I find the concept of desire paths really fascinating. Over the winter in Gordon Square in London half the park was covered in hazard tape to allow the grass trodden to death by walkers over a desire path to heal. The tape is gone now, the path healed — but no doubt the path will re-emerge soon enough. (In fact I only realised it had healed as I was walking over the path itself — cutting across the grass).
While desire paths are essentially short cuts made by users within a system, I noticed something the other day: when the system goes out of its way to create a new short cut specifically for users, often it’s hard to get users to adopt this easier option.
For me I realised this at Euston Underground station last week. From the Tube station ticket hall, there had been two escalators (one up, one down) and a stair case in the middle. The stairs were rarely used and for the past several months they had been blocked off while an escalator was put installed to replace them.
Heading out of the ticketing platform, the escalators are on a sharp right angle off a straight walk. Without realising I went for the first up escalator, which already had a queue forming. But then I realised the new escalator was now running right next to the original one, but with no one using it.
Commuters had become so used to the walk straight/turn right/queue for first escalator routine virtually no one had noticed the new one.
Over time Euston commuters will obviously notice the new escalator. But for me the most interesting aspect of this was how they had become so preconditioned to the system they failed to see a new and better way to navigate the system.
Perhaps a sign pointing to the new escalator might’ve helped? There are two solutions for new features such as this: either promote it or just wait (and hope) users find it.
Unfortunately, you can never guarantee users to find such things — so perhaps promotion of new features is always the best route.
I tried to activate a new Orange pre-paid SIM today by phone. It went a little bit like this (starting from trying to enter my flat number):
Orange robot: “Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “Five”
Orange robot: “I’m sorry. I couldn’t understand that. Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “FIVE”
Orange robot: “Is this correct? Flat eight…”
Me: “No”
Orange robot: “Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “Five”
Orange robot: “I’m sorry. I couldn’t understand that. Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “FIVE”
Orange robot: “Is this correct? Flat eight…”
Me: “No”
Orange robot: “Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “Five”
Orange robot: “I’m sorry. I couldn’t understand that. Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “FIVE”
Orange robot: “Is this correct? Flat eight…”
Me: “No”
Orange robot: “I’m sorry, I’m having problems understanding you. I’ll transfer you to an operator.”
…
Orange robot: “Sorry, you don’t have enough credit for this operation. Calls to operators are charged at 25p per minute”
(Click, hang up, try again… and yet again I stumble at the same point)
Orange robot: “Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “Fiiivvve”
Orange robot: “I’m sorry. I couldn’t understand that. Please say the number of your flat”
Me: “FFFIIIVVEEE”
Orange robot: “Is this correct? Flat eight…”
Me: “NO”
(Gives phone to partner, whom speaks better English than me it seems, the address is finally accepted.)
Orange robot: “OK, please say your last name”
(This concerns me. My last name is very simple — just “Offer”. Yet it’s surprising how often people get this wrong. In fact hardly ever do people get it right first off. But I reassure myself: my last name isn’t Muralitharan or anything too tongue-twisting)
Me: “Offer”
Orange robot: “Did you say, ‘Awful’?”
Me: (muffled hysteria)
Orange robot: “I’m sorry, I couldn’t understand that. Is your last name correct?”
Me: NO!
Orange robot: “OK, please say your last name”
Me: “OOFFEERRR”
Orange robot: “Did you say, ‘Arthur’?”
(Click, hang up and give up)
And this is why I think voice recognition is one of the worst forms of interaction ever — any experience that leaves me wondering if I’m in an episode of Fonejacker is not a good one.
It’s been almost a month now since SXSW Interactive wrapped up — but it really feels like it was much longer ago. Before my memories get too blurry, now seems a great time to put together an overview of what happened at South-By this year.
It was colder and wetter in Austin than London for the first three days. Not fair in the slighest.
Bigger
First and foremost: it was busy. Bigger. Much bigger! I heard various numbers about how much larger the attendance was. Someone in my hotel said there were 7,000 extra attendees this year. Day-to-day it was hard to notice this surge — it was only during the mammoth registration queue and equally mammoth queues to get into the after session parties that this really became apparent. The parties last year were fantastic — but I didn’t go to anywhere near as many this time because of the staggering wait times. But the upside of this was just enjoying local Austin bars and food — or being studious yet boring by going back to my hotel early to write up notes and ideas from the day.
…and better
Generally, as well as bigger, it was definitely better. The quality of the talks and panels this year were fantastic. Last year was great, but this year was greater. (Or I just chose better this year!)
