History & Vision Cmap 7

HCI module 7, Cmap 7: History and Vision

Reflection on Documentary Objectified by Gary Hustwit

HCI Assignment 5: Documentary Objectified

By Kadri-Liis Piirsalu & Nansy Mass

 Every one of us spend our life surrounded by the work of industrial designers but very few of us understand the process by which our furniture, TV, or smartphone came to look and feel the way they did and most importantly how the elements of design interact with our own ideas and assumptions about value and functionality. The design of everyday objects has more than a little to do with mass psychology and the way it intersects with commerce.  Objectified takes us on a journey to the world of industrial design and the interaction of people with the objects they have brought into their lives. Objectified brings us closer about the understanding of design and the many assumptions an object makes us think about, beginning with what is it for and ending with how much does it cost. An object speaks to us; who but it there and what was the goal. The documentary makes us think how we take the objects surrounding us in everyday life for granted but we are affected by them every day as we use them constantly. Nice examples of that were given in the documentary about the toothpicks for instance.

Everything around us is design in itself, everything we use and work with. Nothing really has been there before and has been sculpted and planned by a designer to give us a maximum experience and interaction as possible. Design needs to solve problems we face every day, but designers also work to simulate people’s minds and souls. Objectified explains how good design has to be honest, aesthetical, long-living, consistent and environment friendly. This is actually quite hard job to cover all of these requirements if we think about it as all these requirements are very important and do not always go hand in hand but waste is a product of bad design.  This notion further touches the topic of cradle to cradle or cradle to grave as words such as reduce, reuse, recycle urge environmentalists and our everyday society makes us as responsible citizens of the world to think about it, the meaning stands for the notion that do more with less in order to minimize the damage. These notions urge us to think of the nature and the fact that why not to take nature itself as our model and skip the toxic materials used in design or in any other industry as it will end up as waste. Therefore if we elaborate these principles as designers already do think about it when designing to us, re-designing could be one version of it therefore we make an exciting and viable case for change. These notions refer to the responsibility a company or a designer takes for the entire cycle of a product or an object to disposal or termination. Many argue that human progress since the industrial revolution has been one big design error because it did not think about the concept of reusing or making objects out of materials that last forever and therefore leave mountains of waste behind.

 Further on during the process of designing the designer needs to understand its target audience, to whom the designed object is made for, but also pay attention to details that are useful for humans and in general and also stand out in the market with its uniqueness. But the main goal is to make a change!

Product development merges through self-experience. During the design development designers pay attention to the usability and performance of the designed object and try to provide the user with a better experience through mapping and ergonomics. The design should have a clear and understandable logic so that the user knows what to do with the object thanks to its design. The more natural the object is in its design, the easier its usability is. Designers are looking design products we would want to keep and that will stand the test of time.

However this is not all that is needed since the attributes of the product play an important role such as materials used and therefore ask- how do we connect with the product?

The look of the object, in other words the way we perceive the object represents the designs intention. What can be done with the object? For instance if a person comes from one culture to another and sees an object that does not exist in its own culture, but can assume or knows what it is used for or what can be done with it, then it can be said to be good design.
Another example of a good design is, if a person does not know that their using an object for certain task, so that using it has becomes an automated interaction. This is where the user is subconsciously interacting with the designed object. Therefore good design needs to be dissolved with natural human behaviour.

 

When it comes to human and computer interaction (HCI) then, it is very little to do with the design of the object, but a lot with the software that it is carrying, as the software is what we are initially interacting with, the things that happen on our screens. When it comes to software and their usability, they pretty much have the same principals as designed objects; they need to be designed on logic so that we can operate on them.

