Tim Brown On Current Design Challenges 213
prostoalex writes "Tim Brown is the CEO of IDEO, design company that is quite famous for its work on designing office chairs, Palm computers, Microsoft mice, Nike shoes, etc. MIT Technology Review interviewed Tim Brown on current challenges in the design world, exciting fields for a designer to be in, current annoyances in the user interface design."
i-Mode has nothing to do with design (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that people are going to use their mobile devices to do things like watch movies is just wrong. I think this is as the reason that the Japanese i-Mode has been so successfulâ"its applications are very small.
I'll agree using a cell phone to look at movies and pictures is stupid.
However, i-Mode services took off because anyone can easily make themselves an i-Mode application and have it run. Here, I am limited to very expensive applications and only ones that have been endorsed by my digital cell provider. Meaning that I have never so much as LOOKED at any of those features. I'm not going to spend a quarter to send a instant message. I'd balk at a nickel. I'll just call - I pay a flat fee for voice, to a point. Text uses a FRACTION of that bandwidth.
The phone companies want to be in the applications business, and so long as they control the content, these services are just a bad joke. That's the secret of i-Mode.
Feature Creep (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems to be true anywhere these days. Feature creep is at least as bad when it comes to software.
Network Selection (Score:5, Insightful)
Why expect the network to handle this?
The OS should be able to monitor WiFi signal strength, retried packets, etc., and make the decision to switch to the mobile network automatically.
And a periodic retry of the WiFi network isn't going to cost the earth, in processing or in battery life.
He just offended the readers of /. (Score:5, Insightful)
BROWN: Well, I can tell you what doesn't workâ"and that is to have a whole bunch of people who are deep in their own technical domain but have no interest in engaging with the others.
Heh, good thing you don't find many of those around
Seriously though, this is dead on. Too often UI design are developed by the same people hacking the low level stuff or the business side of an application. At the end of the project, usually 6 weeks after schedule, they have to release what they used for testing since there is no time to sit and think about usability.
Re:Computer interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most of us do ot really know what we want, a truely user freindly interface is a myth.
Re:i-Mode has nothing to do with design (Score:2, Insightful)
TR: Are there historical parallels to this phenomenon?
BROWN: Sureâ"it's the whole horseless carriage scenario. Early cars looked like carriages, early TVs looked like radios. Every time somebody brings you something thatâ(TM)s new, it looks like the old thing. Itâ(TM)s only the second or third generation before it finally starts to look like the new thing.
The problem is that most of the firms producing both hardware and software for mobile applications are trying to force people to use handsets as though they are using a desktop. For instance, the browser on my P800 works fine, except that it's such a tiny window, it's a real pain to use for a site that has been designed to read in 800x640, or whatever. What would be good would be a browser that could work out what was interesting, and strip out all the rest. This is a nontrivial requirement though, and maybe I will just have to restrict my browsing to those sites that I know to be set up for my small screen.
For instance, I have an application that takes stock prices, and formats them for my screen, which is very useful. Now if someone could only do the same for sports scores...
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but this demonstrates an aspect of designers that I find somewhat annoying. If you are designing for the average Joe, Bill and Jane, and they aren't happy with your designs, it's your fault, not theirs.
It's like when I'm working on a piece of multimedia/website with a graphic designer and they come up with some original concept that the client rejects on practical grounds -- the designer goes into a big huff and thinks the client is stupid.
Some designers always tend to think their ideas are the best in the world. Really good designers design what people want and are humble about it. Some designers seem to think that because they can come up with original ideas they are in some way "brilliant", but there are a lot of people with a lot of good ideas and good ideas are not restricted to designers. As my old boss used to say, "ideas are cheap".
(Sorry if this comes over a bit strong. I don't really mean this as an attack on you personally, it's just one of my pet peeves.)
Typical arty bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
We can design some public plaza space or neighborhood that is absolutely award-winning, and on the cutting edge of the design world. The problem is, we often have to (at our client's direction) water our design down to something that the average Joe can understand.
What is there to not 'understand' about a public plaza, even for an 'average Joe'? Or, do you just mean that most people dislike your designs?
Design for accessibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK we are presently involved in implementing the Disability Discrimination Act, which is about Accessibility. How do you design for this?
