Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Slanty design
Just learnt a new term, "slanty design", mentioned in a couple of places (mainly here). A slanty design is one that has some built-in lack of usability or functionality to prevent irresponsible use. the examples you'll find in the links are literally slanty surfaces that prevent anyone putting coffee cups on them (for good reasons). I guess what this reminded me of is that good design is not just about usability - there are a whole host of requirements to consider, from both the provider and consumer. Consumers may well want to put coffee cups anywhere they want, but there may be good reasons why they shouldn't. Don Norman talks about 'forcing functions', and 'constraints' which I guess are similar, but for some reason 'slanty' just seems to say it a lot better.the other issue I've been thinking about recently is how design needs are not static, but in fact they change over time and depending on context.
I found this quote from Douglas Engelbart, an often unsung hero from the early days of HCI:
"If ease of use was the only valid criterion, people would stick to tricycles and never try bicycles"
hopefully the point is clear: tricycles are easier to use because, well, they're easier to use, but they're no good for certain contexts of use, like Himalayan mountain biking, or stunt riding, I imagine. so just making things as easy to use as possible isn't the whole story - we also need to think about how, where, and why people want to use things, and design accordingly. that might mean some compromises in overall 'usability' (like a 2 wheeled bike compared to a 3 wheeler) but the gains will come from supporting more flexible use.
my feeling is that as we move towards more mobile embedded systems, the usability of a system will have to become more flexible, adding & removing functionalities depending on how and where it is being used. we see this already in cut down versions of software, such as Word & Excel, that offer only basic functionalities on a handheld device. but my feeling is that there a deeper level of dynamic usability that we can use, such as a service that can explicitly give us the choice between longer waiting times or more editing features. thinking about distributed computing, where applications are accessed as web services, this kind of flexible design really starts to look important.
Just learnt a new term, "slanty design", mentioned in a couple of places (mainly here). A slanty design is one that has some built-in lack of usability or functionality to prevent irresponsible use. the examples you'll find in the links are literally slanty surfaces that prevent anyone putting coffee cups on them (for good reasons). I guess what this reminded me of is that good design is not just about usability - there are a whole host of requirements to consider, from both the provider and consumer. Consumers may well want to put coffee cups anywhere they want, but there may be good reasons why they shouldn't. Don Norman talks about 'forcing functions', and 'constraints' which I guess are similar, but for some reason 'slanty' just seems to say it a lot better.the other issue I've been thinking about recently is how design needs are not static, but in fact they change over time and depending on context.
I found this quote from Douglas Engelbart, an often unsung hero from the early days of HCI:
"If ease of use was the only valid criterion, people would stick to tricycles and never try bicycles"
hopefully the point is clear: tricycles are easier to use because, well, they're easier to use, but they're no good for certain contexts of use, like Himalayan mountain biking, or stunt riding, I imagine. so just making things as easy to use as possible isn't the whole story - we also need to think about how, where, and why people want to use things, and design accordingly. that might mean some compromises in overall 'usability' (like a 2 wheeled bike compared to a 3 wheeler) but the gains will come from supporting more flexible use.
my feeling is that as we move towards more mobile embedded systems, the usability of a system will have to become more flexible, adding & removing functionalities depending on how and where it is being used. we see this already in cut down versions of software, such as Word & Excel, that offer only basic functionalities on a handheld device. but my feeling is that there a deeper level of dynamic usability that we can use, such as a service that can explicitly give us the choice between longer waiting times or more editing features. thinking about distributed computing, where applications are accessed as web services, this kind of flexible design really starts to look important.
Comments:
Post a Comment
(c) 2003-2005 Russell Beale
Atom
RSS