Posts Tagged ‘HCI’
Understanding Cognition, User Experience Winners & Losers, and a Design Failure.
Understanding Cognition
In order to design a positive user experience, it is important to understand how humans work from a cognitive perspective. There are three aspects of this attention, perception and memory. By understanding what humans can and can’t do, we can create models of behaviour and guidelines that will aid the user experience design, and avoid asking tasks of users that they will find difficult or impossible (like remembering a long, arbitrary sequence of numbers).

are you sure this is how i save a file?
Attention:
Primarily, we need to understand how users are directed through a task, and the tools we can use to focus or divert attention. This is commonly seen on websites as a ‘call to action’. For example, Google’s sparse design draws immediate attention to its ‘search’ functionality, as this is what Google want user’s to do.
Colour, ordering, spacing and animation can all be used to help attract or divert attention, as well as avoiding over cluttering. Humans are particularly drawn to moving items (like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park), and so this is a tool we can use to attract attention

click where to claim my free prize?
Eye scans showing that people read websites in an ‘F pattern’. Like the shape of a capital F, people will scan along the first line, and then down the page, highlighting mainly on the first word of each sentence, and only occasionally reading a sentence all the way across. This means that people will skim past alot of important sentences, like this one where reading to the end could win you money. It won’t. But you should have read it anyway.
Perception:
Perception seems a bit obvious – it can be visual, auditory or tactile (i.e. force feedback), and changes based on context. There are a few things we need to take into account based on the limits of our perception – text should be legible, icons should be easy to interpret, that sort of thing. Studies done into advertising and copywriting show us simple rules we can follow to make websites and programs more readable – for example it’s easier to read high contrast items, and black on white is read quicker than white on black. Furthermore white space is important in readability.
Memory:
People find recognition easier than recall. To aid this, we want to make things visually consistent, so that people will recognise features they’ve used before, rather than having to remember them. In the before-times, we use to have to remember commands for a terminal (i.e. erase all) and type them in to execute the command. Now GUI’s allow us to present these options on a screen, and have a user select them. Images will aid this, as people remember images easier than they remember words. The user will recognise an icon they’ve used before, and select it to perform the same task.
GIS tells us this is a memorable icon
So, who’s done this right? We’ve been asked to identify 3 products we like using, and 3 we don’t. I’ll also be seeing how they fit in with the cognitive processes talked about above
3 User Experience Winners
- Tweetie.app – Twitter client Tweetie is a success because of it use of context dependant features, and its seamless integration of key features. For example, the ‘new tweet’ button will either start a completely new tweet, or an ‘@’ reply, or a Direct Message, based on where I am when I select it. By assuming the feature the user is most likely to need, it prevents the need for users to remember how to access these features individually.
- Trainline.app – From the first screen of the trainline app for the iPhone you can see the clear ‘call to actions’ that the app has been built around. The app remembers my home station, and can work out which station I’m nearest, and hence can provide me with a single ‘next journey home’ button, which will instantly show me the train to get home. Not only this, but it remembers my frequent journeys, and presents these as buttons as well, making it clear how to get to the options I’m after. By remembering what I use it for, and treating my data as important, the trainline app is a success.
- The vending machine at Sussex Innovations Center – Wow, this thing is amazing – I’ll make a video for one week! When making your selection, a robot arm comes and picks up your selection, and carries it to the drop bin area. (no just throwing your drink/snack to the floor like other vending machines!). Then, the drop bin opens up automatically and a little light comes on (a good way of attracting attention!). Overall, a positive user experience, it makes me feel like it cares about my selection, and highlights where my attention needs to be at any time.
3 User Experience Losers.
- Texting with the iPhone – Only minor gripes here, both of which my girlfriend (a new iPhone user) has fallen foul of in the last week. First the placement of the send button – right above the keyboard, and less than a centimetre above ‘o’ and ‘p’ – hence very easy to press halfway through writing a text. Second, the placement of the ‘cancel’ button, right above where recipients are added. Sending a group text (for example saying ‘I have a new iPhone, heres my number) to multiple recipients requires clicking multiple times in the top right, again less than a centimetre from the cancel button. And the cancel button doesn’t ask for confirmation (from a blank text), just loses your list of recipients. Denied.
