Up until now, I hated those. The larger the styleguide, the more I hated it. And I still do. But I did find one that I actually like! The reason: it's smart & it's small! And it's the MTV's Identity Guidelines. Thank you, people at MTV, for your insight, for showing the world that it really is possible this way.
Read more about it at http://www.lifeclever.com/a-styleguide-for-people-who-dont-like-styleguides, it's an interesting article. And they do have more: http://www.lifeclever.com.

How is this at the NHL (Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden, or: NHL University of Applied Sciences)? Well, I suggest you look at their site and try to find out which studies are exciting, which are dull, and so on. Good luck!

Newbie

Well, since this is my first post and my first blog I consider myself a newbie, despite my age. (For the curious ones, I will make a profile, probably some time in the near future). Most posts will be in English, but some may be in Dutch.
Subjects will range my whole scope of interests, usually connected with the fields of my profession, Interaction Design, with emphasise on Usability, Cognitive Ergonomics, Psychology, to name a few, up to Buzz marketing, and so on. You also may find posts concerning RIA and Web 2.0, although those could be just links to interesting articles, sites, lists et cetera.
For starters: http://www.web20searchengine.com/web20/web-2.0-list.htm.
For Dutch starters: http://www.usabilityweb.nl, with several articles that I can recommend, for instance Gestaltpsychologie en Webdesign, Zoekmachinewaanzin (search engine madness) and many more).