Fast vs. Intuitive: a challenge in interface design and why the iPad is only the first step

August 10, 2011

Computer interface designers of the world, I lay a quandary at your feet: in the same interface,  is it possible to provide newcomers with intuitive operation while not hindering experienced users’ desire for speed and rapid productivity? It seems like most commonly, with existing computing interfaces, we find the following at play:

I’d argue that today these two continua seem linked. Intuitive devices — devices targeting the general populace — and are likely optimized for those with fewer existing (computing) mental models. Those wanting extremely fast usage are likely the power users, having more robust mental models built from years of existing computing experience. So the big dilemma is: Read the rest of this entry »


Why it’s important to think outside the check box

April 28, 2011

Once again, I recently found myself in a consulting meeting, needing to explain the difference between check boxes and radio buttons. Those that follow my blog might ask, “Ben, why do you gripe about this so much?” So let me clarify why it’s important to think through this issue.

My issue is NOT about

1. expecting others to be able to describe computer technology correctly. (After all, the functionality of check boxes and radio buttons is retroactively obvious. Once you see the function of both explained side by side, it’s readily apparent what the differences are and why.) It has never been my desire to turn the general population into computer engineers, developers, or designers.

It’s only partially about

2. others being able to design appropriately — describing the appropriate interface element for the application — though this is crucially important. I have increasingly seen check boxes and radio buttons used interchangeably and the functionality behind them intentionally coded incorrectly, resulting in a radio button interface behaving like a set of check boxes and check boxes being leveraged like radio buttons. In fact, just a handful of weeks ago I was auditing some on-line training from a standard provider for that particular industry. All the exams were multiple-choice questions. The questions did not indicate if one response or multiple responses were required. Check boxes were used, yet most often, only one response was correct. But not always. Perhaps this was an intentional design choice. But having also just consulted with individuals designing a new website (who clearly did not know the difference and selected the wrong interface element), I can’t guarantee the choice was an informed one. In this case, had I not thought through the interface, applied my technology background, and then assessed the questions again, I might have failed the exam.

Foremost, my quandary is Read the rest of this entry »


So simple it’s state-of-the-art!

November 1, 2010

I continue to engage in some occasional consulting on interface design. Most recently, I encountered a challenge: a client was deploying a web site for an internal audience which, by the client’s own admission, didn’t know how to use their PCs well nor did they have much time to “figure out” an interface. The client’s expectations were, in short, for an interface so simple that users with no PC knowledge could quickly use it. At the same time, it needed to be “state-of-the-art.” Say again?

At one of my previous companies, our designers operated on the premise of “elegant simplicity,” so I know that having a simple interface make a striking and memorable impression is not impossible. But simple form is different from simple functionality. The users in question undoubtedly needed simple functionality because their computer skills were weak. Yet, there was a  simultaneous demand for “state-of-the-art” functionality — something cutting-edge, modern, and “next-generation” both visually and functionally. I was told both had equal priority. Something had to give. Read the rest of this entry »