- Ticketmaster – I’ve mentioned in brief my grief with Ticketmaster before, and will briefly touch on it again here (I still intend to go into depth on this topic soon!) The problem with Ticketmaster is it hides its information. If I want to go to a gig, I have to select which date, where I’d like to sit, how much I’d like to pay, before it tells me that they have nothing that matches my selection. So I have to start again from the beginning of the process. Repeatedly. And then eventually find that all the dates, and all the seats, have sold out. Ticketmaster’s system surely knows that the event is sold out, and yet the website keeps this secret, instead you have to try every possible option and deduce for yourself that tickets are sold out. And if the option you pick is sold out, it forgets everything about what date or what price I want to see, and makes you start the process from the beginning. Surely it could give you alternatives based on what is available? From a cognitive perspective, the system expects me to remember what information I’ve entered before, and avoid entering the same details again.
- My pen – My pen is magic, and has a rubber on the end hat can erase ink. But is also very cheap. And so the rubber is barely held on simply resting in a gap on the top of the pen. When used to rub things out, the rubber breaks. Without the rubber attached, it’s impossible to extend/retract the pen, without poking it with something else (like another pen). This isn’t really a cognitive failure – just bad design (the device cant be used for the function its been designed for)
Similarities & Differences
So what did the ones that were good do?
- Assumed the tasks the user wanted to do, and made it easy to do them
- Stopped the user from making mistakes, either by hiding dangerous options or through making options undoable.
- Remembered me, and my preferences.
In contrast, the items that I considered had a negative user experience
- Allowed me to lose my data, and make permanent mistakes
- Doesn’t give you all the information to reach your goal, and hides information that is in the system, which would be useful to me.
- Requires repetition of tasks, and forgets things you’ve already told it, asking me to put in information again.
Design failure – Water Machine
Just a small design failure this week, but a mystery to me (would welcome comments with solutions). This is the water machine at work:

water machine
We can see there are 5 buttons, all with icons. It’s these icons I’m having trouble with.
The big button has a picture of some drops of water. I’m assuming, due to its prominence, and the fact that I tried it, that this button makes water come out. Great
Now for the four smaller buttons.
Two, very confusingly, have the same picture on (a glass with some ice cubes in). I can’t tell whether these buttons do the same thing, or different things. The same icon would suggest the same function, but maybe not.
The icons on the other side – a steaming mug, and a steaming mug with a plus on, I assume do hot water. And… hotter water? Does that mean that the two ice cube buttons do cold water, and colder water? But then why no plus on one of those buttons? And which one would be colder?
It’s a mystery to me!
Evaluating existing technologies, paper prototypes in action, Windows 7 and the disappointing user experience of my DVD player!
This week our HCI course featured an introduction to starting the design process by evaluating existing technologies, and the key advantages of this were made apparent when we started to build paper prototypes.
In an abstract sense, the advantages of evaluating existing technology is that aids redesign – you can see what elements turned out successful, and which did not. What this means in practise is that you can steal the best bits of the competition, and fix the bits that users complain about (and hence find raw user experience data on the internet). This is particularly pertinent with this week’s release of Windows 7.
Aside from multitouch (surely useless for most home users), two of the main ‘new’ features of Windows 7 are likely to be the result of evaluating existing technologies – mainly OSX.
The task bar now has persistent icons, so they don’t go away when you close the program. Programs that are closed have a slightly different visual effect applied to them on the task bar. OSX users will of course remember this from their own Dock.
Windows 7 Taskbar

Or is it this one?
Another borrowed feature is the new way show desktop works on Windows Seven. Hover over the bottom right hand corner of the screen, and it will look like this:

show desktop
As OSX users will know, this is the same as leopards’ exposé feature, which allows users to show all open windows, all application windows, or (as in windows 7) the desktop, by moving the mouse into the corner of the screen. When I used to work on Mac’s, I thought this was a great feature, and its no surprise why Microsoft borrowed it.
Both of these are examples of taking ideas that were either popular or productive, from a rival operating system, and integrating them into your own design.
Also this week is the launch of the first Microsoft Store. Again, they evaluated the existing user experience of an Apple store (sleek design, answers bar, the layout) and… nicked it. Great success!
