The Software Universe

TRAINing

One of my aspirations is to apply the same sort of creativity that goes into the look, feel and operation of computer games to business applications.  Some of the benefits of doing this are presenting information in a more efficient manner (3D and pictures provides the potential of presenting more information), minimizing training and making it more enjoyable.

This weekend an article in the New York Times Art and Entertainment section reviewed the game, Dead Space: Extraction, for the Nintendo Wii. Note - warning mature themes! What makes this game somewhat unique is that it is a "rail" game.  In rail games the game moves you, just as if you were in some invisible rail car, and your tasks are shooting and gathering objects.  This lack of concern for motion has its price - once you have passed something you can't go back, it is inherently a serial presentation.

When I read this I thought that perhaps we might be able to use this approach for work flow, especially work flow that builds on previous steps.  Although we might not have control of speed we may have the ability to slow or momentarily pause (an emergency "brake") the progression.  Work flow then becomes a natural progression rather than an annoying stream of menus and programs.  I realize this is analogous to frames and scripts from the AI literature, but perhaps we could push the rails analogy and actually have us moving by the steps, adding information as we cruise by.  A perspective button could provide a perspective on what is left in the path.

So what do you think, are their business applications that would benefit by placing users on "rails" and guiding through the workflow?  I would be interested in your thoughts on this and also whether rail games are compelling as a game genera - I like them because as I get older it is one less thing to do.  Later!

WORD!

Established products present additional challenges to User Experience Design. The central issue is how do we improve it without changing it.  There is impedance to change since users have "over learned"  the interface and change results in errors and a fairly significant re-learning process, usually more protracted than a new user would experience.  Microsoft designers have in the past few years done exactly that, changed Microsoft's office interface as described in this article.  This was a bold decision and has not been without its critics - see these comments on Amazon's Microsoft Office site.

Eric Lorenz discusses these issues in this entry from his log book.  He also discusses the quest for simplicity that may have motivated the changes, this was after we had discussed Maeda's, Laws of Simplicity, in the class.  I have mentioned Maeda's book in several posts and it is highly recommended.  Here's Eric's post:

During our lecture on 6/1/09, we covered Maeda’s “Laws of Simplicity”.  These Laws, and some of our other readings dealing with simplicity and complexity, have sparked some thoughts about two particular products on the market today that most of us come in contact with daily: Microsoft Office and the automobile. 

I brought up Microsoft Office during the lecture.  I was commenting on how the menu structure of the “new” 2007 version is considerably altered compared to the earlier versions, which had all been fairly consistent in design.  In my mind, this is a perfect example of the struggle between Consistency and organization.  The “what goes with what?” question has been answered well by Microsoft in the new version.  However, upon first inspection, the new version seems quite counter–intuitive and harder to navigate to existing users.  On an objective level, the new software is better organized and therefore offers improvement over the previous versions.  Because of its revamped organization, it is actually simpler: new users would probably find the 2007 version more intuitive, as they are not influenced by where the commands used to be located.  The menus are functionally consistent, if not version consistent.  I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder to some extent: Better organization may be friendlier for new users but the change of menus may actually seem to make the system more complex to confounded existing users. 

In this way, the gains in simplicity for new users are balanced with the learning and time difficulties for existing users.  (I wonder how Microsoft decides which group is more important?)  After all, most of the workforce does not receive formal training for a new version of MS Office.  Therefore we are forced to dive right in, which we know most likely costs extra time (and money) in the long run.  Along the same line, time penalties also result in user (and possibly their superiors’) frustration. 

In the end, I think Microsoft balanced its interests well because I believe they have done the right thing by improving the product first and foremost.  However, although the learning curve is probably not considered exceptionally steep for users’ of previous versions of the Microsoft Office suite, the impact is considerable because of the broadness of its effect as an organization’s entire workforce absorbs the time to adjust; not an insignificant event for something considered “productivity software.”