Data is still a hot topic
The amount of presentations about data (and visualisation) were telling of what the SXSW organisers are thinking: that this is still a very important and topical subject. But a look at the titles of these presentations is also telling: sex sells. And so does putting ‘sexy’ and ‘data’ together in your panel idea. Sexy dirty data. Sexy data for public transit systems. Data is sexier than sex. Data is a sex machine — it honestly makes me wonder why the organisers didn’t create a special venue called the Data Bordello or something similarly flippant. If anything, the presence of ‘sexy’ in so many talks about data viz makes it clear that interest in the topic has definitely moved into the mainstream.
But what concerns me is the future of this mainstream interest in data viz: will it be more Hans Rosling or more chart junk saturation that is already dominating the web with 3mb high-res graphics with little or no value?
Science and design
While data visualisation wasn’t mentioned in Ben McAllister, many of the points he raised are very relevant. Specifically Ben discussed what he calls “scientism” – what feels like science, but it isn’t the real thing. We’re all both guilty of this and also victims of scientism in day-to-day life: making arguments (or fighting other arguments) by using pseudo-scientific reasoning. We’ve all done it: avoided something a client or stakeholder wants by saying ‘research’ or ‘testing’ showed it was ‘a bad idea’. Basically, so much of what we do in design is formed by pseudo-scientific method. User testing can be highly scientific and can be very insightful: but it’s also incredibly easy to skew results and taint the users being tested with what we actually want to hear. Ben has a great article on the topic on The Atlantic — definitely worth reading.
Interaction design as brand interaction
Another theme at SXSW was the idea of how interaction design is ultimately brand design. It cropped up in a few talks I saw, but specifically Marc Shillum really went into this at the panel he chaired entitled ‘Brands as Patterns‘. I’m still getting my head around the finer points, but I think it’s a very interesting concept — you can read more at the Method 10×10 site.
For example, something that occurred to me after the session: the Ryanair website is often criticized for its poor usability, poor design and shady-bordering-on-dark usability patterns. But thinking about Ryanair’s general brand, the interaction experienced on the website is an absolutely faithful interaction with Ryanair’s brand. The airline that wants to charge you a pound to use the toilet is of course going to hide ‘fees’ and ‘extras’ until the very end of the booking process.
Touch on the web
Josh Clark presented a brilliant talk on designing touch interfaces in Teaching Touch: Tapworthy Touchscreen Design. As someone who does most their work in a browser, Josh pointed out a very large elephant in the room: our standard interaction toolkits on the web are appalling behind their native mobile and tablet cousins. Even getting simple swipes working with jQuery is buggy at best — nevermind pinch, zoom and multi-finger gestures. How long before we can natively make use of these new touch gestures in the browser? It might be quite a while.
Sports and fandom in the digital world
I managed to catch some great presentations about how sport and fandom is changing in the face of social media and new technology. Not only was it a great mix of different sports and presenters from different countries, it was also very thought provoking. Ticketmaster now lets you find your Facebook friends at events so you can sit near them. This is just scratching the surface of how technology and social networks will change the sporting experience — and there are some very exciting opportunities here.
Free food
And most importantly, the best free food? Definitely the Turner Recharge Lounge, who served up incredible jalapeño chorizo and jalapeño gravy to boot. Absolutely delicious.
Draw Something is great. I’m addicted to it, and it’s probably the best game I’ve ever been addicted too. Why?
What Travolta movie can I draw the best, and what one would Ben be most likely to get? I went with Pulp Fiction — and he got it. Although I’m a bit concerned Samuel L. Jackson looks a little more like Richard Ayoade from The IT Crowd…
It gets you thinking about your users — i.e., your drawings are based on what you know about your co-player. Drawing Skyrim would be great fun for my partner — I could draw scenes from the game I know she would recognize. However it wouldn’t work for other friends who don’t play games. But that’s the beauty of Draw Something — you have three usually diverse drawing subjects to choose from. Even drawing something as simple as ‘Russia’ or a band would depend on who you’re drawing it for.
Watching someone guess your drawing is not so different from watching user testing. As they fumble around with letters (or do nothing with letters, showing they’re absolutely stumped) you get great feedback on your artistic rendition of a particular subject. It really hones your design and interpretation skills.
It encourages humour. Watching stroke by stroke a drawing come together let’s you have a lot of fun with drawings. I have a handful of friends who take painstaking detail in creating over-the-top scenes of simple words. But you don’t have to spend 15 minutes creating a drawing: in five seconds you can do just a good job and humorous takes on words really add to the fun.
I think the last point is perhaps the most important here. The fun of interaction can so often be overlooked in favour of dry and rigid interactions that must be proven to be 100% effective. And this is why Draw Something is so fantastic: as it encourages interaction through play — and fun.
