17 Dec 2009
I’ve been reading Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things and I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. It was written a few decades ago so some of the stuff to the reader might seem funny. For example, Norman makes a big deal about computers – because they were relatively new at the time of the book – and VCRs, which were also fairly new. The underlying principles of usability and the cognitive approaches to memory and mappings are still very valid today.
My favorite example thus far has been the example of door handles. When it comes to doors, you can push them open, pull them open, or slide them open, but take away the handle and you have no idea how to open the door. Handles are very indicative of function and as a result should be designed to clearly describe how the door opens, otherwise you slam your face into it, or, in the case of Mr. Norman’s friend, get stuck between two sets of glass doors.
Good design doesn’t need instruction. A door should be easy to use without having to use the words “PUSH”, “PULL”, or “SLIDE”, and handles should be designed obviously. Consider the following examples:
These doors are clearly made to be pushed open.
Without the words PUSH, you'd probably pull these doors.
These handles signify pulling. The PUSH label only makes it confusing. This company chose asthetics over functionality. These labels were probably added after the doors were installed because people were having trouble opening the doors.
This could be the Nielsen/Norman coming out in me, but notice the first set of doors is the least attractive but the most usable? It’s nice to make something look attractive, but if you take away the usability in the process, you’ve only made the product worse. Part of usability is reducing or eliminating the requirement for users to think. Essentially it’s dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator of users. Good designers can create things that are not only very attractive, but also very usable.
22 Jul 2009
When my decision to run in the Blue Ridge Relay race this year became final, I knew there would be a lot of training involved, especially if I don’t want to let the team down. For those of you who think I run too much now, you just wait. But first, let’s go back in time to only two years ago when I first decided to take up this hobby. I was living in Columbia, SC and my boss at the time, Dean, was a big time runner. And I guess you could say that in addition to my need to quit gaming, he inspired me. So I bought my first pair of running shoes, Aisics Evolution IIs.
I was only running a mile or two at best at a time and I thought I was hot shit, haha. No, it’s okay to be proud, especially when I was at least making an effort to get outside and be active. Two miles miles nearly killed me (not literally, of course), but I also had encouragement coming from my – at the time – new friend Melissa, who’d “run with me” sometimes and provide that extra fuel. So I’d run twice a week, a mile or two each time. It was nice to earn the approval of my boss too, and it gave us other things to talk about besides LOST, Apple products, or intuitive and usable web design.
Dean would run every day at lunch in constant training for marathons. He was doing like one a month, something like that, but he’d run for miles and miles like a machine. Part of me felt a little discouraged because, here I was struggling to run a mile when he was cranking out mile after mile and always with a smile. But I knew that if I stayed with it, I too would be running mile after mile.
And looking back two years ago it’s nice to see how far I’ve come. Granted, I’m no marathoner (yet…) but I’m averaging 6 or 7 miles now, and more than twice a week too. I run 4 to 5 days a week with a longer run usually on the weekend. And, don’t get me wrong I still struggle, but looking back it’s such a sense of accomplishment seeing where I was before, and seeing where I am now. And I’ve got a long way to go, but when I start to get frustrated with myself for “only doing six miles,” it’s encouraging to know that six is better than one.
20 Jul 2009
A good friend of mine recently calmed my abhoration for Microsoft and/or bing, the new search engine from Microsoft that is a direct competitor to Google which we all know and love. What was a blatant and probably over-the-top hatred for bing, including but not limited to commercials, advertisements, and other assorted sightings, turned into an opinionated distaste based on personal preferences rather than emotional ones.
(Thank you)
I’m a fan of simplicity – less is more. If it’s not needed, it’s wasteful, so get rid of it. Maybe I’ve learned a tad too much from Jakob Nielsen and have taken a liking to stark, graphic-less layouts that allow nothing to compete with usability? Or maybe I just like to hate “the man”? Ever since I learned about Google I fell in love with the simplicity of it all, which is effectively and efficiently tailored simple, quick searches. After all, the act of searching is to accomplish one thing and one thing only: to search. Why then, must I have to look at all this other mumbo jumbo that does nothing but distracts me from my goal? This is what I thought when I saw bing for the first time.