Apple has a great design. It has a unique appearance as an object and has been designed with the principals of “less is more,” which initially makes us concentrate on the software it contains. Though the things we operate with; mouse and keyboard are necessary objects for our interaction and therefore it is very important for them not only to complete its functions and enhance our interaction, but also want us to engage with the software itself. This is where the aesthetics and material play an important role, but also the form itself. Therefore these objects should give out emotions and a need for interaction with the software itself. In further perspective it would be ideal if the design itself creates relationship and memories with its user and therefore the usability of the object lasts longer. Therefore it is very important in iteration design, human and software interaction, how we think about the object and how we feel about it.  We tend to want new things or in other words the new now it is something that the society brings with. Having new things or some special object you make a statement to yourself and this object is reflecting yourself. This could be also seen in people who are very brand loyal and brand specific when it comes to their purchases. Through the objects we own or that have been owned by someone special to us we share, hold and create memories and relationships, there are stories the objects carry with them.

Overall documentary Objectified gives a vital overview about everyday design and objects and makes us think for example on questions like; what was the designer thinking when designing this product? How do we connect with a certain object? And what is the story it carries? Today as we consume us as buyers have become more aware of what are we buying as we are now also thinking about the ecological footprint we leave behind, therefore designers have the pressure to design something that is sustainable in a way but also something that would not end up as a waste once used.

State Transition Diagrams, Petri Nets

HCI module 6 Cmap: State Transition Diagrams, Petri Nets

Interface Efficiency, KLM, GMOS

HCI module 5 Cmap: Interface efficiency, KLM, GOMS

The Human Processor Model, Fitts Law

HCI module 4 Cmap: The Human Processor Moder, Fitts Law

Compared to the other modules and Cmaps this was the hardest to understand and to carry out due to the uncommon information and less logical thinking than with other modules.

Feedback, Errors, Forcing, Gestalt laws, Responsiveness- Cmap 3

HCI module 3 Cmap:  Feedback, Errors, Forcing, Gestalt laws, Responsiveness related to the module 2 (Cmap 2) of Seven Stages of Action. 

In my view one of the most interesting modules yet giving me an opportunity to think or our everyday errors that are part of our lives and how we still continue to do them. Interesting to see how small set of rules have changed the way we see information and interact with objects and design.

Capture errors: Instagram vs Facebook for example, liking the pictures on Instagram you have to tap the screen two times and when you get used to it you start to like pictures on Facebook like that as well however on Facebook you need to use the mouse to click on like.

Data driven errors: writing an essay for example but trying to talk to someone at the same time, it happens often that you write down words from your conversation on your essay or vice versa saying something you are writing rather than something you wanted to say in the first place. Happens with me a lot when multitasking.

Premature conclusion errors: talking with a phone and finishing the call before the conversation actually ended but in your mind you have already got your answer. Can be very embarrassing but you can always blame it on technology error not your own J

Mode Errors: happens with my phone a lot that I try to get the phone opened but turn it off instead by holding the button down too long.

Loss of activation errors: studying something and realize I would like something to eat or bring from another room but when I decide to go I discover myself standing in the middle of kitchen forgetting what I wanted in the first place. 

Design Critique: Assignment 3 (HCI)

DESIGN CRITIQUE

Groupwork by Kadri-Liis Piirsalu, Martin Raamat, Nansy Mass and Kadri Penjam

The following post will provide small reports about design critique that will focus on four pairs of objects; two physical and two virtual ones and contrasting each pair. The analysis of these objects looks at the usage scenario that could be imagined for the object including visual materials to emphasise on the contrasts and the critique. 

In this design critique assignment, the following pairs of objects are compared:

Physical:

1.      Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control vs Sony’s Google TV remote control

2.      Nokia 7650 vs Nokia 808 PureView

Virtual:

3.      Youtube vs. Vimeo

4.      Google Maps vs. Bing Maps 

11. Physical object: Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control & Sony’s Google TV remote control

One of the main questions about remote control design is that why did it get so awful and confusing at first place. Every living room has its own collection of remote controls, a set of instruments that must be played. We all have access to hundreds of buttons in our houses in seven different colors worth overlapping labels. Many of the buttons on our remote controls will never be used nor touched so why do we need so many of them? Why should a television, a simple device that’s not so interactive, spread so much clutter and confusion since remote control was supposed to make our lives easier, but instead it has led us into a ‘labyrinth of bad design’. 

