Archive for the ‘Design Critique’ Category

h1

Guided demos…

February 27, 2010

Effective software design isn’t just about designing a thing and then turning that design loose unto the world; it’s also about communicating that design to the people that matter and ensuring that they understand what your design is about, why it is the right approach and what problems it avoids or solves.

When we create a software prototype, we have to make many design decisions of varying importance.  The prototype itself might be demonstrated to various audiences and so a little guidance is worthwhile.

Holding the prototype cardOne tactic which is worth covering is to understand your audience and how they will perceive your prototype.  A technical audience will doubtless look at your prototype in an entirely different way to a business audience, which in turn will probably look for different things than would an audience of end-users.  The key is to tailor your approach to demonstrating your prototype so that:

1) It uses language and terminology that the audience understands;
2) It respects the motivation of that audience – in other words, what they want to get out of the demonstration, and
3) It prompts for any specific feedback that you, as the prototype designer, wish to solicit from that audience so as to feed back into the design.

The very best approach is a personal demonstration, particularly a one-to-one hands-on tour.  Letting a user have a play with a rich prototype is an incredibly engaging and fruitful technique, which also gives you the opportunity to watch how that user explores the design.  You might be very surprised by the varying way that different users interact with your design.  If you spot any confusion or hesitation in their use of your design, it could be a strong indicator of a problem which you can then fix.

Keeping the audience awake

However, it’s not always possible or even desirable to do a personal demonstration.  Sometimes it’s not even feasible to let users actually use your prototype at all – either for technical or business sensitivity reasons.

In these cases, one powerful method that has emerged in recent years is the use of screen-casting technology, so that a prototype can be demonstrated and a recording of the screen made (along with an audio voice track).  These can then be replayed by any interested party.

The most important thing after all this is said and done is to ensure that you are in regular contact with your end users, stakeholders and anyone who needs to be involved.  Prototyping is all about getting feedback and refining designs based on that feedback, so however you want to do it, getting your audience looking at your designs is one of the cornerstones of effective requirements prototyping.

(I’d like to recommend a very useful tool called iShowU HD Pro, which is a very low cost solution for screen-casting.  I’ll review this at the end of March, but would strongly recommend anyone who would like to try screen-casting to give it a try.)

h1

The iPad As Quorn

January 28, 2010

Yesterday, Apple announced their long-rumoured and much speculated-upon iPad.  The world, it would seem, waited with bated breath for confirmation of the “Jesus Tablet“.

What we got was a competent looking, stylish device that many have already deemed a disappointment and doomed to failure.  I wanted to try to down-play the physical iPad somewhat and think about its place in the society of the (very) near future.

The key to the iPad is to think of it as one would Quorn.

The iPad as Quorn

If you don’t know Quorn, let me elaborate: Quorn is a mycoprotein-based food-stuff made from eligible fungus and high in protein.  Doesn’t sound too tasty, no?  But wait, there’s more.  It is healthy and forms the basis for an entire industry of vegan-compatible meals.  Everything from sausages to meatballs to scotch eggs, minced beef and chicken fillets.  Except they’re not.  Quorn is most commonly regarded as a substitute for these non-vegan/vegetarian foods, and favoured, shaped and marketed as such.

However, as someone familiar with Quorn, I’ve personally found that when you treat it as a meat substitute, it is often found wanting.  I’m not vegetarian – I do enjoy the occasional piece of chicken or beef, and I know what they taste like.  I know the texture, I know the mouth-feel, I know the taste.  When I eat a Quorn ’substitute’ for any of these, I am only too aware of the differences.

My success with Quorn has been to treat it as its own category of food.  Work with its characteristic flavours and texture – don’t fight against them to make them into what they’re not.  If you do this, you end up appreciating Quorn for being its own thing; a versatile and healthy alternative, not a substitute.

So, thanks for bearing with me whilst I’ve seemingly lost the plot.  There is a point to this, and I’m getting there.  We were talking about the iPad and I was trying to give it a fair hearing.

I think the iPad should be treated in the same way – not as a substitute for anything, but more as a new device – and it should be thought of simply as a piece of a larger system, rather than as a device unto itself.  This is where it’s connectedness is key.  The iPad v1.0, then, is simply the first generation conduit into a wider ecosystem of premium content.  iTunes for the publishing industry, if you will.

Something which finally facilitates a workable model for book and magazine publishers to really exploit the possibility of paid content.  Sure, Amazon has its Kindle and a pedigree in online publishing retail (not to mention the beginnings of an e-book empire) but this is limited by the Kindle reader itself.  A fine device, it sadly falls short of providing an interactive, ‘added value’ reading experience – a void which Apple is keen to fill.

How Apple will achieve this will be down to its clout, established and new business agreements and the fact that it has made a (huge) success of doing the same within the music industry, perhaps even saving said industry along the way.  The traditional publishing ecosystem will be looking to Apple as some sort of savior, a means to finally offsetting the decline of conventional publishing with a new emergent marketplace.

Perhaps nobody else can do this – who knows?

So, whilst the masses may quibble about little things such as the size of the device, or the lack of this or that, the key here is how this ‘first attempt’ device will place the final link in the chain of a truly viable premium content publishing model.  I believe the initial iPads are largely irrelevant in the grand scheme, much as were the original iPods.

The next few months will be interesting times!

h1

Pushing the envelope

November 21, 2009

Sometimes a design will arrive for an everyday item that’s so blindingly obvious yet revolutionary you have to wonder why nobody did it before.

Such a design is the folding plug, designed by Min-kyu Choi.

