[IxD Theory] - The role of emotion in design
Post-‐class blog topic: What is the role of emotion in design? Is it ever okay to ignore the emotional layer and focus only on function? If yes, then when?
I believe the role of emotion in design is incredibly important if you’re trying to create the best possible user experience. Human emotion isn’t something that can be turned off. It is constant and it must always be accounted for when designing a solution to a problem. If a designer understands how a user might feel when they interact with the system, product, or service that they’re trying to create, then they can anticipate and build around the user’s needs and behaviors.
As an interaction designer, you’re designing an experience. No matter how simple or mundane, whoever is a part of that experience will feel something. That feeling could be a variety of things, from delight to empowerment to enlightenment to resolution. If you can craft specifically for these things, then the user will enjoy their experience. At the same time, a designer is likely trying to avoid creating anything that might cause anxiety or frustration.
I’m not sure if it’s ever okay to ignore the emotional layer and focus only on the function as a general rule of thumb. I suppose if you’re building a concept from scratch or prototyping, then it’s okay because you’re trying to establish basic functionality that meet certain requirements. If time is an issue, it is an emergency, or resources just won’t allow it, I suppose those are other times it’s okay to ignore the emotional layer. I might argue that if you create something that will never be seen or interacted with by a human being, then you’re not designing it, but rather building it or engineering it to serve some greater purpose. Of course that greater purpose will end up serving someone at some point, otherwise why would we build it?
I believe designers add most to the construction of experiences that inherently need to be meaningful to humans. We design around context to empower, enlighten, delight, or connect people. I think we essentially can improve anything that exists in the world to add value and be responsible to ourselves and the living things around us.
[IxD Theory] - The next frontier for connectivity
Post-‐class blog topic: What is the next frontier for connectivity? What will make it stick?
I believe getting everything connected online and narrowing the gap between the digital world and the physical world will be the next big frontier. Cars and televisions have already begun to be included, as well as household thermostats with the Nest. It may be a little while further before we see toasters and chairs connected, but as computers and sensors continue to get even smaller and cheaper, we’ll continue to see them included in those kinds of lesser everyday objects. This sort of ubiquity will be very sticky, as everything we do will be recorded and have an impact on other things, seen and unseen.
I’d love to see greater “connectivity” between friends and families in their respective phones. Right now we have telephone conversations and even video chat capabilities, but it seems to me that we should be doing this more on an even greater level. It may seem a little invasive, but to have friends and family show up in actual size and appearance on your wall would be pretty impressive.
I also think we could see greater connectivity between ourselves and our data, or the data trails we leave behind everywhere. Google and Facebook track us and are able to glean important information and draw patterns, so I why can’t we? If we had better access to our internet history, as well as the applications we use, the gps in our mobile devices, and the electronic data that already stored on a computer somewhere (such as our banking and medical records), we could cross reference them all and retrieve important insights that may change our behavior. An intermediary system that archives this data and is smart enough to sort through it would be required to make this even remotely accessible.
[IxD Theory] - Interaction Design is Democratized
Post-‐class blog topic: Why is interaction design so much more democratized than other design disciplines?
Interaction design stresses the understanding of the context: the systems, people, and places that are relevant to the solution being designed. This is because interaction designers are concerned with the intentions and behaviors surrounding an experience. Interaction designers must take extra steps in understanding who and/or what they’re designing for, which may require extensive user research to allow them to adequately step into their user’s shoes. Interaction designers must—or should—prototype and constantly iterate, including their stakeholders along the way because input from multiple perspectives will lead to greater insights and more informed solutions.
An interaction designer’s problem isn’t necessarily one with a clear answer. I would argue that other disciplines of design such as industrial or visual design are more focused on aesthetics and organization, rather than experience and function. An interaction designers problem tends to be more complex because the systems they design must change over time. The rules and standards for interaction are more behavioral and psychologically based, rather than subjectively based. This necessitates a greater understanding of the people who will be using the system.
[IxD Theory] - Divergence of Design
Post-‐class blog topic: Do you think design disciplines are converging or diverging? Consider analogous industries, such as medicine, to inform your point of view.
