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?
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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!
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!
Thursday, September 6, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
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!
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!
Sunday, June 10, 2007
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.....
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.....
Monday, May 21, 2007
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.
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...!'".
"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...!'".
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)