This isn’t just Microsoft bashing by the way, its just relevant examples of evaluating existing ideas, and taking the good bits. Everyone knows that Apple nicked all its ideas from Xerox anyhow!
So, in the spirit of ‘evaluating existing ideas’, we have been involved in the design of a new system for the University. User Experience will be important here, for the feature we are designing is likely to be used by students in high stress situations. We had half an hour to paper prototype some ideas on how to build the system (which it quickly become apparent was not enough time). Then we swapped, and compared our own designs to those produced by other groups. My personal favourite design (by Hassan and James ) had emulated key features from eBay, particularly how they categorised entries by the status (i.e. on eBay, ‘items being bid for’, ‘items I’m watching’, ‘items sold’ appear on separate lists).
This practical exercise brought home the advantages of paper prototyping, and evaluating other designs. Paper prototyping had proved to be:
- Fast
- Useful for brainstorming ideas
- Able to be changed quickly
- Adequate at demonstrating the key features of a website
and evaluating existing designs had not only helped our group find a better solution than the one we’d implemented, but also had been a key part of James and Hassan’s design process.
My ‘design gripe’ this week was my DVD player. It has many problems, a few of which I’ll share here.
- If there is no DVD in the player, it displays ‘NULL’
- The ‘time played’ counter (the default on the front of the player while playing a DVD) only counts to an hour. Then it goes back to 0 minutes again.
- The sound volume of a DVD is roughly half that of the normal audio output of the TV (and this is with the player’s DVD volume settings set to max)
- If multiple camera angles are available on the DVD, the icon for it (a little film camera) appears on the TV screen always. Its quite distracting when watching a film, and cannot be turned off. Same for if you use the ‘zoom’ functionality.
From this, we can deduce the following points:
- User experience wasn’t a priority, as ‘Null’ would mean nothing to a non-geek audience
- The player is probably intentionally badly designed, to drive the user to a higher priced one (I assume the company make more expensive ones). This may be counter productive though, as I’d be unlikely to go for the same brand.
- You shouldn’t buy the second cheapest DVD player Argos sell. (I’d hate to see the functionality of the cheapest one)

my next dvd player
I’ve started reading Alan Cooper’s The Inmates are Running the Asylum, which diagnoses the problems with technology currently as a lack of understanding by the business of the need to separate programmers and designers. Programmers are great at thinking logically, and making tools they themselves could use effectively, however they need to be given clear goals and design models by people who are better placed to understand user needs, and that is where our role as designers come in. I have to say, it’s a lot more readable than the HCI textbook, and Alan Cooper has a great degree of insight into the subject. He recounts the following (rather old) joke, which is quite relevant to our field of user experience.
He shouts down “I’m lost, where am I?”.
The man replies “You are in an airplane, 100 feet above the ground”.
After hearing that, the pilot immediately flies off, and lands successfully without a problem.
“How did you do it?” he was later asked.
The pilot replies “Well, with an answer like that, I knew I must be at the Microsoft building, and I know my way back from there”.
As we can see, the answer was true, but not helpful. This is what we want to avoid as user experience architects.
I was going to feature here the terrible user experience of Ticketmaster’s website, but I think it’s so bad it could fill an entire blog post on its own. Expect this soon (especially since I’m bitter I didn’t get my Paul McCartney tickets)!
HCI learning, a day analyzing user experience, and thoughts about remote usability testing
My membership to the Usability Professional’s Association went through this week (although disappointingly I have to wait a whole 4-5 weeks for my Designing The User Experience poster), and to celebrate I went to the UX Brighton event (‘Remote User Research – A 360˚ View’ ), and met the head of the UK Chapter of the UPA, Claire Mitchell (small world!). I’ve written more about this at the end of this blog post, but it’s a bit epic, so I’ll cover everything else first!
a paper mockup of the T1000
This week in HCCS, we’ve been learning about the process making of paper mockups (mostly scissors and sticky back plastic!), and the advantages (quick, manages user’s expectations, gives the opportunity to hide in a box and pretend to be a robot).
This has been supplemented by the (rather dull) course text book by Dix ‘Human Computer Interaction’. Dix tells us about the ways to input information into a human (sight, touch, sound, smell etc. ), how it’s stored (sensory input, short and long term memory – needs more ram!), and our limitations (we can only remember around 7 chunks at a time – a factor in Tetris’s success!). When amazon can be bothered to deliver it, I’ve ordered Alan Cooper’s (The Inmates are Running the Asylum), which should be a more interesting read.
