Usable Interface Design
As an information designer the interfaces we currently work on - no matter whether Apple or Windows - bother me. Yes, OS X looks a lot better than its predecessors, and Windows’ upcoming rip off of OS X looks better than the previous rip off. But however pretty, glossy and lickable those Interfaces may look, no matter how many twist and turn effects they build in - the problem they have is not one of special effects.
If a good interface were a matter of special effects, George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic might do a very good job.
The Problem is the Metaphor
The problem is the metaphor they are built on. The basic metaphor they are built on is static: The typewriter. We still have folders and tabs, and the frame of our windows still defines the way we deal with data.
Aqua: Write on Water?
Operating system nomenclature adｓ to the confusion by using confusing names like Windows and Aqua. Why, if not for design reasons, should the basic metaphor of an GUI be water? What can you read on water? Well, data flows, you might say. And Aqua refers to the way my data changes its shape when I work on it. Nonsense. Aqua is just a cool name for a cool graphic design approach.
Vista: Write on Glass?
Now Microsoft will introduce glass as basic material for their windows. Sounds actually pretty consistent (windows - vista = viev - glass), as long as you forget what a window really is. Can you write on glass? Is it easy to read on glass?
Windows are actually Frames
Frame is a better, far more precise word for what we has been introduced to us as a window on a screen. It’s frames, not windows we are dealing with until now. Of course it’s too late for that kind of reasoning. And it is as hypothetical to say that the more appropriate name for the Windows OS is actually Frames. By making glass frames, Microsoft doesn’t really make things easier. In the future 90% of the computer population will be writing on windows that they can twist but not open up.
Windows? Why do(es) Windows not Open Up?
A window as such is not just a frame. It is something that opens up. I miss this function - opening up - within Windows since the very start. Windows should open up, you should be able to zoom into a computer window like you “zoom” into a real window, when you open it up to look outside.
Get Rid of the Frames
Transparent frames? Why not getting rid of the frames in the first place. It’s the frames that make it hard to deal with data. Where is my window? Is it below is it on top? Is is in the bar down there? Did I close it? Making windows transparent doesn’t solve the problem, it only makes it more shiny. Data should always be “open”, always be there, and always be at the same place, and it should be zoomable.
Better Metaphor: Flying
A much better metaphor for data display is flying. We should not need waste our time by aiming and clicking on window frames all the time, draging them, minimizing them, maximizing them and now turning them around. We should be able to zoom in and out of our frameless documents as we wish. Zooming in just as with a camera or as an eagle when he zooms in on the rabbit down there running on the ground. Everybody would understand that concept right away. Instead of pushing and clicking a mouse we should be working with birds. We should be flying not flowing through our data. See a demo here (flash 8MB).
No More Folders
We don’t need folders either. A better search will do just fine. Google demonstrated that it works. Apple is on the way to make it work as well. Windows is working on a better desktop search and hopefully it works.
Get Rid of the Heavy Coloring
The graphics of the user interface should stay in the background. A user interface should be as neutral as possible, leaving the spectacular colors to the contents.
No More Data Loss
Basically every manipulation of data should be saved right away. There is no reason why we cannot go back in the history of a document as far as we wish. Our hard drives are big enough, or machines are fast enough to deal with that. Also, all data should automatically be backuped on the net.
No More Monster Programs
We don’t need no programs. What we need are tools to work a document. Why do I need so many programs to work on text and graphics? What I need is Word’s text manipulation, Photoshop’s pixel manipulation, Illustrator’s vector functionality, Dreamweaver’s simultaneous HTML translation. I should be able to use them whenever I like in whatever document I like. So instead of buying huge programs of which I only need a small set of functions I should be able to buy (or even better: rent) functions, filters, specific tools to manipulate my data - without opening programs that limit the use of my data.
No More Long Starting Up
There is no technical need for computers to start up, except for one: If they crash. Computers should by default go to sleep when turned off, and, when turned on, wake up right away. As a professional you have probably stopped shutting down your computer a long time ago, but regular users still actually loose a lot of time by starting up.
So why are Computers not Flying?
Information design is all about reduction. Reduction not in the sense of limitation but in the sense of simplicity. It is not about limiting functionality, but limiting sources of confusion. So if it is mostly about reduction, why are computers not working like that already? Also, most of these ideas are not new or hard to understand or particularily original. They are simple. In practice, simplicity is harder to achieve than complexity. But as technology usually develops from simplicity to the complexity and back to simplicity, we might be optimistic that one day we will have computers that allow us to fly through our data. Hopefully that happens before we fly in cars.
Is this what you mean?
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/multitouchreel.mp4
A very good read, I do have to agree with the thought of asthetics not being what drives the UI. Forcing the user to spend lots of money on new hardware just to see a “transparent window” is rediculous, they should spend their efforts trying to do something like the Symphony OS project, which is ridding us of the horrific nested folders.
Now you`re speaking not as a usability specialist, but as a dreaming it-related professional.
I mean, your dreams include a marketing (or what you call it?) contradiction: first, you suggest do not provide any colored glass (which is pretty good when you’re interested in efficency), but then you say: everything must be updated, we can afford it. Yes, we can, but we don’t need to (at least we are still alive without it). This is also can be told about the “no-more-long-startup” idea.
So, home users won`t buy a system without a glance, corporate people will hardly be happy to chose overkill systems.
As for separate functions, you’re a little bit late
Late for thirty years to be precise. What you’re talking about is called “*nix-way” (well, one of the parts of it) and is widely used by corporations, almost never by custom users (although, I`m a linux user).
Also, a little remark on language (you
ve asked it yourself :)): afaik its incorrect to say “We don’t need no programs”, there can’t be two negative statements in a sentence. It should sound like “We don’t need any programs”. Although, I’m not a native english speaker as well, so you should believe me a priori.I read a lot about Jef Raskins The Humane Interface and while I see some of his basic points, his approach to a solution I find lacking at best. I’m afraid Jef got too entrenched in his really very specific view on things that he became incapable of thinking out of his box. The whole thing with zooming is the worst idea ever. This takes far too long to get where you want to go, and moving around in your Data/Information is wasting more time than necessary. That’s a highly unproductive way of looking for information.
I’d say take something like LaunchBar* and then you don’t need the Finder (or any other Desktop/File Manager) anymore. You’re one step closer where the OS as such more or less vanishes. You get away from organizing yourself and your files, moving towards doing and achieving things and simply getting work done.
*(although the talk of the day, free and providing for lots of eye candy I believe QuickSilver’s usability to be quite inferior to LaunchBar in direct comparison simple and “no frills” LaunchBar shines)
Tags. User defined tags. