5 ms·

There is really no mystery about UI. Yes, it requires skill and a deep knowledge of how humans process information, and even a touch of design genius. But the

by neilk 16y ago

There is really no mystery about UI. Yes, it requires skill and a deep knowledge of how humans process information, and even a touch of design genius. But the real problem is that most shops can't measure usability in a fine-grained way. And yet everyone does have some idea that it's really important. Consequently they are bamboozled by anyone who purports to have such expertise. For the most part, so-called usability experts are really just graphic design snobs. They have a certain aesthetic they like, which is arguably "cleaner" and has more white space. So the page might be better organized but that's nowhere near what true usability is. Real usability work is about trying to understand how the user is thinking. What their mental model is. What their goals are. In what context they are trying to achieve a task. Not just how their eye is scanning for information. Anyway my point is, when it comes to real usability work, programmers are just as (un)qualified as graphic designers, marketers, or any other kind of "product" person. Arguably the designer is supposed to have a larger toolbox when it comes to possible graphic treatments, but the programmer also has a toolbox of quantitative methods, experimentation, and a deep understanding of how the system could work.

jeffclark 16y ago
UI designer = "white space" UX designer = "mental space"
- alextgordon 16y ago
  It's easy to redefine the meaning of a term if it's rendered as an acronym. User Interface Designer = "white space" User Experience Designer = "mental space" Now how arbitrary is that? What is it about "Experience" that implies thinking and "Interface" that implies a lack thereof? What about all the designers unfortunate enough to come before the term "UX" was invented? I suppose Jef Raskin was only ever about white space. Let me suggest an improvement Mediocre Designer = "white space" Good Designer = "white space and mental space"
  - binomial 16y ago
    Well, there's also the fact that some "UX" guys don't have any great ability in graphic design, but are great when designing the use and flow of an interface. It's not necessary that an ability in the latter implies similar ability in the former.
    - jacobolus 16y ago
      Which "UX guys" are these you’re thinking of, who don't have a competent understanding of graphic design? I posit that it is irresponsible to claim to be a "UX guy" and not try to learn quite a bit about spatial hierarchies, data presentation, human response to colors and visual relationships, etc.
      - binomial 16y ago
        Though graphic design surely includes all those things you've mentioned, I was using it in the sense that most "web designers" might use it, as in the ability to make pretty stuff in photoshop. I'm not sure that someone who can, for instance apply Tufte's advice on data representation, necessarily also makes nice looking logos.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        jacobolus 16y ago
        Equating “don't have any great ability in graphic design” with “can’t draw logos” is applying a pretty narrow definition. Someone who just “makes pretty stuff in photoshop” should probably be called a “digital illustrator” or a “photo retoucher”, or a “digital imaging expert”, not a “graphic designer”.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
elbenshira 16y ago
You are exactly right. Making usability and user design into a science is difficult because we'd be trying to model the human mind, which is, well, pretty much impossible. For example, in the information retrieval community, companies like Google continue to employ a lot of people to mark search results as relevant or not. Even with all this data, it's still hard for us to quantify what is "relevant" to a user. Likewise, it is hard for us to quantify what is "usable." But even though the programmer may own this toolbox of quantitative methods and whatnot, most of them do not use it when it comes to usability. Why? Because the toolbox is quite empty. The advantage that these "snobby" designers (just like how programmers are "snobby" about their choice of programming languages and tools) have over programmers is that designers have more empathy towards the everyday man. So there is some emotion involved. Sure, there might be a science behind all of this, but since no one figured it out yet, we'll have to go use our intuition of what a good design is.
bkrausz 16y ago
Fortunately I think this is changing: tools are coming out that make running quantitative UX studies easier. Services like Optimizely, GazeHawk (disclaimer: that was a shameless plug for my company), UserTesting.com, etc are becoming more commonplace, bringing the barrier to entry for a UX consultant who is actually useful down. In the future I imagine there being plenty of UX consultants who, rather than having a strong education in the psychology of websites, instead is experienced with the tools necessary to evaluate a design and make recommendations. Then there will be graphic designers, marketers, etc who are actually qualified to work with usability.
- ant5 16y ago
  The problem here is that good UX isn't borne of qualitative analysis -- you have to build something worth analyzing to begin with. Once you do start analyzing, what do you do with the results? You can try to make small tweaks -- it can be worthwhile if what you have is already good. If what you have is bad however, no amount of rigorous analysis is going to solve the artistic problem of coming up with a cohesive vision of something better.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    Yesss. The way I describe this to people is: "Usability science can only test a hypothesis. It doesn't give you a hypothesis to test." Not to mention the problem of hill-climbing… you may think your test results are amazing, but you can't tell if you're really at a peak or in a valley with a lot of mist obscuring a potentially even higher peak..
StavrosK 16y ago
You know, I thought I had UI design mostly figured out, using a few simple rules: * Minimise the total number of clicks needed to access the sum of the program's functionality. * Make frequently-used functionality easier to reach than rarely-used functionality. * Don't have more elements in the UI than is easy to parse quickly. * No surprises. However, after reading this article, I get the feeling that it's a more arcane art, which not many people know. What are some simple rules about good UI design, in your opinion?
- jimbokun 16y ago
  If you nail all the things you mention, you'll probably be far ahead of most software out there.
- arnorhs 16y ago
  Solid list. Personally, I spend a great deal of time putting myself in the mind of the user, trying to figure out how we as humans visualize things and simplifying the actual underlying task at hand. The list you summed up does work for 95% of all cases - especially if you're just thinking about a "website". However when you're trying to create something new or working with some new concepts you have to imagine how the user pictures things so that it matches his thought pattern as much as possible. This also includes placing things were the user is most likely to look for them etc.
- Qz 16y ago
  One of the key things about UI design these days is that it's very easy to fall into the 'widget trap'. This is where you have some content you want to interact with, and instead of really analyzing what the best way to interact with it is, you just throw the data in a standard widget, like a listbox or textarea. It might be a really nice listbox or textarea, but there may also be a much better way of interacting with the content that wasn't explored. Widgets are the typical area where this happens, but it can be generalized to any situation where people just go with pre-established conveniences rather than try to find the best solution.
  - StavrosK 16y ago

