Archive for the 'Design' Category

Danger UXB| Why is UneXpected Behaviour still a problem?

Unexpected behaviour is a user-centered design issue. It is where you get, well, unexpected behaviour. Imagine clicking on a link that says “Search” and it takes you back to the site home page. Hmm. Oh wait, in the top right hand corner of the home page there is a search widget. If you miss it, or even if you don’t, you will be annoyed because the system behaviour was unexpected. Other examples of unexpected behaviour include:

  • random popups,
  • hellish MIDI muzak when entering a site,
  • the Blue Screen of Death, and
  • zero response on an action (like clicking “OK” and nothing seems to happen).

I’ve been banging on about unexpected behaviour as an issue for years now. Others (like Jeff Johnson in GUI Bloopers) have been at it longer. So why is it still a problem?

This morning I had to look through an interface provided by some system integrators for a project I’m working on. There was not a single menu item that linked through to a screen of the same name. Not one.

This is basic UCD101 stuff - it is not rocket science, it has been known about for years, so why do people still do it?

A lot of it comes down to “you can only know what you only know” - and this is why there are specialist designers and usability professionals whose job it is to watch such things. Expecting system integrators and coders to get this stuff is like expecting your GP to perform open heart surgery - sure, both the General Practitioner and the heart surgeon are doctors, but both have their areas of specialisation.

Government 2.0

Matt mentions Gary Nairn talking about blogging. Gary Nairn is the current Australian Special Minister of State (SMOS) and is the Minister responsible for AGIMO, the Australian Government Information Management Office. As such, he is in a position to change the way we interact with government.

While Gary’s speech seemed to blur the boundaries between blogs, wikis and portals like australia.gov.au, it was significant that a key representative of what is otherwise seen as a conservative government is talking about blogging as a possibility at all, let alone recommending it to his peers.

I’ve spoken to people in the australia.gov.au team over the last year or two about their hopes and dreams for the site - they can see a future where a plumber from Rockhampton in Queensland can find out about government services in Broome, Western Australia - such that employment statistics, crime information, housing availability, school information, weather patterns, you name it - every possible source of information that the plumber might need that is available from government sources to allow them to make a decision on moving. This might be characteristic one of Government 2.0 - that information is available from where it is needed regardless of source.

The traditional model of government is a monolithic information silo-of-silos that grabs whatever information it needs and yet is very loathe to hand any out. With automation of the health/welfare systems and the Access Card project, a lot more information will be available to government. There are some privacy concerns based on the range and uses of this information. This will require a lot of mythbusting on the part of government. This could be characteristic two of Government 2.0 - that processes are transparent wherever possible.

If Gary’s speech is to be believed, blogs could form part of the “participative” end of “participative democracy”:

“Blogs could split up consultation and enable government and others to analyse and debate issues in reasonable detail,” he said.

“This could then lead to more informed policy and program development.”

Policy development through direct consultation with key stakeholders has gone on for a long time. What is unusual in this case is that it is talking about open blogs where anyone might comment - anyone who is interested can have their say, not just the important or the invited representatives. Normally, only the very persistent or the very relevant get to discuss their views in a setting that makes a difference - for the average person this chance only comes up at election time. This might be the third characteristic of Government 2.0 - that mass participation in policy development is not only possible but becomes practical, and eventually expected.

So here they are, my first-approximation analysis (i.e. my initial best guess) at some characteristics of Government 2.0:

  1. that information is available from where it is needed regardless of source.
  2. that processes are transparent wherever possible.
  3. that mass participation in policy development is not only possible but becomes practical, and eventually expected.

Is this happening already? Looking at the first Australian Government blog, it looks like it is, at least in Victoria. VPSCIN looks to all intents and purposes like a real blog - a lot of open information, and yet it is responsible to the Chief Commissioner of Victorian Police.

Dan Saffer Slams Aza Raskin

Dan Saffer has said some harsh things about Aza Raskin and other Interaction Design Neo-Cons - and I think that they needed to be said.

Dan says that Aza and friends are too into the “computer as datastore” model of reality. Like Dan, I am a fan of the “computer as facilitator of communication” model. I too have to say, like Dan, I learnt a lot from Aza’s father Jef.