Personally, even though I was used to the old version and had been using this product for years, since I have become familiar with the new version I do prefer it.  I tend to be a logical person and like to have everything in its place, especially if it is a functionally organized place.  I was also well aware of the inconsistencies in the old version.  Even though the new version of Office is much different visually, I can appreciate the simpler organization because I see the difference between it and the (in my opinion) more complex old version. 

So what do you think, was MIcrosoft correct in its interface changes for the Office Suite?  Let us know what you think.  It will also be a great question to revisit.  Later.

Class Tested

Last Friday was the last HCI class for 2009 at Penn.  The last class is the time for class teams to demonstrate their HCI projects.  There were three this year:  ParkMe - an iPhone application to show available parking spots in an area, complete with such arcane details as traffic regulations; meMote - a Wii-mote based tv controller that had content based selection and accommodated the elderly and SendMe - a proprietary application that a student did n conjunction with his day job.  All three were superb, but ParkMe won the great of the 8's contest.  The class is EMTM 608 so hence the awards name.

I used a new book this year, Bill  Moggridge's Designing Interactions, ISBN: 0-262-13474-8.  It provided a perspective on design that nicely complemented the other texts in the course: Don Norman's Design of Everyday things, ISBN: 465067107, a classic that should be read repeatedly; John Maeda's The Laws of Simplicity, ISBN: 0262134721, a book that really like, great for a cross country plane trip and covered in an earlier post and User Interface Design and Evaluation, ISBN: 0120884364 by Stone, Jarrett, Woodroffe and Minocha, an excellent, practical textbook on doing HCI.  These books, complimented by Ben Schneiderman's, et.al., classic and encyclopedic, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective HCI, ISBN: 0321537351 form a basis for an HCI library.

If you would like to explore my HCI lectures, they will be available for a few more weeks at my homepage.  I would appreciate any additional recommendations of books to add to an HCI library, I will suggest a few more in the coming months, but always looking for pointers.  Later!

YouTube not for Everyone

I am starting my HCI course at Penn and coincidentally some of my last lectures in my Stevens courses deal with HCI issues.  One of my students in my Stevens Software Engineering course, Todd Bernstein, sent me this perceptive email that I thought I would share with you concerning YouTube and other on line video sites.

Does the 1998 amendment to Rehabilitation act extend to online videos? I am surprised that captions are not available on the many videos posted on the web. At the very least, I think the big networks sites should have them. I know many elders would benefit from this as well as the hearing impaired population. With the explosion in video on the web, I think it would make sense to have a inclusive reach to the audience and include language translations as well but that may be out of the scope of the Rehabilitation act.

Since I am in the midst of tests and papers I have not had a chance to investigate it but my bet is it does not since the Law pre-dates the site.  As Todd points out, this limits the population that can view the site and given the role these on line video sites played in the election, it makes accessibility difficult to a significant part of the electorate.  Of course this would be an expensive process, but it could also be a differentiator and a subtle way to advertise (close captioning provided by ...).  I would like to collect opinions on this.

By the way, if you would like to follow my lectures at Penn, you can download them at my home page here.

Hopefully since I am correcting a ton of logbooks and have some free time between semesters, the posts should increase again.   Later!

Vinge on the Future

One of my mantras in my HCI classes is that often the best interface is no interface - essentially automating it away by doing the task or making the decision in the software which may or may not require AI.  A New York Times article today explores Vernor Vinge's speculations on where this automation may end.  The article refers to Vinge's essay on, "The Coming Technological Singularity" and his new book RAINBOWS END.  Vinge speculates/extrapolates that by 2030 computers will become so juiced that a new intelligence will emerge that will surpass humans and then what do these new intelligences do about us - thus begins the Post Human world.  That "then" has been the fodder of many SciFi books and movies (e.g., the Matrix Trilogy).  It also has been discussed in books by folks such as Kurzweil's, THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR, which expands on Vinge's essay.  Exploring this train of thought does cause one to give a sideways glance at the block of silicon on your desk!

