DESIGNING *for humans

Simplexity and Product Design

2009-07-12T20:39:32-04:00

Jeffrey Kluger's Simplexity is a book full of interesting, but poorly inter-related ideas. Kluger covers a range of topics - politics, sports, linguistics - and summarizes what some of the leading thinkers have discovered about the underlying factors that influence complexity in behavior.

Simplexity is at its best when it focus on the general theories and definitions around the connection between simplicity and complexity. For example, the simplest systems are either inert (like a lump of carbon) or highly chaotic (a room full of gas molecules). Complexity emerges when systems fall between the highly static and the highly dynamic - like an organism. Unfortunately, these types of graspable principles are not carried out through the book. I found myself wondering whether Kluger had used the theme of simplicity/complexity as a convenient thread to assemble of number of disparate, but individually interesting ideas.

There is chapter on product design - "Why are your cell phone and camera so absurdly complicated?". As in other chapters, the leading experts in the field - in this case primarily Donald Norman, Alan Cooper and John Maeda - provide commentary on the balance of complexity. Given this group of experts, its not surprising that a good deal of time is spent on blaming engineers and technology for failing to effectively account for the capabilities of the end-user: "the fault lies less with those designers themselves than with the nature of the entire industry."

The chapter points out that technology shifts have caused the rapid rise in complexity and poor usability. For example, the replacement of visible knobs and dials on an old television set with invisible, hidden states that are not immediately accessible to the user. The solution is not to move away from complexity, but to make the complexity hidden from the user. With the obligatory iPod reference:

"In some ways, this is anything but simplicity; it's a very complicated program doing very complicated work. But it's doing it all in the background and simply presenting you with the functional result." "Your eyes and hand are the front ends of the bodily system. The screen and scroll pad are the front ends of the iPod."

2009 ID Magazine Annual Review

2009-07-05T21:03:51-04:00

Call me psychic if you wish, but three consumer products that I discussed as valuable user research tools have won awards in the 2009 I.D. Magazine Annual Review:

The Fitbit Tracker, which I discussed as a system for measuring physical behavior and movement. This device has been getting a lot of press lately, so maybe that means it will be launched shortly. When I first discussed the Fitbit last September it was scheduled for a Jan '09 launch. The web site now says "early spring", so don't hold your breath. I placed an order months ago and have not heard a thing...very similar to what happened with the LiveScribe Pen.
And speaking of the LiveScribe Pulse Smartpen(as it's properly named), it was given recognition by the I.D. jurors despite the observations that "it could have been more beautifully integrated" and "It's not pretty, but it works very well." Hmmm...isn't this a design review? From personal experience, it does work very well, but it has fatal design and usability flaws, including an uncanny tendency to roll off the table.
Lastly, I covered the Flip Mino digital video recorder as one of several examples of effective, simple design in my article keep it simple, stupid.

Clearly a coincidence as I had no involvement with the Annual Review this year - although after serving as a juror last year I wrote some practical suggestions for future submitters.

keep it simple, stupid - online version available

2009-06-10T14:50:04-04:00

My article for Barclay's 360 corporate magazine on simplicity, clarity and complexity in business is finally available in a slick, online magazine format. You can view and print portions of the entire issue.

IDSA 2009 Conference - Project Infusion

2009-06-08T19:12:26-04:00

The 2009 IDSA national conference web site is up and running - check out the cyborg Flamingo(?). The conference will run from September 23-26 in Miami, Florida. While detailed presenter information is still pending there's a lot of useful content on the keynote speakers, events, and general info.

I'll be there, giving a presentation on Ergonomics for Interaction Designers. Stay tuned for more detailed conference information as it becomes available.

Ergonomics of Typography

2009-06-07T21:42:04-04:00

While I've never had any formal education on typography (or perhaps, because of that absence), I've always had a great amount of respect and admiration for the discipline. And just as a skilled driver can win a race without understanding the physics of internal combustion engines, the vast majority of us can write effectively without comprehending the physical details of the particular letters we are assembling.

But my interest in typography has recently grown due to my exposure to two leading practitioners. Michael Beirut and Oded Ezer are very different kinds of designers. Beirut, who I enjoyed seeing lecture a few weeks ago at a Philadelphia AIGA event, is an expert at applying typography to design projects. His encyclopedic knowledge of type history can be seen in this video from Atlantic Magazine:

On the other hand, Oded Ezer is a true typographer who creates letter forms. An Israeli, he works primarily in Hebrew type, both in applied and experimental forms. I am currently reading Ezer's just-published The Typographer's Guide to the Galaxy, a visual review of Ezer's body of work ranging from relatively simple and direct treatments (like the image at the top of this post), to unconventional 3D treatments of letters and "Typospermatoids" (pictured below) - a hypothetical half sperm/half letter, "whose typographic information has been implanted into their DNA." For more information, see Ezer's web site.

This emphasis and exposure to typography has caused me to re-evaluate my own perspective on the field. For the usability or human factors practitioner, typography is generally considered in very functional terms. Whether it's road signs on a highway, warning labels on medication or data captions in a software application, the focus is on the appropriate visual clarity, legibility and structural hierarchy.

But Ezer's unconventional, even anthropomorphic treatment of typography has me thinking of letters as actors with characteristics, rather than inert symbols. More specifically, I realized that some of the basic principles of ergonomics could be mapped to typographical elements, and that typography and anthropometry (the study of human body measurements) are curiously related, at least metaphorically.

The fundamental principle of anthropometrics is that although people need to conduct the same types of behaviors and tasks, they vary greatly in their physical characteristics. The same is true for different type faces - while they vary greatly in their physical characteristics and appearance, each must represent and allow the assembly of the same sets of characters into words. That is, any font (English font, more specifically), is a variation on representing the 26 letters of the alphabet, etc.

But a more striking similarity between ergonomics and typography arises when one considers the rules that govern fit. In my series on Ergonomics for Interaction Designers (part 3), I discuss the four key factors - reach, clearance, posture and strength. These four inputs can be applied to assess the ergonomic fit of any person in any context. But they are also metaphorically comparable for assessing the characteristics of a type:

Reach can refer to the size of the typeface. For example a taller type would have a greater "reach" or expanse than a condensed one.
Clearance is physical space, or in the case of type, white-space. A type with more space around the letters has greater clearance.
Posture is the degree of alignment, such that a very slanted type would have a greater postural deviation than a a more linear type.
Strength is the visible impact of the type as conveyed by the contrast of line thickness and boldness.

As a basic example, we can visually compare Arial Black with an italicized version of Times New Roman. While both examples are at the same type size (13 pt), Arial Black clearly has greater reach and strength, while Times New Roman has a slanted posture.

Perhaps an interesting mental exercise, but anything more to it? I've just begun to examine this interrelationship, but I think there may be inspiration here for typographers. Gaining an understanding of human physical characteristics, and how they vary, could influence the design and application of typography, not for functional purposes as much as creative and exploratory endeavors. Conversely, my interest in typography may lead to new ideas for addressing ergonomic issues - but if not, I will have gained a better understanding of an intriguing, ubiquitous design niche.`