I believe design disciplines are definitely diverging. It seems that we’re coming up with new and increasingly specialized roles for designers every day. Medicine and bioengineering is the second biggest industry in the San Francisco Bay Area according to our design history professor Barry Katz, the first of which is design. He believes that there will be a great potential for crossover at some point point in the near future, and we’ll begin to see genetic designers, essentially shaping proteins and molecules to build things. Medicine already is a highly specialized and diverse field, but the role a designer might play is huge considering the fact medicine is in the direct service of people. Designers can create and enhance the intermediary user experience between medicine itself those it’s trying to serve. But arguably, designers who are specialized themselves to work in that industry will have a better understanding of it, so they’re not having to reinvent the process every time.
I think the divergence of design is good because it gets other industries thinking about the human element of their products, systems, or services, including the resources and processes that are involved in building them. Design brings question and curiosity to the way things are traditionally done, poking holes in them and asking if there’s a better way.
![[IxD Theory] - Two Perspectives of MindNode
Post-‐class blog topic: Pick an interactive application you use frequently and that you LOVE. Write two critiques: one from the perspective of a designer, and one from the perspective of a financial investor. Make sure to address the kinds of questions that are relevant to each perspective.
I am a fond user of MindNode, a consumer friendly mind mapping application for both the Mac desktop and the iPhone. From the perspective of a designer, I love how it enables me to break out of a linear format for both note-taking and brainstorming. I enjoy being able to quickly record my thoughts, and then easily organize them in drag-and-drop fashion. It functions very much like post-it notes, but with the added ability to add url links, images, and even pdfs (viewable using Quick-Look no less)! The user interface is simple and accessible on both platforms, and they can wirelessly sync to one another. The cost is right too. Because there are little to no interactive features I would adjust, I look for areas of opportunity for which to empower the user even further. Although there is a lot of freedom with how to organize information, I would like to see added freedom in look and feel. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see user generated themes or styles that users could share and download? What are other ways users could organize information without having to be attached to lines? How could collaboration be added? In any case, I would hesitate adding anything that makes the product feel bloated. Maintaining the simplicity and user friendliness it has today is I think really important.
As a financial investor, I think I would quickly understand the usefulness and accessibility of such a product to any consumer. I would want to know all the ways people are recording and organizing information in a similar fashion, and why certain groups of people choose certain ways of doing things. I’d probably want to see how visible this product was on the Mac App Store and the iTunes Store, as well as other outlets. I would ask about opportunities to scale up and create a family of similar but linked products to add functionality while maintaining the simplicity of each. Evernote is a good model for this, and starts to even become a business solution while still focusing on a consumer (human) audience.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m10duzKOLW1qzhohco1_1280.png)
[IxD Theory] - Two Perspectives of MindNode
Post-‐class blog topic: Pick an interactive application you use frequently and that you LOVE. Write two critiques: one from the perspective of a designer, and one from the perspective of a financial investor. Make sure to address the kinds of questions that are relevant to each perspective.
I am a fond user of MindNode, a consumer friendly mind mapping application for both the Mac desktop and the iPhone. From the perspective of a designer, I love how it enables me to break out of a linear format for both note-taking and brainstorming. I enjoy being able to quickly record my thoughts, and then easily organize them in drag-and-drop fashion. It functions very much like post-it notes, but with the added ability to add url links, images, and even pdfs (viewable using Quick-Look no less)! The user interface is simple and accessible on both platforms, and they can wirelessly sync to one another. The cost is right too. Because there are little to no interactive features I would adjust, I look for areas of opportunity for which to empower the user even further. Although there is a lot of freedom with how to organize information, I would like to see added freedom in look and feel. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see user generated themes or styles that users could share and download? What are other ways users could organize information without having to be attached to lines? How could collaboration be added? In any case, I would hesitate adding anything that makes the product feel bloated. Maintaining the simplicity and user friendliness it has today is I think really important.
