5 ms·

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon

>2. Using AI is a "step 2: ???" solution, and the flaw with it is best exemplified by the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazon Flaws like this might exist right now, but that's really a "bug". It's a failure on our part (the software designers and engineers) to build a system that actually works for the human. So sometimes when we try to make our software smart, it ends up being [maddeningly] stupid. But again, this is only because we don't do our jobs right, not that they can't be done right. So with a little more smarts from us, we could make a system that's a lot more flexible and allow for these sorts of things. We have to acknowledge that a user shouldn't have to fit our system exactly and we should allow for "Buying a friend some baby clothes but not have it think we have a child" cases by being smarter about how the system learns. We need to provide it with better context.

fatbird 14y ago
Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? Perhaps a checkbox? But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. I suggest that this is an intractable problem just because there's a fundamental tension between ease and flexibility. 'Optimize for the common case' always seems like a good idea (and the AI suggestion is just 'allow past history to determine the common case'), but we all have different common cases, and this heuristic helps us not all when we don't want to execute the common case, which is the hardest part of the design problem anyway. I agree with the idea, generally, that we need to be smarter about how things work for people. I think "No UI" is like "No SQL": An appropriate solution in a certain set of cases, but nothing like a general solution for all.
- jbrennan 14y ago
  >Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? That's part of the implementation, again, I think. It would be silly for the implementation to treat just once instance of a behaviour so seriously. If the user buys it once, but then never shows any interest in such products again, then they should slowly be ranked less and less relevant. If the user instead continued to purchase or look at baby items, then the system could have more certainty of desire in them. Again, it's not just the products themselves, but the behaviour surrounding them. Temporal context is important, too. I agree fully that just heaping on more interface for "special cases" is a bad idea. We just need to be smarter about...how our software is smart.
- camtarn 14y ago
  The funny thing is, in Amazon's case, there are multiple ways to do that - tell the website you're buying something as a gift during checkout, or when you get bad recommendations, click 'fix this recommendation'. Of course, even though I work there * , I never remember to do the former, and usually can't be bothered to do the latter ... and I reckon the majority of people don't know that either option exists (in a couple of cases I've even had people ask me why the option didn't exist!) It's a pretty good case study: even though the UI is there, front and center (the 'fix this' link is usually right underneath recommendations), it doesn't get used because most users would rather do 'Step 1: get good recommendations' rather than 'Step 1: get mixed-quality recommendations; Step 2: take action to improve recommendations; Step 3: get good recommendations'. * And, of course (standard disclaimer) I don't speak for or represent Amazon in any way...
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  > But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. camtarn already explains how you make this part of the natural interface. I'm going to address the apparent confusion you have in assuming that in removing the interface, you do not need to eliminate it. For example, in the article, the discussion about approaching the car should open the door does not mean that you remove the interface of lock and key. > An appropriate solution in a certain set of cases, but nothing like a general solution for all. And the article isn't advocating for the removal of all UIs. It even goes on to advocate certain UIs. Don't just read the headline. Take a few minutes and consider what's being said.
gbog 14y ago
>> the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazo > that's really a "bug" This thinking worries me a lot, especially when applied to what Google is heading for. So now many people are removing all buttons and settings, because they think that every button or setting is a failure to guess the user's need. The epitome of this move it probably Google Now, and I fear it is going to fail or to stink. My instance of Google Now tries to guess when I will drive back home and notify me with a traffic estimate: Until now, it was successfull and mildly useful once in 20 tries. So in fact, I have been spam-notified 19 times by Google itself! And me driving home has a relatively high predictability, compared to buying books, going out, etc. I just read Thinking Fast and Slow for the second time, and the gist of it, in this context, is that the world is much less predictable than we think it is. If the Bayesian statistical approach or even simple formulas work better than intuition or experts in so many domains (financial, political forecasting, clinical diagnostic, etc), it doesn't mean it should be used, it means these domain have very low prediction validity. For instance, the only valid and proven prediction for next year stock price is "80% chance to be between -10% and +30% of current stock price", and this is useless common sense. Just as the only correct explanation for above the average earnings this year at any company is "below-average results last year produced lower expectations , and we are regressing to the mean". Moreover, if some few things are to be found predictable in my life, I probably would not want to be recalled of this saddening fact. Suppose you are hiking next week-end in the mountain nearby. If a Google Now thingy tells me, two hours before leaving, that I should not forget my socks, it will give me the same feeling as a caring and annoying mother: "Yes Mom, call you there; No Mom, I'll not forget to wash me hands..." Who did like this when a teenager? So, either personal life events are not predictable, or they should not be predicted because most people would rather keep the illusion they are in control. What technology need to do is to empower users with helpful (or funny) tools. When I am treking somewhere in nowhere land, I feel empowered to be able to pull a satellite map and GPS positioning from my phone, and I use it whether I'm a bit lost or I just want to check the road again. But I really really would hate it if the next Google map would detect from my speed that I am hesitating, and pop a "Just turn left after the next oaktree to get back to your car, you sucker". Google's new trend is in parenting its user, I am not sure it is the correct move.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
bergie 14y ago
Bret Victor's The Magic Ink gives some good starting points for applying context to make software smarter: http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/ http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/
- jbrennan 14y ago
  Yep, I'd already linked to it twice already in this comment thread! I agree fully.

