The TRIZ JournalCelebrating 10 Years On The Web
Part of the RealInnovation Network
Click To Learn More About PremiumLinks
Home  >  Real Innovation Commentary
Search:
  • Subscribe
  • What is TRIZ?
  • Contradiction Matrix
    & 40 Principles
  • Archives
  • Best Practices
    • General
    • Software, Innovation and Creativity
    • Consultants, Innovation and Creativity
  • Call For Papers
  • Dictionary
  • Events Calendar
  • Jobs
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Discussion Forum
  • Related Topics
  • Business Process Mgt
  • Innovation
  • Outsourcing
  • Six Sigma
  • Quick Access
  • Help
  • Search
  • Advertising
  • Article Archive
  • Newsletter Archive
  • Reader Feedback
  • Editorial Panel
Prakasan Kappoth

Commentary by Prakasan Kappoth

Email and RSSSubscribe via Email or RSS   |   Prakasan Kappoth's Biography Biography
May 26, 2009
Print | Email

Ideal Final Interface - What Should Have Come First, User Interface or Function?

I was introduced by this book called "Design of Everyday Things" authored by Donald Norman by a friend of mine few years back. I was ignorant to the fact that there is such a great amount of work going on in the concept of User Iterface (UI) design until I read this book, and my further research on the UI arena has really enthralled me about the depth of thinking evolved during the last decade or so. After reading about the concept, I see there has been a subconcious change in my approach to use a product or service, and as a matter of fact, I started criticizing every UI I come across since then, and nothing satisfied me from the User Interface point of view yet. (including iPod).

I think many of us don't pay enough attention to the User Interface of a product we use when the sole purpose of using a product/service is to achieve a function to complete my job. As long as the job gets done even with some difficulties, we as a user tend to compromise on the user interface part, with the exception that some UI's are really ridiculous that people stop using the product itself. Perhaps this approach of giving importance to the functionality than UI slowly started creating a mental model about the perspective of a UI for us, and every other UI we come across incrementally added to the existing mental model of usage scenarios of functions than the UI.

My background and experience as an IT professional helping people to design new software and products and as a customer of various software and hardware products enticed me this line of thinking, what should have come first, the User Interface or Functionality? Designing a new UI in the traditional approach involves understanding the functionality first, thinking about the end customer, their culture, habit, the customer base, and design a UI to cater the different type of such end customers. However, thinking backward from the user perspective, is there way to design an Ideal User Interface?

If you are an extensive MS Office user for the last 5 years, you can probably understand me and the reason about this lingering thought, what should have come first? Work with office 2003 Power point and the 2007 Power Point versions; note the differences in the UI. 2007 packed with more functionality, (and I'm happy with that), but the UI to achieve those common functions that were easy in 2003 became so complicated in 2007 version. Although the UI changes in the 2007 version perceived to be like (how the designer of this product perceived may be) they have simplified for the users, could they have designed the UI first for 2007 for adding more functionality?

I asked the same question to a colleague of mine working as a User Experience Lead, and her answer wasn't surprising. We have always designed the UI for a function that exists. We created the function to satisfy our customer "jobs" and then designed a wrapper around that function to accept the input from them and provide output back, typically known as User Interface. Therefore the role of a UI designer then gets in to the level of making the UI attracting (make it flashy?), reducing the complexity of using it, making it simple to operate, and we are done. Further pushing with my agenda of "UI should come first," my colleague really argued how is it possible to create a UI for a function that do not exist? Fair question, and frankly I didn't have an answer to back up my thinking. It's like creating a roof first for a house before the foundation and the wall.

Ok, if we can't create the UI first for the functionality that does not exist, can we do it other way around, create a function from the UI that I'm working on? To make this possible, can we think about the Ideal user interface? Since every user interface is to achieve some function, can there be an ideal user interface to create an ideal function?

Ideality is a concept within the systematic innovation framework to break the incremental approach in thinking and looking at the ideal scenario we would like to achieve. In other way, ideality is the results of function achieved without any cost or harm. If we can apply this technique for our UI should come first issue, we could ask

What is my Ideal Final User Interface?

An ideal user interface for me as a customer for any product could be that there is no UI. This may sound hypothetical, but the notion here is to bring an idealistic thinking for the functionality.

I would be happy to have my PowerPoint 2007 without any UI at all, but provide me things as and when I needed to do something. For example, if I want to insert a picture in a slide, all that I need is an insert option (only when I need that) where PowerPoint can point me to the place I will load the image from, and more ideally, automatically bringing the best and suitable image for that slide, insert it, change the orientation etc . Well, now I'm talking to a very intelligent Power Point application by Microsoft, because if it to make my ideal UI a reality, a very new intelligent function should be created. By asking the question "what is stopping Microsoft to provide me an intelligent Power Point feature," I may be pushing the ball to the technical guy's court!

Well, ideality does not really exist, so do the intelligent functionality today in the Power Point. Now, if the ideal ideal UI (no UI at all) is not possible, what could be the next IFI (Ideal Final Interface)? Drawing the same Power Point insert example, the next IFI for me should be the insert option UI is so convenient to me that clicking on it would give me a thumbnail view of all "preferred" images, preferably giving me some ratings, also identifying the size, automatically converting them to fit in to my slides etc. Wouldn't that be possible?

The concept of an IFI is more than just for designing the best UI, but also creating a better functionality for the product and overall changing the experience of getting my "job" done as a customer. Now do you agree that UI can come first, what are your thoughts?


Comments [4] | Permalink
Categories: General, Methodology

COMMENTARY COMMENT
ADD A COMMENT

posted by  Ellen Domb May 26, 2009 at 6:58 am
Thanks, Prakash--VERY thought provoking. The idea of an ideal user interface is now challenging me on everything--when I get into my rental car this morning, how can I tell it to let me open the door, leave the parking lot, go to my destination, park, etc.? Right now, each activity involves a separate user interface (door lock, ignition key, reverse gear, forward gear, steering, maps, etc.)