The design complaint I contributed this week was Amazon’s log in link being “Sign in to get personalised recommendations” (with the sign in link being on the personalized recommendations text).
a design mistake?
As documented in Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think most users will ‘scan’ a page rather than read the full text, looking for buttons or links which do the task they are looking for. As someone looking to sign in, my ‘scan’ would reject this link as a) ‘Sign In’ isn’t the link and b) You’d assume the link would take you to personalised recommendations, not the sign in page. However, as we discussed in class, Amazon do a lot of A&B testing (running two versions of the page concurrently with slight differences, to see which ones get the most successful ‘goal completion’ rate). Therefore we have to imagine that this has been a conscious choice by amazon, either because more people are looking for personalized recommendations that to log in, or because it increases customer’s awareness of this feature.
We’ve been given the task of logging our experiences with technology through a day, and considering them from a design point of view. That’s what you lucky people are in for now! (hold on tight, its ranty!)
Waking up:
Alarm Clock – Hit snooze (big button on top, good design feature). Turned it off by turning the radio on and off. Design fail – I imagine there’s an ‘official’ way to turn the alarm off, but in ten years of use, I’ve never found it.
design success - you wont fall asleep with this alarm clock near you!
iPhone – ran out of battery last night, and I left the plug of the charger at my parents, so has to charge off USB. Plugged it into my work laptop to charge, but the USB only charges when the laptop is open (not in standby!) Design fail – annoying that I have to have the laptop open to charge my phone.
TV – is quite old, and turns on to the analogue channels, rather than the scart input. We have cable, so it only ever uses scart. I guess it should auto detect whether theres analogue or scart data being fed in, and select which to show automatically. Design fail - It doesn’t though.
Employment fun:
Laptop – Backlights failed on the screen, so have to take it into work to get it replaced. Replacement has no battery life, so won’t survive unplugged. Design fail – Laptops too frail for my clumsy ways.
Successfully got to my desk with the new laptop, and charged my phone with no design issues!
IP Phone – I don’t understand it. It says I have a missed call, but no details of when/who/what. Red light is lit up on handset, I cant recall whether its always been like that. Later in the day it tells me I have a voicemail, with a flashing envelope icon. I lift up the receiver, and press the button next to the flashing icon. Nothing happens. I try again with the receiver down, the phone beeps at me. I lift up the receiver, and try other things. The button marked messages does it. It asks for a pin. I have no idea, but am logged into the phone, so it should know its me already, right? Eventually find my registration email with a voicemail pin. Successfully retrieve voicemail. Design fail – too many to count.
Coffee machine – I’ve worked this out now, but it took a short amount of observation when I joined. Its next to a pile of cups. Do you need to put the cup in the machine before selecting the drink? If so, where? (turns out, for all of you who are worrying, that it doesn’t need any cups, it automatically gives you one) Design fail – Not clear how to load/use initially.
Home time:
Sky+ – I’m not particularly familiar with Sky+, so it’s a learning experience… Design fail – Everytime you return to the TV guide, it goes to the start of the list!
Book – papercut! Ow! Design fail – paper should be replaced with some sort of foam.
What a busy day!
My impressions of the UX Brighton event
The Remote User Research – A 360˚ View event was in the Old Music Library, which although lacking in heating and lighting, does have a lot more scary art than most venues. Free beer was generously supplied by the sponsors, which starts the night off on a good foot. The topic of the evening was performing remote usability testing, with talks given by Feralabs, Ethnolabs, Pidoco, and Flow.
The first three talks were presentations of technology the companies had developed. Ethnolabs have produced an API which collects data on specifically tagged topics from feeds such as twitter, social network sites and email correspondents, which can then be used to correlate user experiences. The example they used to demonstrate this was people’s impressions of a new digital camera. Although their API technology seemed functional, I was under whelmed by their product – although the piecemeal opinions of users aren’t useless, I think that without specific tasks to try to achieve, or interview questions being asked, it’d be hard to achieve any standardized conclusions from the data. Also I’d question what incentives would be offered to the user’s to bother to tweet their opinions – surely without an incentive causing every user to tweet, the data retrieved will be rather biased to the polarized views (“I hate this!”).