Sure, the site looks pretty, but am I really going to be spending more than five seconds on the bing homepage? Not likely. If it’s not needed, get rid of it. My initial reaction was, “Search engines make a killing off of advertisements and paid listings… Microsoft just wants more money!” But I guess what matters more than the initial appearance of the search engine is how it lists its search results. I’d say, depending on what you search for, bing and Google are comparable, with bing having better presentation at times and Google having better presentation at other times.
The fact that bing was even created was beyond me. Why try to fix what’s not broken? The same thing goes with the next generation Zunes – Microsoft had an obvious fail with it when Apple controls the MP3 player market, yet they’re trying again. I’d sit and stress over things like the Zune and bing, but for what? I prefer Google and Apple, why do I care what they do?
Then we discussed competition and how it’s good that Microsoft came out with bing because it will keep Google on their toes and if Google is on their toes, it means better functionality, results presentations, and a better overall product for us users. So very true! And for those who wish to use bing, you can be sure Microsoft is trying hard to produce a product that’s better than Google. It’s really a win-win situation for everyone, but I didn’t realize that until this weekend.
But simply out of curiosity, for those of you who’ve used both, which do you prefer and why? And if results are equal, do you prefer the added visuals and graphics of bing, or the simplicity and “to-the-point” of Google?
16 Feb 2009
Utilitarianism is “the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome: put simply, the ends justify the means.” I feel I’m very much utilitarian. When it comes to website design I believe (rather strongly) that form follows function. I believe that less is more. And I believe the web is and should be an extremely useful tool. Tools, as we know, are not full of fluff. They exist to perform a task or to make performing tasks easier and more efficient.
When it comes to my life, I tend to believe the ends justify the means. In a way, form follows function. All that really matters is the outcome. Are you happy? No? Then do whatever it takes to get happy by any means necessary. Maybe that’s selfish, but it is my life, right? Who should I be living for? Often this means you compromise more for the in-between things, giving of yourself for the greater good – the greater happiness. You back down rather than take stands. You give in rather than fight. Or you suck it up when shit sucks because you know that after a long bout of darkness, the sun will rise, and after being so deprived it will be the most beautiful sight.
In a way, you die so that you may live.
I was trying to find an opposite to utilitarianism, but got to thinking that there may not be one. Of course everyone desires to be completely happy, we just all find that happiness differently. Some ruthlessly and recklessly hack their way to the top while others find happiness in higher beings. In the end though, all that matters is our happiness. When we die, we die either reflecting on how happy we are or we die regretting doing this or that, or even not doing this or that.
08 Jan 2009
On the Today Show this morning I saw a segment about subliminal advertising that was talking about how product makers are studying the psychology – how the consumers feel – when using their products.
For example, a remote control. We don’t feel powerful or in control with a small light remote that feels cheap. We need a big, heavy remote that has some heft. So manufacturers fill the air within the device with more plastic giving it just the right amount of weight to make us yearn for that television.
Then there was this piece on bottle design, specifically weight-loss pills. They showed two bottles, both with equal volumes, but one was narrower in the middle (like an hourglass shape) that more people were drawn to.
It’s neat to think about the psychology behind the things we buy. Take for example Target versus Walmart. Both have the same products, but what makes Target’s brand more appealing than Walmart’s brand? It’s all about packaging. Walmart’s brand feels cheap and isn’t visually appealing, while Target’s has nice packaging design and feels higher quality.
And just yesterday I saw a piece on the growth of Walmart using data visualization. I love the way we are thinking now and by we I mean humanity. We’ve got GM desperately trying to change their thought from “bigger is better” to “more efficient” and we’ve got people spending money on making our lives better. It’s about time we started putting more effort, time and money into the user experience.