As a financial investor, I think I would quickly understand the usefulness and accessibility of such a product to any consumer. I would want to know all the ways people are recording and organizing information in a similar fashion, and why certain groups of people choose certain ways of doing things. I’d probably want to see how visible this product was on the Mac App Store and the iTunes Store, as well as other outlets. I would ask about opportunities to scale up and create a family of similar but linked products to add functionality while maintaining the simplicity of each. Evernote is a good model for this, and starts to even become a business solution while still focusing on a consumer (human) audience.
[IxD Theory] - An Experience with Prototyping
Post-‐class blog topic: Discuss one of the best prototypes you have encountered, either yours or someone else’s. Why was it great? What did you or its designer learn from it? What would the designer have missed if the prototype had never been built?
During my interaction design internship, I had the opportunity to create and test a working prototype of a “new user experience” for our lead software product. Our software was complex and feature laden, so getting new users to understand how to use our product as quickly and easily as possible was key. Even more important however, was getting new users to that special “a ha! moment,” where they knew immediately the potential of the product in their lives.
Before building the prototype, we recruited people to come in and use both our product and a competitor’s product for the first time. We took rigorous notes, analyzed our findings, and brainstormed solutions. After deciding on a single concept, I was assigned to come up with a digital mockup demonstrating in greater detail the flow and interactions of that experience. This mockup became the wireframe for a rough working prototype someone else on our team was able to build. We were then able to test this prototype with additional new user recruits. We refined our prototype and did this again before finally handing this off with a set of specifications to the developers to include in the next build of the product.
I thought building this prototype was great because it represented of a much larger effort and process. In a single project, I was able to conduct research and analysis, brainstorming, prototyping, refining, and implementation. I truly saw the benefits of testing with real people with a working prototype, as they were able to interact with it in a very real and revealing way. We saw and learned what worked and what didn’t and we were able to fix it and try again.
If the prototype had never been built, the risk of failure could have been much greater. What we were producing had a lot of visibility. We were crafting the very experience new people would see and interact with during and after installation. For a trial user, this could mean whether or not they continue to use and purchase our product!
I can say that before ending my internship, that in the final usability tests we saw, users told us that learning our product was “easy.” This had never been said before. People were also excited to tell us—without us even asking—about areas in their life or work our product would be useful. That meant we were quickly achieving the “a ha! moment” with those users. Success.
![[IxD Theory] - The Disk is Dead
Post-‐class blog topic: Have you experienced a technology that has truly
disappeared? Describe the experience and why the technology disappeared.
What replaced the technology in the forefront?
The disk is dead as we know it. I remember inserting 5 and 1/4” floppy disks into the Apple II computers we had at my grade school to play Oregon Trail. I remember the paper sleeves they came in to protect them. I remember the 3 and 1/2” floppy disk that came afterward, with a total capacity of 1.44 MB. It was rewrite-able and became increasingly disposable…except that we never disposed of them. We just accumulated them and bought even more of them in bulk—in an assortment of colors of course—at Costco. I remember seeing an ad in a magazine at one point advertising the rewritable cd-rom with a pile of 480 something disks stacked behind it. I remember the special Zip drive and Zip disks coming sometime after that, trying to make a space for itself, but it was too late. The disk was already dying a slow death.
When Apple released it’s first iMac in 1998, it got rid of the 3 and 1/2” floppy drive altogether, citing it as obsolete technology. Although PCs, which represented the majority of the market, continued to include them for some time after that, I think it was the USB flash drives, introduced in 2000, that ended up delivering the death blow. Well that, and the Internet of course.
The 3 and 1/2” floppy was popular because it was ubiquitous, and a standard. Every computer came with one. And disks were cheap. However storage capacity was a huge limiting factor. I remember installing Kings Quest VI and having to insert 7 disks! CDs blew that capacity out of the water. But like I said, I don’t remember CD-RWs being that popular or reliable. CDs in general were always better at delivering content one way, or writing on them once and leaving them, like a music cd. In terms of how the emblematic 3 and 1/2” disk was used, to easily transfer small documents from one computer to another, I think the USB flash drive took it’s place and then some. Actually, email was good for sending small files too, but that required a connection to the internet, which wasn’t always guaranteed in those days. USB was a ubiquitous technology, so connection was consistent across just about every device. Flash storage became cheap, and the USB drives could hold exponentially larger amounts of data without having to change hardware or compromise their small and portable form factor.
