Yu Centrik

In industrial design projects, including everything from improving the user experience of an interactive television system to performing open-ended user research for an upcoming product, designers are presented with the challenge of synthesizing best practices and contextual analysis into an effective human-computer interface.  I’ve encountered a significant amount of confusion with respect to the priority of quantitative and qualitative information.  The fact is, commercial design is a discipline which will forever walk the line between the subjective and objective.  This raises a major question:

How do we know when to rely on statistics and when to trust our creative instincts?

STATISTICS VS. CREATIVITY

The scientific approach to solving a problem suggests hypothesizing a solution based on previous work, testing it experimentally, and reporting results.  Through such theory and experimentation, we can draw conclusions which move us closer to understanding and solving real problems.  And so goes the science of user experience design.  Based on previous experience, best practices, experimental evidence, I can suggest a design solution which will likely optimize the interface between a certain technology and its users.  Performing usability tests allows me to validate my suggested interface and tweak the system, creating a predictably usable interface.  Simple, right?

Wrong.

What’s missing from this description is the artistic.  The fact of the matter is that human-computer interaction design can benefit substantially from a creative approach.  When our clients want systems which engage, attract and achieve a sense of flow, we need to move beyond the objective, incremental scientific process.  The artistic approach represents an increase in risk but also potential reward (especially in a growing, competitive industry).  By constantly evolving our art-form through our experience with innovative products on various projects in various contexts, we improve our ability to build designs which communicate with users; the deeper our insight into the human experience, the more depth we can provide in artful, “big picture,” interactive solutions.

So what’s the correct answer?  When should we trust the numbers, and when should we take creative risks?  While each project needs its own tailored approach, every designer must be aware that both methods are interrelated.  Their relationship is not simple, but I can certainly provide some insight directly from my experience researching, designing and testing human-computer interfaces.

SIX RULES TO BALANCE THE SCIENCE WITH THE ART

1.  A completely objective and numeric approach is a safe bet when time and budget are constrained.  In a quick project which doesn’t have time for abstract design methods and adequate user testing, a more objective approach is typically a good way to minimize risk and get a quick job done with minimal internal controversy.

2.  With a client who is willing to take risks for reward, a completely objective and numeric approach is a missed opportunity.  While interface usability can be improved with an objective scientific approach, the other elements of the user experience tend to be neglected.  Where possible, attempting to inject creative and innovative approaches where possible can help increase overall flow, mental modeling, engagement, hedonic factors (fun), and user satisfaction.  In a thriving industry, innovative solutions can be a major competitive edge.

3.  A completely improvised creative approach is never a good idea.  It may work occasionally for graphic and visual design, but principles and existing work in human psychology and industrial design allow us to avoid blindly hoping that our users will react well.  There is always a place for science, even in the most creative approaches.

4.  Facts not only predict user behaviour, but they also inspire creative design solutions.  Facts about how users interact with a system tend to logically suggest a solution.  For instance, the fact that “90% of users didn’t notice the button” would suggest that this button needs to be bigger and more prominent.  However, when taking all problems into account, it becomes clear that not everything on the screen can be prominent; we can’t simply enlarge every button.  A few behavioural facts may lead designers’ instincts to a deeper level.  It is here where the experienced designer’s creative approach can solve many problems at once with a more elegant design solution.

5.  The more testing you’ve planned, the more creative risk you can afford to take.  If your project has several iterative tests planned, you should inform your design team that innovation is expected.  Lateral and less-directed design methods like parallel prototyping and group workshops can lead to innovative and groundbreaking solutions which not only optimize the usability of the interface, but generate an engaging and attractive user experience which gets people talking.  Sure, there will be failed tests and wrong steps, but without experimenting, how can you possibly expect to innovate?

6.  Fix edge-cases when they don’t affect more common use cases.  When testing a design with many users, if a very small minority of users has trouble with a certain element, it may seem statistically irrelevant.  However, if such problems seem repairable without affecting other users, they’re still worth fixing.  Think about it, if only 1 out of 10 test participants have trouble with an element, the problem could either be negligible or it may translate to 10% of all your users, or maybe even more!  If you’ve identified a problem that’s easy to fix and doesn’t harm the experience of other users, why take the risk?

–

Hope this helps you walk the line!

Here’s a quick summary of some more presentations from the EuroITV conference:

* The use of TV as a reminder system for seniors’ medication (Brazil). Not that crazy of an idea.
* A panel on the impact of Internet on the traditional TV remote.  The panel moved a bit strangely.  Each presenter advocated an idea, one after another on the future of TV (the TV guide is dying, the future is in placeshifting, quality content is king, etc.).
* User expectations in terms of self-identification on interactive TV (for a personalized experience). A study was presented on the acceptability of different interaction modes on televisions in Austria. Strangely, fingerprint identification proved to be the users’ favorite …?
* A comparative study between a traditional remote control and a remote touchpad: the two remotes are more or less equal in terms of error rate, but the touchpad requires a lot more user movement.  The author concludes by stating his opinion that these remotes are destined to become popular in 5 years time, when touch interfaces become the majority.

* Recommendations: Because there’s so much content, specialists are calling for the television timetable to be replaced by intelligent recommender systems. A researcher presented an interesting overview of problems with recommender systems. One challenge is the notion of time; it is difficult to make good recommendations at first, as there would be no initial user data (implicit profiling).  He continued to present a method to optimize this element, a bit complex ..  On the same topic, another author has summarized his study on the use of recommendation software for Youtube videos as a Facebook application.  Their system uses a method combining both subjective measures and explicit judgements (user ratings of movies) and objective measurement (automated analysis of listening habits - eg playing time of a video, kind of the most popular videos, etc..). The system indicates that explicit and implicit data seem to converge, and that this combined approach is promising.  However, the majority of participants indicated they would not continue with the experiment afterward, as they judged it too demanding…

I recently returned from a month-long foray through India.  As the country from which both of my parents immigrated to Canada, the trip was enlightening in many ways.  Among the countless revelations lay a few economic and technological insights which I thought might interest our readers.  Are you a global traveler?  These thoughts are obviously anecdotal and I welcome your comments from your own experiences in other parts of the world.

