![]() Commentary by Prakasan Kappoth |
May 26, 2009
|
|
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). 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? 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 | |
|
|
| 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. |
|