Now even USB flash drives are phasing out, giving way to the Internet and cloud storage. This reduces any need for any type of physical hardware. Connection to the internet is of course required, but that isn’t much of a problem today (in the Western World). Having data stored in the cloud allows that data to be synced or accessible across multiple devices. The user doesn’t even have to think twice about having to “drag and drop” files onto device because those files can just stay where they are, and be accessed at any time, anywhere.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Box_of_floppy_disks_and_USB_memory_stick.jpg)
[IxD Theory] - The Disk is Dead
Post-‐class blog topic: Have you experienced a technology that has truly
disappeared? Describe the experience and why the technology disappeared.
What replaced the technology in the forefront?
The disk is dead as we know it. I remember inserting 5 and 1/4” floppy disks into the Apple II computers we had at my grade school to play Oregon Trail. I remember the paper sleeves they came in to protect them. I remember the 3 and 1/2” floppy disk that came afterward, with a total capacity of 1.44 MB. It was rewrite-able and became increasingly disposable…except that we never disposed of them. We just accumulated them and bought even more of them in bulk—in an assortment of colors of course—at Costco. I remember seeing an ad in a magazine at one point advertising the rewritable cd-rom with a pile of 480 something disks stacked behind it. I remember the special Zip drive and Zip disks coming sometime after that, trying to make a space for itself, but it was too late. The disk was already dying a slow death.
When Apple released it’s first iMac in 1998, it got rid of the 3 and 1/2” floppy drive altogether, citing it as obsolete technology. Although PCs, which represented the majority of the market, continued to include them for some time after that, I think it was the USB flash drives, introduced in 2000, that ended up delivering the death blow. Well that, and the Internet of course.
The 3 and 1/2” floppy was popular because it was ubiquitous, and a standard. Every computer came with one. And disks were cheap. However storage capacity was a huge limiting factor. I remember installing Kings Quest VI and having to insert 7 disks! CDs blew that capacity out of the water. But like I said, I don’t remember CD-RWs being that popular or reliable. CDs in general were always better at delivering content one way, or writing on them once and leaving them, like a music cd. In terms of how the emblematic 3 and 1/2” disk was used, to easily transfer small documents from one computer to another, I think the USB flash drive took it’s place and then some. Actually, email was good for sending small files too, but that required a connection to the internet, which wasn’t always guaranteed in those days. USB was a ubiquitous technology, so connection was consistent across just about every device. Flash storage became cheap, and the USB drives could hold exponentially larger amounts of data without having to change hardware or compromise their small and portable form factor.
Now even USB flash drives are phasing out, giving way to the Internet and cloud storage. This reduces any need for any type of physical hardware. Connection to the internet is of course required, but that isn’t much of a problem today (in the Western World). Having data stored in the cloud allows that data to be synced or accessible across multiple devices. The user doesn’t even have to think twice about having to “drag and drop” files onto device because those files can just stay where they are, and be accessed at any time, anywhere.
[IxD Theory] - Interacting with an iPhone at a distance
Pick an interactive product you use regularly and discuss how the interactions would change if you suddenly interacted with it from a very different distance. Besides the actual points of interactivity, how would the product as a whole change as a result of the new interactive distance?
Let’s take today’s smartphone as an example, and more specifically the iPhone since I am most familiar with that product. The iPhone is a very personal device that is held very close to the body. We hold it close of course because that’s what it was intended for. It’s how we instantly communicate with others, access information, and organize our daily lives. Because it has become so integrated with everything we do, we would experience disruption if we were to find ourselves without it.
So how do we interact with a product at a distance that is designed to be operated so closely? How would the product need to change to accommodate for this?
Mobile devices like the iPhone are good at getting our attention, so even if it were on a table away from us and we were getting a phone call, text, or a notification, we would be notified by some ring, tone, or buzz. However, we have no direct way with interacting back with the device without moving over to the device and picking it up.
The best way I see interacting with this device at a distance is through voice. Apple’s voice assistant Siri could very well do this, relaying information to—and receiving input from—the user without the user ever having to pick up or even look at the device.