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading your post, the phrase "too clever by half" comes to mind. If the client doesn't want some avant-garde artsy design, you should know that up front; if you're overshooting their design comfort level and then having to "water it down" you're wasting their time and money. The problem is, everyone who studies design wants to be on the cutting edge, but there's really only room for 10% (at most) to be there; the rest should get used to working on less exciting projects unless/until they can prove that they deserve to be one of the few who get to do the good stuff. It's the same as in programming - a few get to strike out in bold new directions, the rest earn their stripes by making derivatives or lesser enhancements.
It's not about people thinking change is bad. You only say that because you want to be the one making the changes, and I suspect you'd seem just as conservative about unasked-for "screwing around with stuff" in areas outside your own specialty. Do you use any software? How would you like it if the entire UI changed, just because someone thought they had a better idea? How about if your ZIP code or telephone area code kept changing, just because someone came up with a more "logical" way to assign them? If some traffic designer had the "bright idea" to make some of the streets in your neighborhood one-way, would you just say "cool, change is good"? Hmmm. What this is about is balancing change with consistency. Too bad if that leaves you frustrated because there aren't enough opportunities to do what you want to do.
3G is the feature creep personified (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently 3G is an executive toy and needs a decent application. There are some instances where video calls could be very useful, doctors, police etc. but for the masses there has to be something that makes it worthwhile. Many people are happy with text messaging and instant messaging when online.
Interface Interference (Score:4, Insightful)
We constantly see this in applications and new technology where the engeneers come up with all this facinating stuff and try to cram it into a device hoping customers will overlook the lack of need and only see the prettyness.
As product designers we are at a cross roads where we are only now starting to understand which services and abilities people want grouped together in a single appliance. This is not limited strictly to produts. We are seeing it in services as well. Things like digital television, cell phone service plans as well as in cell phones and PDAs.
Cell phones are great with a camera built in, perhaps even the ability to take a 5 second video, but there is realy no need for a cell phone which is a video camera, no matter how cool it may be to own one. Video cameras do a much better job of capturing video. In the same way you would not want a video camera which had cell phone capabilities... well perhaps you would, but unless your part of a profitably large enough group of consumers, you probably won't get it.
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, account managers give the client what they want. Designers try to give the client what they need to effectively communicate the message. Sometimes the two don't mix, particularly if you work with a client who feels the need to be creative themselves and art direct the piece. Designers are brought on as consultants, amongst other things, not pixel monkeys paid to make "kewl" photoshop effects. We understand color, pacing and composition in ways the average person can't, though they "get it" when the message is effectively communicated.
(Sorry if this comes over a bit strong. I don't really mean this as an attack on you personally, it's just one of my pet peeves.)
Re:Computer interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans are learning creatures. Machines are simply that--Machines.
It is far simpler to have a human adapt to an interface than to attempt to build the ultimate interface that would be universally accepted.
By creating a system that is abstracted from reality (windows/desktop/icons) allows us all common ground, as there is no real example of this sort of thing in the real world anyway.
Heck, the mouse and the keyboard are both *arbitrarily* designed devices. Each it built to perform a purpose, but unlike anything else. I've learned to use them effectively, as have most people. This trend is growing too. Younger people adapt quicker and quicker, and don't need the kind of training that folks did 20 years ago.
Another example of this: Newton vs Palm.
The Newton tried to understand and learn from the human. The Palm had grafitti--You were forced to learn it's dialect of writing. You know what? Millions learned grafitti, even "non-techies". My wife, learned grafitti in about an hour, and can really rock writing on a palm. The Netwon never really caught on, in part due to it's handwriting recognition skills.
In reference to your instant on. Computer already have this. Use sleep mode instead of the power button. You'll get your instant on without the wait.
I for one, do not wish to "start from scratch". I'm happy with the progression of today's desktops, and In *my* opinion, we've skyrocketed past the simple concepts from Xerox PARC (That's PARC not Park. Palo Alto Research Center).
Trust me, if you have ever used the fruits of the original technology, you would understand some of the differences.
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a problem. That's a solution. The problem is that "absolutely award winning" designs "on the cutting edge of the design world" tend to be designed for other architects, instead of the people who actually have to use the space. So they end up being dead, unused spaces.