Could the car designer find a way to put the car into gear other than the gear shift????

 


posted by  Prakasan Kappoth  [ http://trizit.blogspot.com ] May 27, 2009 at 4:10 am
Thank for that interesting example, Ellen. The automotive industry is an excellent area for thinking about the IFI. I have read various innovative concepts being developed in the automotive industry, including automatic door opener, parking, object detection, adaptive cruising etc; and there are even cars that I have seen (in US) you can start the engine, turn on the heater even before you get in the car, etc. However, considering the present-system itself, the concept of IFI is something a car designer could think about right now, and implement. An interesting area of UI research is in the area called contextual UI. You could have one product providing different UI based on the context of its usage, and also different people using them. One of the areas I’m working is on the contextual UI for a mobile device. Typically the UI of a mobile devices are being complicated due to the number of function it provides, (thanks to the ideality in the technological development)and the UI for a tech savy person would make no sense for an average user, and a common UI would make them the average user to think about another product.
 


posted by  Lynda Curtin  [ http://www.deBonoForBusiness.com ] May 29, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Yes, I think IFI can come first, though the word "final" doesn't' work for me as final implies that's it, finished for ever.

Think of your example of a roof. If the roof user interface was designed in the beginning of the construction project it might include design elements that: automatically empty the eaves of leaves and debris; automatically clears snow off the roof; sends a message about a pending leak area before the rains come; calculates the load requirements for solar installations; cleans the solar panels when necessary.

I think IFI promotes bigger picture thinking and this stimulates innovation that brings value to people.
 


posted by  Connor Upton  [ http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html. ] June 3, 2009 at 7:18 am
Hi Prakash, interesting read.
You might enjoy this article by Jeff Raskin (Apple GUI guru) entitled "intuitive equals familiar" available at the URL above.
It deals with a key problem facing User Experience (UX) as a discipline, namely how does one develop innovative solutions while satisfying existing users with establish work patterns? This will always be a problem for existing tools with a large user base and explains your UX friend's statement about designing for existing functionality.
On the other hand, the concept of an IFI makes perfect sense for new and emerging technologies. The question "how is it possible to create a UI for a function that does not exist?" does have an answer but it requires a radical shift in traditional software development roles. The answer is to move user experience to the starting point rather than the end point of the development process. If we accept that much software supports users to achieve goals, then an intricate understanding of those goals should provide enough knowledge around which to generate GUI concepts. These concepts can be validated independently of technology. This would help to avoid another issue pointed out by Don Normans, if a user cannot achieve their goals then, irrespective of technological sophistication, the software is broken.
 

ADD COMMENT
(*) indicates required fields
author (*) :
email address :
url :
 
  bold italic underline add hyperlink add email hyperlink centre unorder list order list add image quote emoticon smiles
 
comment (*) :

max characters : 1500

characters remaining :
remember me :
To help us prevent spam-generated submissions,
please enter the summation of 1 and 6 below:
 
 
 
Homepage

Contact me

Bookmark this page

RECENT ENTRIES
RSS
  • Light Weight Cycle Vs Heavy Weight Cycles
  • Introducing Contradictions in Businesses - Is That a Conscious Strategy?
  • Ideal Final Interface - What Should Have Come First, User Interface or Function?
  • Economic Impact of Increased US Savings – Contradiction and Opportunities?
  • Innovation Policy for Obama
  • Holiday TRIZ -Holidaying in Crisis..

LATEST COMMENTS
  • Searching for Industries With the Greatest Pain ... The Story Continues by jewellery earrings
  • Open Innovation and TRIZ by Maria Thompson
  • Open Innovation and TRIZ by Ellen Domb
  • Teaching Innovation by Jane Anderson
  • Observations on the TRIZ Developers Summit 2010 by Ellen Domb
  • TRIZ India Summit Day 2 by Prof Gautam Mohanty

COMMENTATORS
Ellen Domb [90]  RSS Ellen Domb's Biography
Katie Barry [54]  RSS Katie Barry's Biography
Jack Hipple [47]  RSS Jack Hipple's Biography
Praveen Gupta [42]  RSS Praveen Gupta's Biography
Michael S. Slocum [34]  RSS Michael S. Slocum's Biography
Cass Pursell [29]  RSS Cass Pursell's Biography
James Todhunter [21]  RSS James Todhunter's Biography
Lynda Curtin [11]  RSS Lynda Curtin's Biography
Michael Cyger [10]  RSS Michael Cyger's Biography
Guest Commentator [9]  RSS Guest Commentator's Biography
Prakasan Kappoth [9]  RSS Prakasan Kappoth's Biography
Bob Carter [4]  RSS Bob Carter's Biography
Rod King [4]  RSS Rod King's Biography
Bob Malanga [2]  RSS Bob Malanga's Biography
Kady Srinivasan [2]  RSS Kady Srinivasan's Biography
All Commentators

CATEGORIES
About Commentators [15]  RSS
Buzz/Press [64]  RSS
Companies [23]  RSS
Conference [91] RSS
General [130]  RSS
Leadership [23]  RSS
Management [82]  RSS
Methodology [117]  RSS
Strategy [102]  RSS

ARCHIVES
RSS
  

* Current Month
* Full Archive



Ad Links
Business Innovation in the 21st Century (eBook)

Advertise on Real Innovation and The TRIZ Journal


Legal Information. © 2006 CTQ Media. All rights reserved. v1.0, 0.4 Submit an Article • About The TRIZ Journal • Contact Us • Privacy Policy • Site Map