Something found from my notes. How much closer are we today (this was from 2008)?
By 2020 the terms “interface” and “user” will be obsolete as computers merge ever closer with humans. It is one prediction in a Microsoft-backed report drawn from the discussions of 45 academics from the fields of computing, science, sociology and psychology.
It predicts fundamental changes in the field of so-called Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).
By 2020 humans will increasingly interrogate machines, the report said.
In turn computers will be able to anticipate what we want from them, which will require new rules about our relationship with machines.
Computers to merge with humans
Perhaps due to the influence of Windows based software poor UI design, I often come across the common mistakes superfluous and poorly thought out dialog boxes. In addition to the maxim below, I believe we should avoid creating error dialogs when an undo will do. Unfortunately the essential undo function is still often forgotten.
Dialog boxes should be action-oriented; they should help guide users towards what their next step is likely to be and it should provide them with the information that they need in order to be able to accomplish that next step.
He doesn’t state it strongly enough. Unfortunately, no matter how strongly or loudly you state this fact, often it goes unheard.
Typically, the burden is on the user to learn how a software application works. The burden should be increasingly on the system designers to analyze and capture the user’s expectations and build that into the system design. Norman, 1988
So often in my new experiences complexity is the selling point, the starting point, and/or the proof of your value. People (customers) don’t share this vision. People are intelligent but must be set free to construct the level of complexity they are comfortable with, or need.
Complexity isn’t designed but rather rises spontaneously through self-organisation. Start with basic or simple interactions and allow more complex behaviours or patterns to emerge.
From an old project proposal, source is likely from theory of emergence.
My current projects all involve dealing with issues of featureitis, software with simple uses, but with a monstrous amount of controls and options. It’s well designed software created by brilliant nice people, but many have fallen into the belief that more UI controls, more options, more visible data, somehow makes software more desirable. This is of course a long held problem, routed not just in software (ala. Microsoft Windows) but in Western Society herself. As far as interface design is concerned, I know from experience, more choice as a feature seldom works, as complexity leads to more complexity, more choice leads to dissatisfaction.
Neil Turner summarises some of Barry Schwartz’s thinking in answering the question:
Is lots of choice a good thing?
You see it turns out whilst people will invariably ask for more choice, lots of choice is not really a good thing for the following reasons:
Ideally, we would focus entirely on those features or controls that users need to accomplish their goals while deleting our through perhaps progressive disclosure keep all the complexity hidden from all but the most advanced user. My experience is that that is far more difficult than it ought to be but its a challenge worth engaging in.
Below is a ted talk where Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz’s estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.
Dino Ignacio’s supercut of all the moments in A New Hope where characters interacted with machines, doors, screens, levers, knobs and buttons.
Some nice ideas but in practice I doubt I would use them. People prefer to do most of their interaction within the app itself. Notifications are simply alerts and as such don’t need to be interacted with. Launching the app that sent the alert is only a swipe away, that should be efficient enough.