fatbird 14y ago

Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? Perhaps a checkbox? But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. I suggest that this is an intractable problem just because there's a fundamental tension between ease and flexibility. 'Optimize for the common case' always seems like a good idea (and the AI suggestion is just 'allow past history to determine the common case'), but we all have different common cases, and this heuristic helps us not all when we don't want to execute the common case, which is the hardest part of the design problem anyway. I agree with the idea, generally, that we need to be smarter about how things work for people. I think "No UI" is like "No SQL": An appropriate solution in a certain set of cases, but nothing like a general solution for all.

jbrennan 14y ago
>Doesn't "provide better context" just push the problem one turtle away? How could I communicate to the website that the item for which I'm shopping is for a friend, not for me, and that I don't want the current actions to figure into future adaptive behaviour? That's part of the implementation, again, I think. It would be silly for the implementation to treat just once instance of a behaviour so seriously. If the user buys it once, but then never shows any interest in such products again, then they should slowly be ranked less and less relevant. If the user instead continued to purchase or look at baby items, then the system could have more certainty of desire in them. Again, it's not just the products themselves, but the behaviour surrounding them. Temporal context is important, too. I agree fully that just heaping on more interface for "special cases" is a bad idea. We just need to be smarter about...how our software is smart.
camtarn 14y ago
The funny thing is, in Amazon's case, there are multiple ways to do that - tell the website you're buying something as a gift during checkout, or when you get bad recommendations, click 'fix this recommendation'. Of course, even though I work there * , I never remember to do the former, and usually can't be bothered to do the latter ... and I reckon the majority of people don't know that either option exists (in a couple of cases I've even had people ask me why the option didn't exist!) It's a pretty good case study: even though the UI is there, front and center (the 'fix this' link is usually right underneath recommendations), it doesn't get used because most users would rather do 'Step 1: get good recommendations' rather than 'Step 1: get mixed-quality recommendations; Step 2: take action to improve recommendations; Step 3: get good recommendations'. * And, of course (standard disclaimer) I don't speak for or represent Amazon in any way...
jasonlotito 14y ago
> But now we're adding interface, which we were trying to eliminate in the first place. camtarn already explains how you make this part of the natural interface. I'm going to address the apparent confusion you have in assuming that in removing the interface, you do not need to eliminate it. For example, in the article, the discussion about approaching the car should open the door does not mean that you remove the interface of lock and key. > An appropriate solution in a certain set of cases, but nothing like a general solution for all. And the article isn't advocating for the removal of all UIs. It even goes on to advocate certain UIs. Don't just read the headline. Take a few minutes and consider what's being said.

gbog 14y ago

>> the columnist who bought a pregnancy book for a pregnant friend on Amazo > that's really a "bug" This thinking worries me a lot, especially when applied to what Google is heading for. So now many people are removing all buttons and settings, because they think that every button or setting is a failure to guess the user's need. The epitome of this move it probably Google Now, and I fear it is going to fail or to stink. My instance of Google Now tries to guess when I will drive back home and notify me with a traffic estimate: Until now, it was successfull and mildly useful once in 20 tries. So in fact, I have been spam-notified 19 times by Google itself! And me driving home has a relatively high predictability, compared to buying books, going out, etc. I just read Thinking Fast and Slow for the second time, and the gist of it, in this context, is that the world is much less predictable than we think it is. If the Bayesian statistical approach or even simple formulas work better than intuition or experts in so many domains (financial, political forecasting, clinical diagnostic, etc), it doesn't mean it should be used, it means these domain have very low prediction validity. For instance, the only valid and proven prediction for next year stock price is "80% chance to be between -10% and +30% of current stock price", and this is useless common sense. Just as the only correct explanation for above the average earnings this year at any company is "below-average results last year produced lower expectations , and we are regressing to the mean". Moreover, if some few things are to be found predictable in my life, I probably would not want to be recalled of this saddening fact. Suppose you are hiking next week-end in the mountain nearby. If a Google Now thingy tells me, two hours before leaving, that I should not forget my socks, it will give me the same feeling as a caring and annoying mother: "Yes Mom, call you there; No Mom, I'll not forget to wash me hands..." Who did like this when a teenager? So, either personal life events are not predictable, or they should not be predicted because most people would rather keep the illusion they are in control. What technology need to do is to empower users with helpful (or funny) tools. When I am treking somewhere in nowhere land, I feel empowered to be able to pull a satellite map and GPS positioning from my phone, and I use it whether I'm a bit lost or I just want to check the road again. But I really really would hate it if the next Google map would detect from my speed that I am hesitating, and pop a "Just turn left after the next oaktree to get back to your car, you sucker". Google's new trend is in parenting its user, I am not sure it is the correct move.

jasonlotito 14y ago

bergie 14y ago

Bret Victor's The Magic Ink gives some good starting points for applying context to make software smarter: http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/ http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/

jbrennan 14y ago
Yep, I'd already linked to it twice already in this comment thread! I agree fully.