While the major cities of India have become increasingly “westernized” and the country’s reputation as a hotbed for technology grows, the proliferation of technology has reached beyond the cities into rural villages and remote farmland.  Let me paint you a picture: imagine a young indian farmhand, shirtless, his legs draped in a cloth dress.  He’s riding one of his family’s bulls, slowly bringing it to the other side of the village.  He’s got a stick in one hand, which he’s using to whack the bull for navigation, and a cellphone in the other.  Despite my limited understanding of the language, he’s clearly discussing farm work.  This was a bold image I witnessed first-hand on a rural farm village in northeastern India.  This is a sugar plantation with no consistent residential electricity, no water pipes or hot water, and two small mobile phone towers.

The third world is collectively skipping 100 years of technological development.  While we painstakingly iterated from basic gas-guzzling cars, rotary phones and vaccuum tube computers to the current technological world, the fruits of our advance have globalized.  This child went from having no phone or communication lines whatsoever, directly to a mobile phone.  In the near future, I can imagine these third-world children engaging with technologies that access e-mail and web browsing (perhaps the iPad is a step in this direction as a simplified internet interface?).  Many talk of the “digital divide” as an emerging problem in our already-imbalanced world.  I would argue that this gap is destined to be filled through the globalization of our most modern, efficient and cheap technologies.

What does internet access mean to rural villages and third-world citizens?  Despite attempts to create structured and organized education systems (I visited several rural Indian schools), there is a clear lack of dedicated teachers with international-level skill and knowledge.  However, stories of intelligent people emigrating out of the third world have spawned a generation of young rural kids with intelligence and a passion for education which is simply unparalleled in the developed world.

The fire I saw deep in the eyes of an 8-year-old village girl who studies english and biology textbooks twelve hours a day of her own volition is a testament.  Her clear and firm intention to “become a doctor and move abroad” is in stark contrast to what interests the 8-year-olds I’ve met in the developed world.  Her smooth conversation with me in a self-taught english represents a calculated move from her remote village to the world stage.

As mobile technology develops and these young rural children get access to the wealth of information on the internet, it seems possible that this feverish appetite for education will be satisfied through self-directed learning.  The untapped potential of the intelligent-yet-uneducated workers I met at the nearby sugar mill could cease to be a reality with the advent of information technology.   Especially in the midst of this past decade’s collapse, the economic implications of a techno-savvy, self-educated and passionate third world are astounding.

How can we prepare for this onslaught of new talent?  First of all, the selfish question: how can we stay competitive by highlighting what makes our skills and experiences unique?  More importantly, how can we alter our economic systems and requirements to evaluate and embrace these talented people, knowing that they might be able to help solve major global problems despite not having an official degree or diploma?

In the design of social media, our task is to provide a medium and context for human interaction.  With this power, the behaviour of our interfaces can be interpreted as the behaviour of our human colleagues, friends and family.  Considering this fact, we run the risk of creating unnatural, awkward or even hurtful social situations for our users - in other words, a terrible experience.

An example.  I was recently conducting business out of town when a peer and I agreed to keep contact via text-messaging.  At the time, I hadn’t yet realized that my network provider was not stable in this part of the world.  As it turns out, everytime I tried to send a text message, my phone was sending numerous duplicates.  Not only was the service assaulting the receipient with messages, but it was also giving me errors saying that it couldn’t complete message delivery.  So there I was, trying to re-send a message which had actually already been delivered twice; my recipient ended up receiving almost 10 identical text messages.  Needless to say, she was frustrated and annoyed, but most importantly, she was attributing the technical errors to me and drawing social conclusions (when we discussed this error later, she said I had seemed overeager and tactless).

As another example, consider a recent addition to Facebook which displays those friends you haven’t interacted with lately, reminding you to send them a message.  Unfortunately, this feature has been the target of a recent wave of complaints from users who automatically recevied such requests from recently deceased friends or family.  This is a clear example of an emotionally hurtful user experience directly resulting from Facebook’s attempt to socially-integrate their interface.

Embodying an interface within human social norms also allows users to understand and interact as if it were a social being.  If you’ve ever used voice response systems which attempt to use human language to engage in a natural conversation (”at the tone, please tell me what you’re calling about”), then you’ve likely felt a little frustrated, uncomfortable or confused.  In some cases, these interfaces greatly simplify the process, yet in others they are frustrating and strange.  In such novel interfaces, we move closer to the re-emergence of a principle introduced in the field of robotics by Masahiro Mori known as the “uncanny valley”.  Mori used early philosophical work on the ‘uncanny’ to demonstrate that overly realistic robots can result in a negative reaction from human observers.  The implication here is that while modest social embodiment of our interfaces can improve the user experience, we should be careful in more extreme applications of this principle, as we run the risk of making our users feel uneasy.

Considering the social role of your technological designs is a valuable technique.  However, designing for a more intimate realm of human experience also introduces new risks.  Our penetration into the emotional lives of our users has also opened possibilities for increasingly detrimental consequences of design errors.  Any designer should take heed of the lessons learned within these examples and consider the added risks when working on socially embodied technology.