Yu Centrik

When I bought my first cell phone in 1992, I already felt I was becoming part of a mini-revolution. The freedom of being able to communicate at any time of the day or night and from anywhere changed my life, as well as the life of many others.

Because cell phones now offer increased capabilities, all sorts of new functions are being integrated into them: camera, web browser, email client, games, etc. However, the successful integration of these functions has come up against more than a few barriers. Without necessarily preventing usage, some of these functions have not been so well received by certain user groups. For example, text messaging has not been as widely adopted by business people as it has by youth who are addicted to this service.

The large majority of these barriers are linked to two of the most basic aspects of any electronic product: how information comes in and how it gets out. Cell phones have always been extremely limited when it comes to these two points and not much has been done to find solutions.

The cell phone’s keyboard was designed to dial numbers, not write text. The skill required to write a simple text message is quite difficult to master despite the dexterity with which young people can use their thumbs. Using email on a cell phone is only possible for those with a lot of patience and time to waste. It can also be quite difficult to navigate menus because of the size and layout of the keys. Basically, the whole thing is just not very user friendly and certainly not very intuitive.

The small size of the cell phone’s screen makes it difficult to read, limits the number of characters displayed and makes the use of advanced applications virtually impossible.

Some companies like RIM have tried to propose solutions to these problems with products like the BlackBerry. Those who have used a Blackberry know that it’s a significant improvement but not a revolutionary one. This product has especially improved how we receive emails without really making it easier to send them.

The way that the iPhone proposes to break down those barriers is what truly makes it a revolutionary product.

The iPhone has a big enough, high-resolution screen and a keyboard that adapts to the specific function being used and, the ultimate invention is that it’s all done by touchscreen.

These solutions make the product pleasant and intuitive to use, without taking away from the benefits of the original 1992 revolution: freedom and portability

Finally, a concept and design that allows us to go beyond our limits and opens the door to new ideas and new interactive models in a way that was, until now, unheard of.

At this stage, it’s hard to say whether or not these solutions were properly implemented; we’ll have to wait until iPhone comes to Canada for a more detailed analysis. However, initial feedback indicates that Apple has kept its end of the bargain.

Photos: Apple Inc.

Not that I want to promote “Nuance,” or that I have anything against this excellent company; and one must admit that they have been quite adept of late at having themselves talked about. But was the following a good idea or will it backfire on their marketing department? Please judge for yourself after viewing Amazing Race: Distracted Driving, posted on YouTube.

The clip presents two fictitious persons driving: one equipped with an ordinary voice activated mobile phone and the other with a “mere” iPhone, or worse than that, the latest top-of-the-line Samsung. Each is accomplishing a list of tasks while driving and the question being asked is which of the two voice activated systems is better for road safety?

With a flagrant disregard for public safety, this clip proves that by putting a + b together one can conclude that a voice activated interface is safer for the driver, and by extension pedestrians, than a touch-tone interface device.

I believe in voice-activated interfaces but I doubt if this exercise is the best way to sell the concept in this day and age of public security awareness: is it really necessary to order sushi from behind the wheel? Is it absolutely necessary to text Solange while driving? Is it not best to arrive at one’s destination without incident by keeping both hands on the steering wheel at all times?

Allowing one to think that voice activated interfaces solve the problem of road safety for drivers using cell phones is disputable, if not litigious. Our attention is much solicited when driving. The moment a new stimulus intervenes our resources become divided. The act of doing something on the phone while driving, regardless of the method of interaction with the phone, reduces attention available for what is happening on the road. This is a truism indeed, and a fact reported in a multitude of studies scattered across the Internet.

So, don’t forget, two hands on the wheel! The Quebec Provincial Police will love you all the more for it!

Regardless of their field of work, all professionals hope for some happy moments. They’re the moments that remind us why we chose the profession we did.

Not long ago, I realized there are two kinds of moments like this for me. Moments which make me happy to be the interface usability expert that I am.

The first is when I develop an interface element that is immediately understood and appreciated by users in usability tests. It’s extremely gratifying to see that I’ve been able to understand the users’ mental models.

The second is the exact opposite of this situation: when users in a usability test say that what I’ve designed make no sense at all and they suggest better solutions. I find this kind of experience enlightening. It reminds me that I’m the product’s designer and not the end user after all.

And this is the most important lesson people can learn if they’re thinking of working in this field.

In February, New York University researcher Jeff Han revealed his latest prototype of a system he calls “interface-free”. It’s a screen where the user can directly manipulate objects. To see a video of how it works, click here.

Does a system like this mean the end of our profession is near? Actually, I think the opposite is true! The interface may not be visible, but the interaction continues to exist, which means even greater interface design challenges. Usability experts will always be in demand; their skills will be needed to help plan the behaviour, limits, actions and reactions of interactive systems.

Extrapolating current interaction constraints will raise a number of significant challenges and lead us to study users’ characteristics and abilities more closely.

Let’s do a quick exercise in “Futurology”: imagine a time in the not too distant future, when interface-free systems will be built into systems with Artificial Intelligence. How long would it take for such a system to lead us to our profession’s Nirvana?

We live in a world where aesthetics do matter. Whether in our social interactions or any other forms of interactions, aesthetics play a significant role in associating the beautiful with the good and the ugly with the bad.
Instead of rejecting the existence of such mentalities, like most usability experts do, we should probably use it in order to make the user’s experience better.
This discussion is an attempt to reveal the social reasons underlying that stereotype. I urge those of you who defend the principle “Physical doesn’t matter” to spare me this speech because those are the first to shed tears on a Beethoven and stare at the magical colors of the horizon. The main focus of this article is to realize why we subconsciously associate the beautiful with the good and the ugly with the bad; and even though a lot of people succeed in controlling such judgments, and before judging decide to see beyond the apparent, if the beautiful turned out to be bad, their judgment of it is less “bad” than if it is ugly and turned out to be “bad”. It is human! It is anchored in our minds. Why? - Check out the following illustrations and you will understand, as you grew up seeing such associations more often than you drank milk!

When Good is associated with Beauty and Evil with Ugliness…

When Bad becomes Good, Ugly becomes Beautiful…

When Good becomes Bad, Beautiful becomes Ugly.

We have been raised to see it this way; even if we control it and try to overcome it, we will still believe that “What is beautiful is good”! We are therefore up to a certain extent, hedonists and beauty definitely affects our judgment.

Many of you at this point are starting to wonder what all this has to do with usability. Well, assuming most people lived up to the stereotype of the Beautiful and Good, aesthetics will determine whether a product will be used in the first place before even talking about its usability. When you first embrace a product, you will immediately know if it is attractive to you or not, and this will define your later interaction with it, and most importantly will affect your later judgments of it including its usability.

Remember the Ford Edsel? – It was a revolutionary car back in the 50’s in terms of quality and functionality, but it was Ugly and in fact it turned out to be the biggest failure in Ford’s history!

The next question that you might want to ask, especially if you read Marcio’s blog, is how ugly products kick in… Oh well, if there is no rival, the need overcomes the beauty!
Loewy stated beautifully that “Between two products equal in price, function and quality, the one with the most attractive exterior will win.” However, when it is an innovation, there are no other competing products in the market, and when those arise the product would have picked up, the users would not easily want to switch and the product remains popular.

My rule of thumb: For the user, Need comes first followed by Aesthetics and Usability.