A comment on Dan’s post reads as follows:

I think Raskin’s definition is a fairly good stake in the ground, as good as any at describing what -computers do-.

And you are right to point out this is not what computers are -used for-.

The aged old two sides to the development coin.

I did not see his presentation, but, I do not believe he is presenting this as an activity centered definition??

While its important for engineers to realise the limitations of engineering-out design, its also worth designers noting that there are no rules of architecture for castles in the clouds.

For me this raises some wider questions about what interaction designers do and what they do it to/with. Are we an extension of the enterprise/data architects, just putting the final skin on their work? Do we get a say in database design if that design affects the user experience?

Splatter Artwork a splash in Singapore

My friends Chris and Angie are not long back from Singapore where they made a fairly big splash. People like their artwork - bright colours and friendly characters much loved by their customers, who are generally buy the original paintings for their children.

Christopher's Ark

I’ll keep you posted on their success. They have other shows planned throughout Australiasia - contact them for details.

The User Centred Design Game

When you have a minute, go see The UCD Game. It is a great idea - that user-centred design principles can be taught by example to software professionals everywhere. It will be interesting to see how it works out once some real-life use stories come out.

Tagcloud taking up too much room?

I love my tag cloud. I was filled with pride when I got it working in the sidebar.

Now, because I have such a diverse range of interests (or interests with a diverse range of tags, more to the point) the sidebar tagcloud is just getting too big. As the number of postings have grown, I’ve put in a category list, then moved it up further on the side bar.

I’m thinking about putting in a mybloglog widget like Steve and Matt. The doctrine of visual hierarchy dictates that if it is important, the mybloglog widget needs to be further up the page.

So I’ll let the Browse by Tag widget live for a few more days, and maybe slowly move it down the sidebar. Theoretically everyone can still browse the tags via the Browse by Tag/Category/Date page. Maybe I can make it a user preference through mybloglog username? :)

UPDATE: Thanks to Steve Collins for pointing out the solution - just display the top 20 tags. Code is shown in the updated Tagclouds 101 post.

OpenStreetMap: Freeing maps

The OpenStreetMap project has been described as “wikipedia for geospatial data”. The official description is

OpenStreetMap is a project aimed squarely at creating and providing free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive or unexpected ways.

OpenStreetMap project contributors have mapping parties - social GPS rambles on bike or foot. Some OpenStreetMappers take a camera along and geoblog. Sounds like fun :)

User-centred signage and the search for relevance

Zern Liew writes an excellent article on signage design. He describes walking down Elizabeth Street in Sydney trying to find number 410, and gives some examples of what might work better, and best of all.

It is worse when you are driving down an unfamiliar street, especially at the end of a long stressful drive. Unknown territory, inadequate signage on top of heavy traffic and surrounded by impatient drivers. Ack.

What could be better? Basic learnability theory tells us that once people get to learn something, they don’t have to relearn it if it is reused regularly (I know this sounds like basic common sense, but it is rarely common amongst the average run of interface designers). Consistency breeds content - so if there were a mandatory standard national signage requirement, this would be a good start (because then we could research and find an optimal solution and change the standard if/when necessary). But… A national signage standard is not practical, so what else could be done?

Some form of easily readable street number would be a really good start. A readable number, street name and business name would be better still - yet how many businesses have these?

User-centred design 101 featured in the MIS magazine article on the PharmBiz project (Department of Health and Ageing) as follows:

Is your website user-centred?

Applying some key principles of user-centred design will help to increase your site’s usability and the satisfaction levels of your site’s visitors.

1. Take time to understand your target users - their needs, attitudes, expectations and capabilities.

2. Design features and content specifically for your users and the tasks they will need to accomplish.

3. Structure your site information and navigation in ways which will be logical to your users.

4. Make the site look and behave consistently throughout - this makes it much easier for your users to learn.

5. Simplify wherever possible and minimise unnecessary mental effort for users.

6. Use plain language written so that it can be easily understood by users - avoid legalese, bureaucratese and organisational jargon.

7. Structure and present your information so that it is easily scannable - layer information so that your users can choose the level of detail they need at any time.

8. Provide multiple ways of getting to information, to accommodate your users’ different searching and browsing habits and preferences.

9. Unless there are good reasons not to, use existing design conventions for placement of foundation items such as banners, navigation, search boxes and scroll bars.