My own take on this, hardly novel, is that it has been so difficult to get software to do anything that it is a lot farther off than 2030, if ever. In fact most of what I teach is focused on trying to coax software to doing anything intelligent and at least approximate what we want. Of course the humans involved in the software enterprise, do not make it any easier!

Vinge's potential solution is to partner with the computer and become better together.  That is appealing since each entity has unique skills to bring to the table and this seamless interactivity between human and computer is something we strive for in HCI.  In fact HCI as partnership is something to explore, that may lead to new way s of viewing the user experience.  Hmmmm more on that later - and more on emergence.

By the way, Vinge is a great sci fi (and computer textbook) author.  I would highly recommend sampling his work.  I often refer to his story, "True Names"  in first nailing the issues on cyberspace and privacy - he is one of the most prescient of the current scifi writers.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this and I thank the NY Times science section for the article.  A nice thought generator for these dog days of August!    Later!

A new era of "help" messages

Often in my HCI classes I state that the best human computer interface is no interface, that you should automate the task completely if you can.  I just came across a pointer to a video from doggdot, a blog aggregator, that is worth posting and you can find it here.  It shows a robot correcting a human in a cooperative task.  Two points worth noting in the video: (1) the dialog design that results in a rather firm correction to the human and (2) the fact that the human had to adjust the platform so the robot could place the bolt on the wheel - there still is a long way to go before you will work on a daily basis with an obnoxious robot.  Gee the aibo is discontinued only to be replaced by obnoxious robots!

I think I have my nth wind and hope to increase the frequency of my posts going forward.  Later!

Simply Google

John Maeda of Laws of Simplicity fame has created an official theme for iGoogle.  iGoogle constructs a homepage for your browser much like yahoo provides.  It is an interesting theme of shapes and colors that change each time you access it.  Probably too much color for me but I am going to live with it for a while to see if it grows on me.  Thanks to Len Accardi of my University of Pennsylvania HCI class for calling my attention to this.

One suggestion on studying Maeda's Laws of Simplicity .  Although the web page is a great place for discussion and listing of the laws, you have to read the book with Maeda's commentary to get the full impact of his study of simplicity.  One particularly discouraging comment of a student in one of my classes was why not just list the laws rather than requiring the book.  One really has no chance of getting what Maeda's is trying to accomplish without reading his book and commentary regarding the laws.

His book will definitely make my Valentine's Day list of books to suggest to your significant other as potential Valentine's gifts for yourself.

Later!

OLPC

It is fitting that my 100th post on this blog be about One Laptop Per Child. I have discussed OLPC in many of my classes, both as an intriquing concept and an example of focused design and Human Computer Interaction principles. You can read much more about OLPC here.

All of this is great, but the real reason I ma posting on this yet again is to encourage you to buy an OLPC. Yes you can buy one in a special 1 for 2 deal! Yes I said a ! for 2 deal. For a very limited time you can buy one OLPC machine for the price of two. The second one will be given to a child in a third world country an dyou will get a $200 dollar tax deduction. I have already ordered and, with shipping, my total came to $423.95.

I encourage anyone who thinks this is a neat idea and can afford it to do the same. You can begin the process at this site. This special offer i sfor 15 days from November 12th to November 26th, 2007. Get a great piece of technology and give a child in the world a very special gift for the price of a stripped down Playstation 3.

When I get my OLPC I will post my impressions here and on my other blog.

If you do order one, I would appreciate adding a comment to this post. Thanks!

Later!

Simple isn't simple

This post is about John Maeda's book, The Laws of Simplicity. I just finished reading it and was simply impressed. If you read the reviews on amazon, they are mixed. I have a simpler take, read it and judge for yourself. It is a bit over $10 and 100 pages. At most it will take you the equivalent of 3 episodes of 24 to read and you will learn so much more.