The second talk was by pidoco, and was about their collaborative wireframing tool. The technology here did impress me, and I can see the use in immediately being able to adjust and present new wireframes to a client remotely (the system also logged voice, so longer suggestions could be reviewed later). The artistic style of the wireframes imitated pencil sketches, rather than the precise lines you’d get in omnigraffle, which is also helpful in managing client’s expectations. I know before I’ve presented wireframes that look precise, and the client has spent along time reviewing minor items like the text within it. Pidoco’s tools’ emphasis on a rough sketch aesthetic would help manage situations like this!
The last two talks were slightly linked – a presentation of a remote data logging tool by Feralabs, which gives users tasks to complete and logs their precise experience in doing this, and a report by Flow on their experiences using this tool. The tool seemed effective, logging the user’s navigation, mouse clicks, and asking them questions after, and Flow’s review was interesting, and sold the idea to me. I would defiantly consider using a logging technology like this in performing certain kinds of usability testing. In the heated Q&A session after, it was discussed at length that this should be used in conjunction, and not instead of face to face interviews, for it was agreed that remote usability studies cannot log or reproduce every element of a close personal study, you fail to see the emotions and reactions of the participant involved, and it’s harder to adapt the test to study interesting emerging behaviour variants. However, it is cheaper, and I know the business side of most organisations will like the sound of that!
Introduction to Human Computer Interaction
The first lecture from Dr Graham Mcallister ( http://altclick.wordpress.com/ ) introduced us to the key aims of usability, and not just in the field of computing. Essentially, it is the art of design from a user’s perspective – and the most basic user at that. It is not enough to make software that is functional, if no-one can use it. Even usability issues that you would consider minor will dissuade people from using your product, whether it is an online shop, a ticket machine, or a computer game (as leisure activities, the success of games are particularly reliant on a positive user experience). Sam Nixon ( http://www.samuelnixon.com/ ) has shared an article which highlights the importance of good usability design, where altering just one button an a high traffic website had an immediate effect on sales – ( The $300 million button)

A less adept user
A software engineer is unlikely to be best placed to consider usability issues – they are too close to the code, and have a deep understanding of how it works. As such it can be difficult to distance themselves from their knowledge, and try the system as a new user, or one who is less adept with technology. It is therefore the job of a usability expert, using tools such as ‘voice aloud’ playtesting, and user interview to assess the usability of a system, and target aspects that need particular revision.
It is important to start usability testing early on in the development process of a product, and continue it throughout the lifecycle of a project. Catching issues early on will make them easier to fix than having to redesign major sections of the project at a late stage, and ignoring them altogether will may make the entire project redundant, such as with the Pocketmail
The Pocketmail is an example of a product that went all the way to market without obviously thinking about what the users want, and how they want to use it. It gave the ability to send and receive email from a handheld device, pretty impressive for the year 2000, even if it wouldn’t fit in your pocket. The only downside being that to send and receive mail, you’d have to hold it up to a land line telephone. Oh. Surely then, you’d call the person you need to contact? Or text them? SMS was widely used by then.
But back to the HCI course. The topic seems really interesting, and something I’m genuinely interested in. As a smug iPhone user (and former employee of a Mac computer store), I’ve seen the results of year of usability refinement, and it’s a field that is both really interesting, and that has a huge amount of room to expand into. It affects every user’s experience of a product, and can be the deciding factor in whether a product succeeds, or fails miserably. Within the course we are getting the opportunity to work with the university, and a real client on delivering usability solutions, and I am really excited about this opportunity. I’m currently reading Game Usability by Katherine Isbister & Noel Schaffer – its seems a useful introduction to the field, although its authority does seem a bit diminished by the author misspelling his name, and that he seems to interview his dad.. hmm! I’ve also signed up for the UPA. Can’t wait for my new ‘designing the user experience’ poster to come through the post!
We’ve been asked to bring in examples of good and bad design for next week. The only bad example that springs to mind is craiglist – does it really need to give all that screen real estate to a list of cities/countries that a user won’t use after their first visit? Craig Newman is famously resistant to change though, so its too easy of an example (no Web 2.0 here!)