Typical scene in our living rooms

The design and function of a remote control has developed to look more like switchboards, with dozens of buttons. This made the users face the problem of having too much control and too many remotes. Since today designers have not been able to solve this problem for the user. Today’s devices have more rounded edges but their main functions and foibles have not much changed.

For criticizing the design of remote controls two different remote controls were chosen; Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control that is similar to any other remote control we all have in our living rooms and Sony’s Google TV remote control that is one of the latest inventions among remote controls. Sony’s Google TV remote control is designed to bring Google TV to the living rooms and to offer additional functionality through Logitech accessories.

As the visibility plays significant role in human computer (product) interaction and is one of the most important aspects in design it is important to discuss the matter of remote control and its visibility. Good design requires immediate action by the user and no extra conscious thought. In this case it could be argued that none of these products offer full-on clear understanding about all of their usage. The design however refers to us how we should use it but the variety of buttons and not knowing their functions may make the users uncertain to use the products full potential. Therefore we can argue that remote control offers that half-way- there solution in a sense as part of the remote is clearly identified and interpreted; off-on button, volume up and down button, channel buttons 1,2,3,4 (etc) and channel switching button. On the other hand the visibility is not that clear and rather confusing because the remote control also offers 10 other buttons that often need instructions for use or are misused and thus create errors. Therefore the lack of visibility in remote controls can cause false causalities that may lead for example to loss of control.

Further on the design of the product should also provide user knowledge what are the suggested actions so that no instructions or labels are needed, in other words providing the affordances. In the case of the two compared remote controls and overall in the remote control world there is no such thing as no instructions at all. We all have been there when we enter our friends house and need to choose between 5 different remotes just to try turning the TV on and its getting more confusing to navigate further. When we compare these two examples than the Samsung remote is already pretty confusing when you haven’t used this model before but it is a classical remote control affordances offered to the user. Sony’s remote on the other hand can cause confusion already because of its new design that we are not used to but also the list of actions that it provides; remote control + QWERTY keyboard + integrated optical mouse, that is all heavily influenced by Sony PS3 controller. This will yell to the user ’ where are my instructions’!

This is all we need:

Remote controls could be seen as an exception, meaning that remote control carries complex function of an object and not relatable to simple affordances. Product design can support usability when using affordances well but can also suggest actions that are not actually possible or not the right ones if false affordances are provided; it could be argued that both scenarios happen with remote controls.

When we analyze the mappings for the remote controls then we need to keep in mind that good mapping should enable ease of use and therefore is a link between what we want and what is perceived possible. Thus keeping that in mind we can argue that the approximately 50% of the remotes buttons and their functions are understood immediately (these are the on-off button, volume, changing the channel buttons and numbers of channels) but the other 50% of the buttons need instructions for effective usage and even block the usage rather than enable ease of use. 

To summarize, we can argue that in the case of remote controls it is probably not the case that designers have deliberately violated the principles of design it is rather the question of several companies offering too many different products that need remotest and therefore users are packed with dozens of remotes and buttons that all function separately. This means that the first problem is in the lack of technical convergence (a universal remote). Therefore we may argue that the first problem is technical not visual?

22. Physical: Nokia 7650 vs Nokia 808 PureView

Nokia 7650 was the first camera phone that Nokia created. It was launched 2002. When we compare it to Nokia 808, what was launched decade later, we see much changes with design etc.

Visibility

The biggest difference is that Nokia 808 PureView is a touch screen device, and Nokia 7650 is not. Last one has buttons, what are actually the weakest thing when considering design. 

Nokia 7560

As you can see from picture above, the buttons are really small and letters on those are as well hard to catch. This thing eliminates automatically old people from being a potential buyer of this kind of devices.

