Terry,
On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Terence Love wrote:
> Apple has done this well using two processes:
>
> 1.By putting most of the skill and expertise in the task into the
> software and hiding it from the user's view (i.e the large-scale hidden
> automation of user tasks and decisions within the software)
It wasn't that long ago that utility companies computerized and demanded that we recite "customer identification numbers" to find out why they thought we didn't pay the bill or that the university I worked for wanted me to know a long number for each section of a class in order to get anything done. I could never convince people that computers were supposed to remember long numbers for people, not the other way around.
You mentioned your Prius. Can you imagine any sort of interface where you would decide when to engage the electric motor, when to start the gas engine, how much power to get from each, when to use the motor as a generator to replenish the batteries. . . ? As much as I may decry deskilling in a lot of places, it's a great thing in others.
> 2. By building users' confidence and connecting the use of Apple
> devices to user's existing subconscious knowledge and habits.
[snip]
> The deep and extensive semi-subliminal visual
> references to well-established secure comfortable traditional items and
> textures also brings with it self-confidence and trust for the Apple user
> as well making the Apple devices easy to use without thinking.
Most people who have designed any sort of complex system (like a computer application) will say that designing for expert use or designing for novice use is much easier than designing for both and that the transition from novice to expert use is often the trickiest aspect. Apple and their providers have done a good middle ground effort by allowing low participation paths (icons and menus) and higher efficiency choices (keyboard shortcuts) but, of course, that's not the same as making a system efficient for, say, someone who has been using it six hours a day for months and months.
Disruption of early learning patterns is always a problem. I'm sure that there are aspects of how my computer files are organized that makes no sense to someone who never used a pre-X Mac. Scroll directions and scrolling tool placement are great examples of the sort of distress you had with your Toyota.
> for the first couple of days, I
> had difficulty driving the Prius due to the mental cultural clash and the
> reduced confidence. A bit more of the more traditional cultural references
> would have helped!
Perhaps. I adjusted to the Prius very quickly. The strangest element going from a 14 year old Honda Civic to the Prius was the then-uncommon (this was 7+ years ago) feature of not needing a key inserted and twisted. That was in no way difficult for me except for the urge to reach in my pocket for keys when walking towards the car. It took little time before driving other cars left me mumbling "A key? Are they kidding? This is mediaeval!"
After a bit longer I found myself wondering why I have to go to the trouble of pressing the "on" button. If I'm putting it in reverse, I must want it to be on so why the big ceremony?
> On that basis , it suggests skeuomorphism in most aspects of Apple design
> is really helpful.
The sort of thing we're talking about would be like painting a keyhole on the "on" button of your Prius or decorating the shifter to look reminiscent of the Hurst four speed on the 1968 GTO you wished you had in high school. (For those of you who aren't old like Terry and me, don't worry about strange language like "1968 GTO" or "pre-X Mac." It's just geezer talk.) I would have to see serious testing of the sort that Apple has long rejected to convince me that buttons that look like cartoon books on a surface that looks like a bad joke of a cheap walnut grained vinyl covered bookcase are really more reassuring than, say, just buttons that look a bit like the specific books.
As the technology has allowed more complex display, the resource-scarcity-enforced minimalism of early Mac systems has gone away. Some changes (like the opening scene where I'm traveling to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe) strike me as especially crude and tacky considering the hardware that's displaying it. (I think the same, by the way, of the cheesy animation on the Prius dashboard that tells me about whether power is coming from the motor or the engine.)
I don't know that the "genie effect" was the best solution but things that soften any jarring aspects of display change seem worthwhile. Anything that reinforces actions taken by the user strike me as a good place to dress things up. Just think of websites before and after rollovers became standard. A rollover is like an instantaneous version of the gold foil inside the lid of the ice cream that says "Yes! You bought the good stuff" when you see it.
I suspect that more tactile and aural reinforcements will become common under appropriate circumstances. But I hope they have better reason than saying "Cars used to make a lot of noise. Let's make the Prius sound like a bad recording of an old car. And while we're at it, let's make it emit foul odors and black clouds."
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