I liked it a lot, will require it in many of my courses (HCI and Software Architecture and Design) and willl have several future posts on it. I have espoused simplicity and know simple isn't simple, but Maeda helps us in its pursuit. Software folks and engineers need more grounding (fore and back) in design concepts and this is a simple, gentle introduction. It is well written.

It seems appropriate to make this first post simple. For more information, Maeda has a web site. Later!

IVR versus Person

A recurrent discussion in my HCI classes is relating numerous user experiences with horrid IVRs  (Interactive Voice Response) and sharing techniques for cutting through the menus to contact a real person. I always cringe when I hear the complaints, since I have managed folks creating IVRs and I appreciate all the work they do to try to make such systems accurate, navigable and palatable.  Unfortunately, in many instances, the lack of flexibility in the telephony interface makes this difficult  at best.  The goal of many users encountering IVR systems is getting to an actual person.   Admittedly that has generally been my goal too!

However late last week two encounters in one day convinced me that IVRs done right can actually avoid aggravation.  My first experience that day was with XM radio. <digression> XM radio is a fine product but lately I have found I was not using it -- part of it was that it was a portable version and with my portable GPS and my cell phone, there were just too many darn wires floating through the car.  My next car will have integrated GPS and  some brand of subscription radio but for now the cell phone and GPS are more important. </digression>  I wanted to cancel it.  So I cruised through the IVR response trees and was finally connected with a person.  The attendant asked for all the information  including my equipment's ID and my address and then asked how she could help.  I said I wanted to cancel the service, she asked why, I told her I did not use it. She said okay she would transfer me to the cancellation department.  After a short wait, another attendant answered, asked again for all the information, seemingly bit by bit (I did grumble), and then asked how she could help.  Frustrated beyond belief I said I thought this was the cancellation department and I wanted to cancel my service.   She said it is the cancellation department and you guessed it - she asked why I wanted to cancel. After a minute she returned and stated that the refund check will be mailed to me in 2 to 3 weeks.  Of course I had to ask her for the amount.  Needless to say this entire user experience was poorly done.   Lest you think it occurred because I was canceling, my other two experiences with XM Radio customer support were similarly bad and that was when I asked to renew my subscription, to give them money.

Several hours pass and I am home.  While cruising through channels, Kath found pillows on QVC that were a great price.  I said I would order them.  I dialed the 800 number from our home line and the IVR asked for our pin. (We were a repeat customer.)  Since pillows were on the screen at the time it asked it that is what we wanted to order.  I said yes, indicated color and size with two more menus and the IVR repeated the order (all canned, pleasant, non synthetic speech) and that was that.  It literally took less than 2 minutes!  In 5 minutes the order was confirmed on my email account.  (I never received a similar confirmation from XM.)

Compare the two experiences.  QVC was optimized to save me time and to insure that the order was accurate.  Since I dialed from my home phone ANI, Automatic Number Identification, suggested my potential identity and providing my pin confirmed it.  The IVR was linked to programming so it knew what was likely being ordered and had a crisp script to get the necessary information.  In contrast XM Radio designed their IVR so that it would accommodate their fragmented systems.  Information was not transferred from interaction with the IVR to attendant 1 and from interaction from attendant 1 to attendant 2.  It accommodated their needs, not their customer's needs.  Additionally there was no confirmation even though it would have been simple to launch an email and check for accuracy.

In my adventures last week with XM Radio and QVC, I feel a bit more enthusiastic that someday I will want to access the IVR instead of a fallible attendant and that the hard work and design of HCI specialists and IVR developers will pay off.  At least in the QVC instance, the user experience was superb.  Note that the QVC instance made use of one of my pet HCI principles, the best interface is the one that has been eliminated through automation.

Sorry for such a long post!  I hope to accelerate through my back log over the next few months and hope you all are enjoying the holiday break and wish you all the best in 2007!  Later!