Earlier this year I went to the Design of Understanding conference at the St Bride library in London. Organiser Max Gadney compiled an fascinating and eclectic list of speakers for the day; and while all the talks were great, for me paleoartist Luis Rey was the real highlight. Not only because of his amazing art and sense of humour, but also the way he described how for a long time his vibrant artwork was shunned by the scientific community. His philosophy to recreating dinosaurs in art is that with only bones, how could anyone really have any idea what colours or textures made up dinosaurs in real life?
During the talk Luis spoke of how the Tyrannosaurus rex has — and still is — often very inaccurately potrayed.
First ever published reconstruction of a Tyrannosaurus rex
The classic image of a Tyrannosaurus rex is that of a lumbering predator with a bipedal posture. But how could the Tyrannosaurus rex possibly catch anything with a stance like this? Scientific theory has changed its view of the Tyrannosaurus rex dramatically over the years — and now sees the infamous dinosaur as standing parallel to the ground with its tail extending behind.
How the Tyrannosaurus rex’s posture is now seen by science
While science’s understanding of the Tyrannosaurus rex has changed, that classic image of Tyrannosaurus rex walking on two feet is still very strong in everyone’s minds. If we were playing a game such as Pictionary and you had to draw a Tyrannosaurus rex, would you not at least consider drawing the ‘traditional’ view of the Tyrannosaurus rex in the hope that your partner may guess it faster — spurning science for the sake of victory?
I definitely would — even though I’d feel like I’d betrayed science just a little bit.
During Rey’s talk I realised that no matter how inaccurate a perception of something is, the most common perception is still the most powerful.
Looking at icon design, it’s this very fact that explains why in this world of rapidly emerging technology we still live with some incredibly out-dated yet universally understood icons.
My favourite day-to-day icon — mostly a British thing I suspect — is the symbol for speed camera:
When was the last time anyone saw a daguerreotype-style camera like this? Or the last time your parents or even grandparents saw a camera like this?
Yet the old-style camera icon still remains strong — through the ubiquity of appearing on every major roadway in the UK. Shown in isolation and it would probably confuse people at first. But amongst red, amber and green lights and other traffic-related furniture it is immediately recognisable.
The BBC Global Experience Language was only launched a few years ago but it also contains many strong images of old and almost extinct technology. Old wind-up clocks for alarms, cogs for settings in devices that are wholly electronic — and of course let’s not forget another classic time traveller in the icon world: the floppy disk for save.
The old faithful ‘save’ icon: the 1.44mb floppy disk
The wonderful video below shows some French children being shown an array of old technology. Their reactions are fascinating — especially around 44 seconds in when they are presented with floppy disks.
Yet children learn so quickly I’m sure in the context of a computer desktop they would be able to ‘save’ something by using the save icon with a floppy disk. They know it in the context of a computer desktop, just not in a real world manifestation.
Just like Latin is used in scientific circles as a ‘dead language’ that won’t change, I wonder if one reason these anachronistic icons survive is not dissimilar.
The floppy disk is not going to change any time soon because it’s dead. However, think about the storage devices that have preceded it. Zip drives (100mb — wow those were the days), CD-Rs, portable hard drives, USB thumb drives… and now we head into the world of cloud storage. Updating a save icon to reflect current technology would not only require constant iteration but it would also dilute the power of the iconography and convention that has already been established with the old floppy disk.
Whether it’s dinosaurs, speed cameras or floppy disks there’s no doubt that there are far more appropriate ways to symbolise these as icons. But for better or worse, the most powerful icon is the one that resonates most widely: whether it’s the terribly inaccurate Victorian view of how a Tyrannosaurus rex looked and stood or the use of an obsolete form of storage that most kids today have never seen — and probably will never see.
How often have you opened a link on your mobile and been prompted to download a mobile app?
It first happened to me on the IMDb. I remember my reaction — “yeah, IMDb app, great idea — I’ll use that all the time!”. I downloaded it and then I never used it again.
But this post isn’t about how pointless website apps can be if you have a perfectly good mobile website (Responsive design, anyone?)
Actually, it’s about a Kanye West-style attitude towards user experience on mobile websites.
Gmail launched a new look a few weeks ago. In my mind it was nothing particuarly revolutionary, just a general tightening of the design. Still, in essence, the same old Gmail.
Since this launch, I’ve noticed that Google is keen to hear my feedback on the new design.
Really keen.
At first I just hit the close button. The second, third and possibly fourth time I did the same. Possibly the fifth time it appeared, I actually gave them feedback, telling them not to worry — the new design was fine, but please stop pestering me with the pop up.