10. Help your users to avoid errors through clear design - help them recover from errors through clear feedback.

The underlying principle behind number 7 above is visual hierarchy - make the important information stand out. Here’s an experiment for you - walk down a busy main street containing shops and other businesses - see how many signs give importance to that important information. What qualifies as important information? It could be one or more of:

  • business name
  • street number and name
  • business type (if not immediately apparent)
  • phone number
  • hours of opening
  • website/email address (if the business has an online component)

What you’ll probably find is that most businesses have the business name and perhaps a phone number. Some businesses show type in their name (”Julia’s Florist”) but that is usually the end of it. If service based businesses (like real estate) are moving to the internet, then the bricks-and-mortar companies that remain have to lift their game to remain relevant. I think that improved signage would be a good start.

Twitter gets a good rap from NY Times

The NY Times’ Jason Pontin mostly likes Twitter - and a lot of famous people do too. The article contains some comments from famous folk like Bruce Sterling and Robert Scoble.

Like Jason Pontin, I’ve had a varying experience with Twitter. To the extent that it is more a curiosity than a tool that I feel I can work with. I love twittervision for its eye-candy novelty but that is about it.

Has anyone found that they can’t live without Twitter?

Why trees are a poor navigational choice

I find myself today having to advise on why trees are a poor choice for navigation. I know they’re wrong - I used early versions of XMLSpy and had to find the right node to edit (which is great for people that speak XML, and need to directly edit it, but you wouldn’t wish it on a non-coder).

I googled to see what was out there in peer-land, and came across some good articles:

If you know of any others please leave a comment.

The one and only use for trees is where a strict taxonomy is available and enforceable, and expert knowledge can be assumed. I’ve used them myself under these strict circumstances - please see the Browse by body system hierarchy at pbs.gov.au. Expert knowledge (in this case medical) can be assumed. But that is it - any other use of trees should be used with extreme caution. I think that Why is a tree view a poor navigational choice? says it all (where ESA is an Enterprise Software Application):

1. Many types of artifacts: Typically in ESAs, the tree is composed of artifacts like actions, files, and tasks. This type of hybrid scheme is confusing as it makes it difficult for users to make a consistent mental model.

2. Non consistent mental model: A non-consistent mental model increases memory load and makes learning difficult. Even experienced users make mistakes if there is a hybrid scheme.

3. Many points and clicks: To find any action, file, or a task, a user usually takes many points and clicks.

4. Clicks are actually slow: Though pointing and clicking seems lightning fast, but remember Fitt’s Law - each point and click takes a whooping 1 to 1.5 seconds! Each find and final click may take anywhere upwards of 10 seconds.

5. Poor navigational help: A tree structure offers poor help to find and select next logical task after completing the current one. It forces users to learn the next logical step.

6. No use of spatial memory: People use spatial memory to find artifacts on a screen. However, the tree structure does not support spatial memory - makes it harder to find artifacts. It also increases the time to find artifacts.

7. Poor location information: A tree typically provides poor navigational clues - does not tell where the user is now, what is clicked, and what is open. To provide all these clues, a software developer spends a lot of energy.

8. System model differs from user mental model: A tree helps software developers put artifacts as in the systems model. This model is usually very different from the user’s mental model.

9. Takes too much of space: The tree typically takes more than 20% of screen space. This amount of space for navigating from one point to another is a waste of precious screen area.

10. No corresponding content: Software developers believe that each “leaf node” in the tree must be associated with a corresponding screen. These corresponding screens typically dont contain any content and are shown blank or with content that users never need.

11. Vertical and horizontal scrolling: In most cases the tree is open. In this position the actual content is hidden behind the scrolls. This does not help users to find out where they are.

12. Difficult to implement: Contrary to popular belief, implementing a tree view by a developer is very difficult and time consuming. The basic implementation is fast, however, tweaking the tree view for good user experience is time and resource intensive.

13. Only IT users understand deep hierarchies: In our experience, we have experienced that only IT (read developers) understand deep tree structures. Others just refuse to understand tree structures with more than 2 types of artifacts (like files and folders). So, files in a folder or folder in a folder is okay, but sub-process in a process, process in a business location, business location in a business, and a business in an enterprise in NOT okay - it is confusing.

Anyone differ?