Taking inspiration from the Apple Macbook Air, which is advertised as being the ‘world’s thinnest laptop’, Min-kyu found irony in the fact that this wonder of modern design was saddled with the rather archaic and clunky UK three-pin plug:

Picture of Macbook Air and folding plug in an envelope

In a breathtakingly simple but inspired design, Min-kyu has created a clever folding plug which occupies under 1/3 of the space of a conventional UK plug.  Thinner than your little finger when folded, this beautiful bit of design refactoring takes plug design forward in leaps and bounds:

Picture of folding plugs

As software designers, we should be actively seeking out the ‘chunky plugs’ in our world – awkward, unfriendly, approaches to interaction that have somehow become the ‘norm’.  These are the things that people put up with despite their shortcomings.  If we put the effort in, we shall and will find them.  We may even be able to come up with something significantly better.

Min-kyu deserves great credit and recognition for making such an improvement to an everyday object.  I hope that you can find your own ‘chunky plug’ and make your own mark.  After all, that’s the essence of good design – improving our everyday lives.

h1

Are we moving away from accessible design?

February 9, 2009

The BBC recently interviewed musical icon Stevie Wonder for its “Click” technology programme. What was interesting was that this was one of the first times that a public figure has spoken out about the general lack of accessible design for people with visual impairment

Progress?

Recent developments in technology, such as the new wave of touch-screen devices (made popular with the Apple iPhone) are viewed by many as the way forward. However, such devices are effectively impossible to use without the use of sight, due to lack of tactile feedback and locative ‘cues’. Is it really the case that we could be moving toward impressively sophisticated designs at the expense of basic usability?

The humble mechanical key

Closeup of Macbook keyboardLet’s consider what went before everyone started down the touch-screen route – the mechanical key. Keyboards and key-pads may seem outdated, and even quaint, but at least they offer tactile feedback to the user. They have a definite feel to them, so that we know when our fingers are located correctly. They is usually some kind of a gap between each key so that it is easy to press one key without inadvertently pressing another. When we press a key, there is a certain amount of vertical travel, which gives us good feedback. There may be a click, and a slight resistance which returns the key to its ‘off’ position. Each key may even have raised characters, such as braille or locative bumps – take a look at most modern keyboards and you’ll find these on the F and J keys, and again on the 5 key on the numeric keypad. Someone can find these keys easily – they represent ‘home positions’ for the fingers – and the rest should come fairly easily.

Smooth, baby…

Picture of a modern take on the humble clockHowever, the touch-screens of today are by necessity smooth and flat, and provide limited tactile feedback as to the function of keys.

What this gives us as consumers is the ability to have a number of variable layouts, depending on the task in hand. Very cute. However, we can only determine where keys are by looking at them.

Even when we do look at them, it’s not always the most perfect experience, as their responsiveness is variable and we’ve even tried some that were very imprecise about where one had to press to use the key.

“Make it accessible, and make it possible. You should just include that in the overall picture”
– Stevie Wonder.

It’s all too easy to forget about those of us who don’t have the full use of our sight. We live in a visual world, and the use of visual cues is integral to the way we experience everyday things. To the ordinary guy in the street, it’s difficult to comprehend the difficulties that visual impairment brings to even the most basic tasks. However, we are designers and we can and we should factor accessibility into our designs as a basic requirement. Not an optional one.

One size fits all?

So, how do we go about ensuring that we can accommodate the needs of all potential users, rather than just those who are fortunate enough to have no disabilities? And should we try?

These are good questions but it is surprising just how many of us never ask them. We conducted a very informal poll of some technical friends, and it was interesting how many were somewhat opposed to designing for universal accessibility. For the benefit of the audience, here is the rationale:

If we design for everyone, we have to compromise. We can’t use the latest sexy technology, and in any case why should we cater for people who probably won’t be using a computer anyway?”
Oft used rationale.

Yes, we admit that there are some great sexy technologies that just don’t really work in a usability context. However, they’re not that common. Most technology can be made to work in an accessible way, with a little bit of care and a dash of perserverence. It is entirely possible to design accessible applications and websites – it’s just that many people don’t prioritise the effort given their perception of the rewards.

This leads us onto the second part of the argument: probably won’t be using a computer anyway. Sure. Right. There are so many things wrong with this viewpoint that as I type this, I don’t really know where to begin. Most fundamentally, we must never forget that for many users the computer and the internet is a hugely important lifeline. Assistive technologies have existed for years. The audio browser “Jaws” is a good example. It can allow a blind person to surf the web. It is therefore an enabler and we have a moral responsibility to do what we can to try to design what we make to work with such enabling technology as best we can. That’s before we even begin to take into account the legislative requirements that now make it an offense to discriminate against those with disabilities.

It’s not just about those with disabilities, though…

It’s all too easy to assume that accessible design is purely to accommodate people with physical disabilities, and that’s a mistake. Period. As a society, people are living longer and so an increasing demographic will be active on computers and the internet – the “silver surfer“.

Cartoon of granny surfing the webWhile the mind remains sharp, it’s fair to say that as we get older, it can get trickier to do what we once did without any trouble.

Arthritis in the hands is a good example: joints are swollen leading to difficulty interacting with certain technologies – modern, compact mobile telephones being a good example.

Those darned buttons are just too small for a significant proportion of elderly users. Regardless, the march toward miniaturisation continues unabated, at the expense of a growing demographic.

It’s all about the numbers…

One day, technology manufacturers will realise that there is a strong demand for the simpler, more ergonomic device. Something easy to operate even with physical impairment. The mobile telephone with a small screen and large buttons, perhaps. As a business opportunity, it’s potentially massive, but surprisingly neglected by the big players. I think this is a mistake.

However, to wrap this up, we can definitely make a positive start by thinking about our designs and how we might implement them. Think of Stevie – he is an icon of achievement over adversity, and an inspiration to all. Think of how much he has been able to contribute, and then think of the countless thousands of potential users you just might lock out needlessly.

Think of what they might be able to contribute, given half a chance.