Yet it kept coming back. It’s like a zombie: it won’t die unless you shoot it in the head. But the problem is, I don’t know where the head is.
So, Facebook rolled out some new design changes today. From the moment I heard about it, I think everyone knew that it’d be big yet ultimately dull news.
As one friend put in a succinct Facebook update:
That time of the year has come again – Facebook layout changes
Side effects will include a barrage of posts from people who claim it has caused them distress, anxiety, agitation, blurred vision, hair loss, insomnia, diarrhoea and erectile dysfunction.
Users hate change. Redesigns at best are met with softly spoken praise; at worst with fury and backlash.
As a designer I always try to stifle my inner-user when dealing with a new design. I try to understand and appreciate the thought behind it, knowing only too well how much time, thought and discussion has been put into every minute detail.
But what also really fascinates me is after using a new design of a site, seeing what others think of it, and trying to reconcile their thoughts with not only my own opinion of the design, but what I think was the strategy behind the design itself. (more…)
Last weekend I started reading The Art of Enchantment by Guy Kawasaki. I’d heard a lot about this book (and Guy) in general, so had fairly high expectations for it. The book is just as the title suggests: how to enchant people, either personally or with a product and so on.
From the outset, to be honest, I found it hard to really understand the hype. It’s by no means a bad book, but just not as — well, “enchanting” as one would expect. But I kept going, until I hit this point: speaking about the concept of being a “mensch” (based on the Yiddish expression for being beyond just a human), Kawasaki ends an anecdote about actor James Garner with these words:
…in other words, Garner was saying, “Don’t menschion it”.
Ugh. Really Guy? I instinctively slammed the book shut at that point. A book on enchantment had actually made me feel so disenchanted I slammed it shut because of an appallingly cheesy pun. For me, the book’s credibility had just vanished.
But aren’t all puns appalling and cheesy?
By coincidence, shortly after reading that pun, I saw this wonderful video from comedian Rich Hall:
I’m not cuing the video to the pun: watch the whole thing, you won’t regret it — it’s genius (but the pun is at 2:19 if you can’t wait or missed it).
Rich Hall’s pun? Now that’s enchanting and funny.
Humour is a powerful thing. Even with design. Google is a great example: the “I’m feeling lucky” button through to many Google Doodles. Twitter’s Fail Whale is another great example. It can lower the tone, relax and even amuse people in otherwise frustrating situations.
But it’s a dangerous approach: if the fail whale wasn’t so cute, it might not work. And this is the problem with puns: they are the riskiest form of humour. I disagree that they’re the lowest form of wit: instead I think they’re hardest form of wit to execute. For every Rich Hall that makes a genuinely funny one, there’s a thousand terrible ones being made by your uncle and member of senior management no one likes.
So sorry Guy, but for me you’re now in the same category of wit as the latter two examples.
… so you actually own the source code? [...] what language is it written in?
Georgette ensured Hilary she owned the code, although it sounded like it was based on a proprietary system, which could be a problem for the enterprise going forward. Georgette also didn’t know what language the site was written in: an interesting question from Hilary (and one that really shows her own knowledge of the industry), but not one I think Georgette should really be expected to know. She’s not a technical person, and whether it’s PHP, Ruby or Java is really irrelevant — this is about the business model.
However, Deborah Meaden had some questions that Georgette really should have known more about:
…without exception, the big issue that we’ve had is not about driving customers [...] it’s the site handling those customers. There’s a lot to website structure that’ll make it work or not work’.
I assume Deborah was not so concerned with server load but more how the site handled the customer experience. It was really exciting to hear someone like her so aware and embracing of the user experience ethos. Sadly for Georgette, she couldn’t give Deborah any answer on how the site handled: very likely it had no user testing or much thought at all applied to the general user experience of the site.
But the idea for the site wasn’t bad. Peter Jones commented on Deborah’s concerns:
I think that the business and concept and concerns about the web are easily dealt with. How many people have you got coming to the site?
Easily dealt with? Well, you can definitely fix the user experience: it’s a shame the site wasn’t built with this in mind from the beginning, but Peter is right, with some investment it could definitely be fixed. But even with a great user experience, if the business model is rubbish, the site won’t survive. Peter saw this and along with Theo Paphitis they opted to invest with Georgina — and hopefully they’ll be as mindful about the user experience aspect of the site as Deborah was.
It was colder and wetter in Austin than London for the first three days. Not fair in the slighest.
What Travolta movie can I draw the best, and what one would 
Chirostenotes (Copyright Luis Rey)
First ever published reconstruction of a Tyrannosaurus rex
How the Tyrannosaurus rex’s posture is now seen by science
The old faithful ‘save’ icon: the 1.44mb floppy disk