Designer is probably deliberately violated the design principles beacause the focus group are younger generation. But still in my mind even youngster could have problem with this kind of letter sizes.

Alternatives for small buttons are shown clearly nowadays dendency where buttons are gone and we only have touch screens. Nevertheless in these days when touch screens were not reachable they could have though more about how to put several buttons together functioning as one. So we do not need so many buttons just main ones that guide you to wanted area.

If we think in camera-phone point of view, then visibility in Nokia 7650 is very low. It is not shown anywhere that it has camera functions. Nokia 808 on the other hand gives it more away – it has a big screen where to watch pictures, it is confortable to hold and desktop hints that taking pictures is a great value in this device.

Mapping

Nokia 808 has no physical buttons – only the ones in touch screen and in a small amount. So we do not see all screen full of “buttons” but few of them what are leading to other actions and subactions. That is something that in my opinion should have done in physical buttons as well in order to keep it nice and simple.

With slide out design (when answering the calls) was design for the reason to keep the phone as small as possible then nowadays this is not valuable anymore. When we look at Nokia 808 PureView, then we see quite big devices what at first time feels weird to hold in our hands (now we are of course use to it).

Nokia 808 PureView

Comparing those two in that sense weather is it nice to hold a smaller phone or bigger then in my mind the last one better. Design for Nokia 808 is lot more smooth and rounder so it ii handy. Nokia 7560 is more square and thicker – so being a smaller device does not mean that it would be better to hold and use it.

11.  Virtual: Youtube vs. Vimeo

The two virtual objects compared in this example are the two most popular video sharing platforms on the internet: Youtube and Vimeo. They were both made with the most basic requirements, which were that all users can view and upload videos. Quite simple yes, but the design of a site can really lead up to a totally different user experience.

It`s quite obvious that both sites are targeting different people, but still it`s also logical that they both want the users to simply come to the site and watch videos. This is where the visibility issues come in and both sites seem to send out a different message to their viewers.

Youtube welcomes its visitors on the homepage with 35 videos from 10 clearly visible categories which are usually not older than 5 days. They also show the duration and view count for every video. This means new content is literally 1 click away and you know what you are going to see, how long it lasts and how many other people have watched it before you.

Meanwhile the homepage of Vimeo first asks their users for their full name and email address. Compared to Youtube there are only 6 videos on the main page without any information about their category or amount of views. For example a user has to make 3 to 5 clicks just to view a video from the comedy category.

In this case Youtube has clearly put more effort in simplicity and it directs users straight to the videos with 1 click while the design on Vimeo first forces the user to join and read why their platform might be better. I believe this kind of  principle is deliberately planned, because Vimeo is not as popular so they try to convince people into uploading their content rather than watching videos first.

Youtube vs Vimeo. The design of Youtube invites people to watch videos while Vimeo asks them to upload.

When it comes to the appearance of a single video page, there are also some major differences between the two platforms. There are clear cases of how one of the designs is meant to keep the user on one specific page as long as possible or quite the opposite where users are offered to move on to watch some other content.

The first difference happens even before getting to the video page. After clicking anywhere on the site on a video link, Youtube automatically opens the video page and the streaming of content starts automatically, the user doesn't even need to press the play button. The page also features 14 thumbnails of related videos in the sidebar to keep the viewers watching similar content. That seems like a very logical design, because when users likes something, then they usually want to see some more of it.

Vimeo on the other hand focuses more on a single video and its content. The screen and video ratio is much bigger compared to Youtube, where the video plays on a relatively smaller space. Major differences also include the facts that a video won't auto start playing and after scrolling to bottom of the page there seem to be no related videos anywhere. Only when scrolling back up the user can notice that 9 related videos were actually hidden in the website header. They won't become visible after a user scrolls up or clicks on a vertical text link stating More videos on the upper right corner.