by neilk 16y ago

jeffclark 16y ago

UI designer = "white space" UX designer = "mental space"

alextgordon 16y ago
It's easy to redefine the meaning of a term if it's rendered as an acronym. User Interface Designer = "white space" User Experience Designer = "mental space" Now how arbitrary is that? What is it about "Experience" that implies thinking and "Interface" that implies a lack thereof? What about all the designers unfortunate enough to come before the term "UX" was invented? I suppose Jef Raskin was only ever about white space. Let me suggest an improvement Mediocre Designer = "white space" Good Designer = "white space and mental space"
- binomial 16y ago
  Well, there's also the fact that some "UX" guys don't have any great ability in graphic design, but are great when designing the use and flow of an interface. It's not necessary that an ability in the latter implies similar ability in the former.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    Which "UX guys" are these you’re thinking of, who don't have a competent understanding of graphic design? I posit that it is irresponsible to claim to be a "UX guy" and not try to learn quite a bit about spatial hierarchies, data presentation, human response to colors and visual relationships, etc.
    - binomial 16y ago
      Though graphic design surely includes all those things you've mentioned, I was using it in the sense that most "web designers" might use it, as in the ability to make pretty stuff in photoshop. I'm not sure that someone who can, for instance apply Tufte's advice on data representation, necessarily also makes nice looking logos.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - jacobolus 16y ago
        Equating “don't have any great ability in graphic design” with “can’t draw logos” is applying a pretty narrow definition. Someone who just “makes pretty stuff in photoshop” should probably be called a “digital illustrator” or a “photo retoucher”, or a “digital imaging expert”, not a “graphic designer”.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

elbenshira 16y ago

You are exactly right. Making usability and user design into a science is difficult because we'd be trying to model the human mind, which is, well, pretty much impossible. For example, in the information retrieval community, companies like Google continue to employ a lot of people to mark search results as relevant or not. Even with all this data, it's still hard for us to quantify what is "relevant" to a user. Likewise, it is hard for us to quantify what is "usable." But even though the programmer may own this toolbox of quantitative methods and whatnot, most of them do not use it when it comes to usability. Why? Because the toolbox is quite empty. The advantage that these "snobby" designers (just like how programmers are "snobby" about their choice of programming languages and tools) have over programmers is that designers have more empathy towards the everyday man. So there is some emotion involved. Sure, there might be a science behind all of this, but since no one figured it out yet, we'll have to go use our intuition of what a good design is.

bkrausz 16y ago

Fortunately I think this is changing: tools are coming out that make running quantitative UX studies easier. Services like Optimizely, GazeHawk (disclaimer: that was a shameless plug for my company), UserTesting.com, etc are becoming more commonplace, bringing the barrier to entry for a UX consultant who is actually useful down. In the future I imagine there being plenty of UX consultants who, rather than having a strong education in the psychology of websites, instead is experienced with the tools necessary to evaluate a design and make recommendations. Then there will be graphic designers, marketers, etc who are actually qualified to work with usability.

ant5 16y ago
The problem here is that good UX isn't borne of qualitative analysis -- you have to build something worth analyzing to begin with. Once you do start analyzing, what do you do with the results? You can try to make small tweaks -- it can be worthwhile if what you have is already good. If what you have is bad however, no amount of rigorous analysis is going to solve the artistic problem of coming up with a cohesive vision of something better.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  Yesss. The way I describe this to people is: "Usability science can only test a hypothesis. It doesn't give you a hypothesis to test." Not to mention the problem of hill-climbing… you may think your test results are amazing, but you can't tell if you're really at a peak or in a valley with a lot of mist obscuring a potentially even higher peak..

StavrosK 16y ago

You know, I thought I had UI design mostly figured out, using a few simple rules: * Minimise the total number of clicks needed to access the sum of the program's functionality. * Make frequently-used functionality easier to reach than rarely-used functionality. * Don't have more elements in the UI than is easy to parse quickly. * No surprises. However, after reading this article, I get the feeling that it's a more arcane art, which not many people know. What are some simple rules about good UI design, in your opinion?

jimbokun 16y ago
If you nail all the things you mention, you'll probably be far ahead of most software out there.
arnorhs 16y ago
Solid list. Personally, I spend a great deal of time putting myself in the mind of the user, trying to figure out how we as humans visualize things and simplifying the actual underlying task at hand. The list you summed up does work for 95% of all cases - especially if you're just thinking about a "website". However when you're trying to create something new or working with some new concepts you have to imagine how the user pictures things so that it matches his thought pattern as much as possible. This also includes placing things were the user is most likely to look for them etc.
Qz 16y ago
One of the key things about UI design these days is that it's very easy to fall into the 'widget trap'. This is where you have some content you want to interact with, and instead of really analyzing what the best way to interact with it is, you just throw the data in a standard widget, like a listbox or textarea. It might be a really nice listbox or textarea, but there may also be a much better way of interacting with the content that wasn't explored. Widgets are the typical area where this happens, but it can be generalized to any situation where people just go with pre-established conveniences rather than try to find the best solution.
- StavrosK 16y ago