For this to work properly and not be annoying or disruptive, the phone would have to be smart enough to know when and where in space the user was. Otherwise, there would have to be a manual setting the user controlled, much like the dedicated silent switch on the iPhone. A user might not want the device speaking if it were within arm’s reach, unless perhaps the user was driving a car. Also, the user wouldn’t want to be interrupted during a meeting, so the device should be smart enough to check the user’s calendar. The user could also specify different priorities for different contacts or applications, choosing which one’s have the right to interrupt and which do not. It would also be important for the device to know when the user was not nearby, so as to not broadcast publicly information that might be sensitive.
Not having to hold an iPhone, or even look at it, to interact with it could change everything. We might find ourselves talking into space a lot more, but knowing that we’re talking to an “entity” that’s listening and understanding. Being able to communicate conversationally—especially in a natural way—with an artificial intelligence removes any need for a user interface, at least in the visual sense. However, that doesn’t mean visual methods of conveying information will go away. It just means that they will be augmented powerfully, offloading certain information that’s better and more efficiently communicated through voice. This would be a lot more natural than having to learn new paradigms to engage with a system, service, or product because the system would just understand what we want. The system in turn would be able to more accurately communicate problems or errors, allowing the user to better adjust their behavior. I guess this isn’t about iPhones or smartphones anymore…
[IxD Theory] - Response 3
Reflect on your own goals as an interaction designer. What is your personal flavor of interaction? What part of interaction design excites you the most?
Boy, these are great questions, and ones I’ve been trying to refine ever since I discovered interaction design as a dedicated profession not too long ago. If I had to state my goals as simply and all encompassing as possible, I would say that I want to create meaningful experiences that engage, empower, inform, and connect people to do amazing things in new and wonderful ways.
My educational and professional background is in landscape architecture, where I learned a great deal about the urban environment and designing spaces that are culturally, historically, and ecologically sensitive. This requires a great amount of research and study of a place and the people who will interact with it and in it. So fostering experiences and relationships within a space is important to me, but so is engaging people in the design process so that the new space adequately meets their needs.
But needs aren’t everything, and neither is the requirement of physical space. I like to provide something new, or encourage people to think of things or do things they wouldn’t normally think of or do. I believe stories are great at doing this, allowing people to visualize things differently. Video games go a step further by actually requiring people to step into this visualization and participate—sometimes collaboratively—toward a goal.
I have a long history as an avid gamer, beginning at the age of four in 1988. I’ve played just about every type of game across every major platform, so I have a lot of respect for the often new, creative, and engaging ways that games empower and delight people. It has only been recently that we’ve seen these methods applied in design solutions that solve real world problems. I am very interested in bringing this higher level of engagement and experience to more people in more situations.
I have always been fascinated with the latest and greatest science and technology, so working with innovations in these areas is exciting to me. I am very much a futurist with my head in the clouds, so it’s important for me to stay stimulated by other people who are doing things because their heads are in the clouds. Being a visionary, working for a visionary, or working at a company with a strong vision and a clear purpose is critical to me.
I’ve grown curious about startups because they often exhibit a strong vision, as well as provide room to adapt as they grow. Besides interaction design and the deep connection with the end user experience that comes with it—or perhaps because of it—I find it difficult to not be involved in higher levels of conversation surrounding marketing and branding, as well as team process and culture that shape a business. For this reason, I wonder how well of a fit a Chief Interaction Designer, Chief Interaction Officer, or Chief Experience Officer (they’re are the same I think) within a company would for me. This may be a longterm goal for me, but hopefully not too long. I have a lot to say and a lot to give and I really don’t want to wait.
[IxD Theory] - Response 2
Discuss a product that has changed significantly over the years that you’ve used it. How have the interactions changed? Why have they changed? Is the product better or worse now?
In my last response I began to talk a little bit about Google, and I think it serves as an ideal example to answer these questions.
When I first began using Google, maybe around 2003, I heralded it for its utter simplicity and pure focus on functionality. It was completely devoted to search and nothing else. It was incredibly fast and had no distracting user interface or attention grabbing ads. It became the only search engine I used, not to mention my default browser homepage.
