Posts Tagged ‘design’

The Myth of the Average User: Your Mom Knows How to Click and Drag

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

If there’s feedback a designer dreads more than Make the logo bigger, it’s My grandmother wouldn’t understand that. The correct response, of course, is Really? Let’s put her in the usability lab and see. Because for all that your CEO loves his grandma he’s probably insulting her intelligence.

It’s the myth of the Average User. At Yahoo! we called them Chief Household Officers (an unfortunate warping of a legitimately identified market segment). Maybe you call them Stay-at-Home Moms or Women 30-45 — somehow they’re always female. They’re a catch-all excuse for dumbing down products. We try to get them in the lab but they end up being smarter and more interesting than we wanted. In fact, we’ve never met an Average User. (more…)

Uniform vs. Custom UI: Why Consistent Design Doesn’t Matter

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

The debate over UI standards is as old as the standards themselves: should developers build custom controls and a custom look & feel, or stick to human interface guidelines? The Web accelerated that debate, as developers brought Web interactions into their desktop apps and vice versa; more recently, Apple’s App Store and its own mixing of iOS and Mac standards has further invigorated it.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: creating a great standard experience is a hell of a lot easier than creating a great custom one. Even some of the best custom apps (e.g. Twitter for Mac) fail to handle some key interactions (e.g. distinguishing between an active and an inactive window). Your mockup may look splendid in Photoshop but in sidestepping your platform’s own UI toolkit you’ve assumed the responsibility for all sorts of details (e.g. accessibility). In other words, don’t go down the custom route unless you’re willing to put a lot of effort into making design a differentiator for your product (as Twitter has clearly done).

Anyone who’s worked with me knows I enjoy designing custom controls — widgets tailored to the task at hand. Generally these tasks could be accomplished via some combination of standard UI elements, and the argument against them is often about consistency. In “User Interface Conservatism versus Liberalism,” Adam Engst writes,

…the real problem with UI liberalism is that it reduces the usability of the platform as a whole…The more you use applications in concert—and many of us spend our entire days at our Macs—the more you benefit from the consistent user interfaces designed by UI conservatives. And when applications rely on consistent user interfaces, they become easier to learn as well, which translates directly to the bottom line when we’re talking about productivity applications.

Much of his argument is good. But ultimately I disagree: consistency doesn’t matter. In 2005 Jared Spool wrote, “Consistency in Design is the Wrong Approach“: (more…)

DUX ’07: What is Simplicity?

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007

Stanford’s B.J. Fogg is redefining simplicity. Not in the marketing sense (The Widget 3000: Redefining Simplicity!); this is something useful. That simplicity equals good user experience is a common perception, and rather than challenge it he and his team are examining exactly what it means to be simple.

This comes at a terrific time. Products like the iPhone are popularizing usable, delightful experiences, and for many the takeaway message is make it spartan. Some point to the Google home page as the perfect user experience because it contains so little. But good design isn’t about simplicity (in the English sense); it’s about context. Fogg’s simplicity framework builds a new concept of simplicity that incorporates context and perception.

Simplicity is the “minimally satisfying solution at the lowest cost.”

It is a function of the user’s scarcest resource at the moment and thus depends on the person and the context. It involves the following factors:

  • Time: How long will it take?
  • Money: What will it cost?
  • Physical Effort: How much must I expend?
  • Brain Cycles: How much must I think?
  • Social Deviance: How weird will it make me look?
  • Novelty: How different is it from what I’m used to?

It may not be intended as a complete design framework, but it is surprisingly comprehensive. Some of my favorite principles fit right in (consistency with expectations, the least effective difference, and a clear visual hierarchy, for instance). It does not, however, include the traditional definition of simplicity anywhere. In other words, while a spartan UI will often be the outcome of applying this framework, it won’t be when the context demands otherwise.

Fogg’s framework does omit delight as a factor. A delightful experience can predispose the user to accepting greater complexity, increasing simplicity through aesthetics. That may mean it belongs in the framework; but it may also belong outside it as a modifier.

Will this framework revolutionize user experience design? Probably not. But it can help designers explain the complexities of simplicity to others, and gives us tool for framing our own decisions and trade-offs.

UIE’s Joshua Porter has a worthwhile article on simplicity, with a discussion of its relationship to purchasing decisions and links to additional opinion.