The design of Vimeo stresses more the content of one video, while Youtube also focuses on related content.

22.  Virtual: Google Maps vs. Bing Maps

Both Bing and Google maps are maps that can be used via internet on a computer browser or through a downloaded app in a smart device. In this review we focus more on the web browser maps, rather than their mobile applications.

Image of Bing Map in a web browser.

Bing map is relatively new map when compared to Google map. The Bing map is part of the  Bing search engine and offers different kind of services for the user when it comes to the point of searching a direction, place, service places, businesses, transport, etc.

Image of Google Map in a web browser.

Google map is one of the first successful virtual maps out there online. It can be said to be one of the forerunners in the industry of virtual maps. The Google  map is part of the  Google search engine and offers different kind of services for the user when it comes to the point of searching a direction, place, service places, businesses, transport, etc.

Both, Google and Bing, maps differ from each other significantly due to their visual designs, even though they look pretty similar at a first glance. When looking into the maps to search for streets and places, there is a huge difference already visible in the basic road maps they offer (see image). Google highlights their main roads, buildings, green areas, etc. with a distinctive and clearly visible color, while Bing seems to use more indistinctive colors that makes it hard to quickly grasp where are they navigating on the map and where are the objects and roads located. This is probably because the designer has implemented the Bings search engine visual design within the maps, buttons and navigation menus,  instead of using objects and colors that the user actually needs in order to successfully navigate on the platform.

Both maps offer a great satellite images, but Bing clearly offers a more enjoyable, vivid and realistic satellite image. There is no real difference in the satellite images from navigational point of view for the user, as the users usual basic goal is to search or reach for locations. Though searching for the right map mode in Bing is more complex than in Google as it offers two different button menus for it, while Google offer one as an on off switch.

The Street views of both maps are very similar as they are based on photography, though they have very different navigation menus and graphics to navigate with in the street view mode.

Bing seems to use at a first glance a very suitable navigation system which is at the bottom of the image. Though Google sees no need for a menu of things when the user can navigate within the image itself, but offers a menu up on a left hand side corner, just in case the user doesnt know they can navigate inside the image. Besides this Google offers a smaller map for the user to know where they are on the street map and what direction are they moving towards, which makes it tremendously easy for the user to grasp fully where they are and what their doing, which helps the user to reach his/her goal. Whereas Bing only offers the map.
Google also gives more options for the user to navigate in the street view mode, than Bing does.

In general Google seems to uses more logic in visual navigation and how the buttons, and information are displayed.
One major obstacle with the street view mode is with Bing as the user needs to download and install an app on the computer in order to look at the street view mode. Its time consuming and inefficent for the user, especially if they need to quickly look up at something. 

Google seems to be more userfriendly than Bing as it clearly brings out different objects in its design through colors and simplicity. The symbols Google uses are also have a feel to them like they need to be touched, whereas Bing uses cold colours and robust buttons. This is probably because the designer has implemented the Bings search engine visual design within the maps, buttons and navigation menus,  instead of using objects and colors that the user actually needs in order to successfully navigate on the platform.

Google has definitely a more humane and pleasnt feel to its map system interface and therefore also the user feels more like interacting with it. Bing has a lot of potential in its map system interface, though the navigation logic and finding the right navigation buttons are hard to find and to remember. Though Bing seems to use similar logic to Google, it has a lot to improve in tis user interface design.

Seven Stages of Action by Donald Norman

Seven Stages of Action concept map for Module 2

Compared to the first concept map this was much more harder to combine since there were a lot more concepts that needed combining and therefore at times seemed to be a bit confusing to get something logical out of this. In the end however every element seemed to come together and provide logical outcome.  It was interesting to play with this cmap however.

Visibility, Affordances, Mapping, Constraints, Conceptual models- Model 1

Concept map about Visibility, Affordances, Mapping, Constraints, Conceptual models that play important role in whole Human Computer Interactions. Here is my version of it. Enjoy!