A year later, Gmail was introduced with a free 1 GB of storage, an unheard of amount of space for email at the time. It was an invitation-only beta release, so I remember it taking awhile before I got an invite. Together, Google and their email service was a great combination and almost continues to be to this day.
Since Gmail was released from its beta status in 2009, which was the same time Facebook was ranked as the world’s most used social networking service, things have been quite different. Google has gone service crazy, releasing a massive amount of applications across a large number of platforms in an incredible amount of time. The connection and consistent experience between these services has been disjointed at best, and all they have done is crowd up my screen with more links and tabs with mostly things I don’t use.
Google has added more and more services in an attempt to become more and more integrated with everyone’s lives. Facebook has done this on a deeply personal level, and Google is trying to catch up, likely leaning on Gmail as a doorway in. Now, under new terms and conditions, all Gmail users are being opted into Google’s latest social networking system, Google+, without choice.
Although I recognize this is an effort to streamline things, it’s hard for me to forget the days of Google’s utter simplicity and pure focus. This explosion into everything is distracting, and at times, invasive. Lately, it has made for a poorer overall experience.
My Gmail is a mess, but probably so is everyone else’s. Google probably sees email as a service with a bleak future. If this is the case, I suppose they’re making a smart move in “enabling” people to use their other networking system as their primary method of communication. This challenges Facebook, which is trying to do the same thing. But as these two giants duke it out, what’s going to happen to us innocent bystanders?
![[IxD Theory] - Response 1
Are some of the foundational principles more important that others? If so, which ones? Why are some more important than others? Can you point to examples that illustrate the hierarchy you propose? Consider both Jakob Neilsen and Don Norman’s lists.
If I had to pick what I think the most foundational usability principles are from both Jakob Neilsen and Don Norman it would be these:
Visibility – Both Norman and Neilsen suggest this. I think this is one of the most important principles because at any given time a user is interacting with a system or object, they need to understand as quickly as possible where they are and what options are available to them, so they know what to do next. If things aren’t visible and immediately intuitive, the user will struggle or even fail to interact with the system altogether. I believe Visibility can and should encompass Nielsen’s Affordance principle. Visually, objects—real or digital—need to clearly indicate to users if and how they should interact with them, such as with buttons that need to be pushed, dials turned, etc.
Feedback – Neilsen combines this with Visibility, whereas Norman pulls it out separately. Like visibility, feedback is critical in guiding users by confirming each of their actions and allowing them to continue with the next task. Feedback may involve seeing a reaction, but it can be through feeling and hearing as well. I believe it’s important to isolate this principle because it identifies a special moment when a person enters a dialogue with an object or system, where information is exchanged and received on either end. I believe Feedback combined with Visibility envelopes Norman’s mapping principle, which refers to the relationship between controls and their effects in the world.
Constraints – This one is Norman’s. It refers to the concept of eliminating an extra or unnecessary interactions at any given moment. This is what people mean when they say, “The user interface just disappears, or fades away.” When combined with Visibility and Feedback, I think these three can provide for user control and freedom, prevent errors, encourage a minimalist design, and do away with the need for any help or documentation (these are additional usability principles).
Consistency – Both Norman and Neilsen suggest this. It allows the user to see and understand unchanging patterns, rules, or conventions to achieve a task. It helps reduce the learning curve of using a product or service and helps minimize visual cues. This also helps with error prevention and mapping, as well as recognition (other principles of Norman and Neilsen).
As a good example that illustrates the hierarchy or principles above, I resort to some of my original memories of Google years ago, before it started becoming more than just a search engine. Visibility was considered with utmost importance with a visual design that was extremely minimalistic and purely functional (in high contrast to the blinking ad heavy other search engines). On the homepage, the user was greeted with only a single text field and two main buttons.
After entering a search term and clicking the search button, the user was almost immediately presented with with results (Google prided itself with insanely quick response time). At the top, a number indicated the total number of results. During a time when the web was much smaller, this Feedback helped in allowing the user to refine their search criteria to come up with a smaller number of more focused results.