Tell me, have you read How Buildings Learn by Stewart Brand or A Timeless Way of Building or A Pattern Language by Chris Alexander? They explain this situation in far more detail than I could here.
Re:Make Ergonomics Open Source! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Either it's a hilarious troll, or a comment on how little Slashdotters know about human factors. Or maybe, the article is a troll, the guy who moderated it as "Interesting" is the idiot.
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want out of a mobile device is something which gives me directions to the nearest pub when it hears me say "Damn, I could murder a pint"
And another thing, why are mobile phones generally still things you hold up to your head to use, rather than always coming with usable wireless headsets?
Re:Make Ergonomics Open Source! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, patent holders need to pay attention to their public image - patents are useful up to a point, but beyond that the holders start to look like criminal extortionists. Patenting something to improve a product consumers have a choice in usually works, but people in need of new lifesaving drugs who can't afford it are difficult to turn away. It starts to look like a price gouger taking advantage of a crisis to reap a bundle (like people selling water for $10 / gallon after a hurricane, etc).
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most clients are NOT stupid - they lack vocabulary and understanding, and any designer that fails to understand that IS stupid.
As for "watered-down designs" - that's natural. Most designers want to be visionary, to create something unique, a design that is both communicative and an enduring work of art. It's just not possible - so many things have an accepted form that is quite difficult to redesign because the public accepts that standard form. As a general rule - humans do not like extreme changes. So a lot of design work must, by definition, be an evolutionary process.
Re:The more things change . . .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Usability. Because one gadget is harder to lose than two. Because one gadget is easier to charge than two.
Re:Make Ergonomics Open Source! (Score:3, Insightful)
PR is not a useful check on the tendency of corporations to be jerks- it is a last ditch safety check, not a proper restraint.
Re:3G is the feature creep personified (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:too much time on his hands (Score:3, Insightful)
So, after he's done, and your email no longer works as email, you'll be able to use something called imail (internet mail), which will be what we used to call email.
This is just change for the sake of change.
Maybe we should point him to dictionary.com so he can make up his mind what design is?Their web page might be titled "Master of Design" but I think they left out the letters "b, a, t, o, and r"
Yeah, I know somebody's going to mod this as a flame or a troll, but this guy's supposed to be influencing design, and he comes across as Faith Popcorn.
Re:Computer interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
So what could be my secret drive or desire behind that omission, from a Freudian point of view? ;-) I don't know, but the keyboard certainly is my most valuable input device. I feel it is not because of desks; I still do love it sitting in a train with the laptop computer on my knees, or the stripped-down version my cellphone provides me with for typing of short messages, names, or calendar entries. There may be a reason for this even if we imagine fundamentally different input schemes like really perfect speech recognition were widely available. For instance the keyboard allows me to easily pause at any time, or to go back in already written text and edit an arbitrary portion of it. And a great deal of computer usage is some sort of text processing.
You have a valid point here, but I think it is not so much because of the way hackers and designers work. Rather, it is the fact that most computers sit on a desk today. I remember some HCI person giving a talk at the local university about research he did in interaction with smartboards, that is, large touchscreens attached to walls. One thing he mentioned was that typical WIMP interfaces as we know them from desktop machines break down entirely there, for a quite simple reason: the display is much larger than a regular screen and the user is closer to it. This makes e.g. locating a button or window on screen much much harder.
However, I do not see too close a relation between physical desks and current user interfaces. It is somewhat misleading to talk about a desktop metaphor here even though we use to refer to those interfaces as desktops. The desktop metaphor may have been a guiding principle when the first GUIs were developed but since then they have become a thing of their own. Do we really draw conclusions about our computers' domain using concepts from the domain of physical desks and offices as suggested by Lakoff's Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [wwu.edu]?
Such interfaces do exist already -- for computers we use to call cars. No, really. A car is kind of a computer today. But frankly, I don't see how this could be employed as a computer UI if the computer does not control a machine that has an engine and wheels. The navigation metaphor you mention (and use) seems misplaced or at least overstretched here. Navigating the Web is pretty different from spatial navigation. For instance the Web is a discrete space where one jumps from one place to another while a network of streets is so only if viewed at a higher level of abstraction which is irrelevant to actual driving tasks like making a turn or changing lanes. Which might be the reason why those 3D information spaces largely failed so far.