The Evolution of Everyday Things

Before we look at Norman's user interface design principles, let's consider the design of everyday things for a moment. Specifically, I find it interesting how the design of a product evolves. There is a fairly common design lifecycle that most products seem to follow, whether the product is a remote control unit or software. Let's look at this evolution process from the point of view of an everyday item like a VCR remote control.

Phase 1 The design goal is to make the object easy to implement with existing technology. Such designs are simple, but they have poor affordance. For example, first-generation remote controls were created using the various cases, buttons, and switches that were available at the time. All the buttons on the remote looked and behaved exactly the same.

Phase 2 The designers learn from their mistakes in Phase 1, so the design goal is to make minor improvements while still using existing technology. Such designs still have poor affordance, but they have better mappings. For example, second-generation remote controls were likely to use the same basic controls but might use two different-shaped buttons instead of one shape. They also had better button layouts, more descriptive labels, and perhaps different color buttons.

Phase 3 The designers realize that they are not restrained to existing technology, so they come up with a better design that uses custom technology. Such designs have greatly improved affordance, since the controls have properties that suggest what they do. However, since this new technology is still unproven, the designers use it sparingly. For example, third-generation remote controls might have used completely different button styles for the Channel and Volume controls as well as for the Play and Stop buttons. These buttons have a different feel so that you get feedback just from their touch. These remote controls might have also used special buttons with totally different behaviors, like a special Record button designed to prevent accidental pressing.

Phase 4 Brimming with confidence from their success in Phase 3, the designers use new technology for everything they can think of. Unfortunately, they overdo it, and the designs are a disaster. Despite the designers' best intentions, such designs have poor affordance and mapping, so users no longer have a clue how to use them. Such designs seem like a good idea at the time but are considered silly in retrospect. For example, fourth-generation remote controls might have looked like a spacecraft control panel, complete with several different-shaped buttons, all with different behaviors and colors. Because these designs had a lot of buttons, some designs hid infrequently used buttons to not overwhelm the user. Interestingly, one successful innovation from this era was VCR Plus, which presented a much better conceptual model for programming VCRs.

Phase 5 Now humbled, the designers focus on designs that employ the best ideas using the best technology. They focus on designs that help users do their tasks and not on showing everyone how clever they are. Focused on the user's goals, they use restraint to reduce complexity. For example, fifth-generation remote controls have a minimum number of buttons with only a few different shapes and colors. The buttons are now easier to find, understand, and use.

Does this evolutionary life cycle sound familiar? It should. I wanted to come up with an example of this process that used Windows user interface technology. I didn't have to think too hard. Consider this highly simplified version of the evolution of the Windows user interface design:

Windows 1.0 (Phase 1) Designed to get to market as quickly as possible, using a visual appearance similar to popular graphical user interfaces at the time, primarily Apple Lisa, Apple Macintosh, and Xerox Star.

Windows 2.0 (Phase 2) Fixes the mistakes in the first version. Also adds a few minor improvements, primarily overlapping windows.

Windows 3.0 (Phase 3) Designed with a significantly new user interface look to take advantage of VGA display technology. Screen windows and dialog boxes are still 2-D with white backgrounds, but the design includes a limited use of 3-D effects for buttons.

Windows 3.1 (Phase 4) Completely out of control—no restraint at all. Everything is 3-D on a gray background, whether it needs to be or not. The look is inconsistent, ugly, and overused. Since the basic Windows controls are still primitive, Windows programs use many custom controls that are inconsistent in both appearance and behavior. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Windows 95 (Phase 5) Sanity is restored. Windows now provides more powerful common controls to give programs a more consistent look and behavior. The use of 3-D effects is minimized, and the 3-D effects used are much less severe.

While it can be argued that this evolution is a natural progression and unavoidable, we could save a whole lot of time and money if we were able to go directly from Phase 1 to Phase 5. But that never seems to happen. There seems to be quite a lot of momentum in the design process, and the evolutionary life cycle requires a substantial amount of learning. You have to wait for technology to catch up with you, and then you have to catch up with technology.



Developing User Interfaces for Microsoft Windows
Developing User Interfaces for Microsoft Windows
ISBN: 0735605866
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2005
Pages: 334

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net