Google used to have great Constraints, minimizing any clutter that would otherwise interfere with the user and their experience. Today, Google has thrown tools, options, and tabs everywhere, which are tradeoffs for increased functionality.
Old Google used to offer great Consistency, hardly changing from year to year. Searching for things was always a simple and pleasant experience. Lately though, Google has been going through many interface changes, especially with the integration and promotion of their very own apps. With regards to just searching the internet, I believe this has made using their service more difficult and less desirable to use, again a tradeoff for increased functionality, but probably an effort to stay relevant to and more integrated with their customer’s lives.
For a full list of Jakob Nielsen’s Ten Usability Heuristics, go here.
For a full list of Don Norman’s Design Principles, go here.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyrvl017NU1qzhohco1_1280.png)
[IxD Theory] - Response 1
Are some of the foundational principles more important that others? If so, which ones? Why are some more important than others? Can you point to examples that illustrate the hierarchy you propose? Consider both Jakob Neilsen and Don Norman’s lists.
If I had to pick what I think the most foundational usability principles are from both Jakob Neilsen and Don Norman it would be these:
- Visibility – Both Norman and Neilsen suggest this. I think this is one of the most important principles because at any given time a user is interacting with a system or object, they need to understand as quickly as possible where they are and what options are available to them, so they know what to do next. If things aren’t visible and immediately intuitive, the user will struggle or even fail to interact with the system altogether. I believe Visibility can and should encompass Nielsen’s Affordance principle. Visually, objects—real or digital—need to clearly indicate to users if and how they should interact with them, such as with buttons that need to be pushed, dials turned, etc.
- Feedback – Neilsen combines this with Visibility, whereas Norman pulls it out separately. Like visibility, feedback is critical in guiding users by confirming each of their actions and allowing them to continue with the next task. Feedback may involve seeing a reaction, but it can be through feeling and hearing as well. I believe it’s important to isolate this principle because it identifies a special moment when a person enters a dialogue with an object or system, where information is exchanged and received on either end. I believe Feedback combined with Visibility envelopes Norman’s mapping principle, which refers to the relationship between controls and their effects in the world.
- Constraints – This one is Norman’s. It refers to the concept of eliminating an extra or unnecessary interactions at any given moment. This is what people mean when they say, “The user interface just disappears, or fades away.” When combined with Visibility and Feedback, I think these three can provide for user control and freedom, prevent errors, encourage a minimalist design, and do away with the need for any help or documentation (these are additional usability principles).
- Consistency – Both Norman and Neilsen suggest this. It allows the user to see and understand unchanging patterns, rules, or conventions to achieve a task. It helps reduce the learning curve of using a product or service and helps minimize visual cues. This also helps with error prevention and mapping, as well as recognition (other principles of Norman and Neilsen).
As a good example that illustrates the hierarchy or principles above, I resort to some of my original memories of Google years ago, before it started becoming more than just a search engine. Visibility was considered with utmost importance with a visual design that was extremely minimalistic and purely functional (in high contrast to the blinking ad heavy other search engines). On the homepage, the user was greeted with only a single text field and two main buttons.
After entering a search term and clicking the search button, the user was almost immediately presented with with results (Google prided itself with insanely quick response time). At the top, a number indicated the total number of results. During a time when the web was much smaller, this Feedback helped in allowing the user to refine their search criteria to come up with a smaller number of more focused results.
Google used to have great Constraints, minimizing any clutter that would otherwise interfere with the user and their experience. Today, Google has thrown tools, options, and tabs everywhere, which are tradeoffs for increased functionality.
Old Google used to offer great Consistency, hardly changing from year to year. Searching for things was always a simple and pleasant experience. Lately though, Google has been going through many interface changes, especially with the integration and promotion of their very own apps. With regards to just searching the internet, I believe this has made using their service more difficult and less desirable to use, again a tradeoff for increased functionality, but probably an effort to stay relevant to and more integrated with their customer’s lives.
For a full list of Jakob Nielsen’s Ten Usability Heuristics, go here.
For a full list of Don Norman’s Design Principles, go here.
Here’s my first IxD Studio 0 Assignment. I shot and edited examples of interaction design on my iPhone.
Source: vimeo.com
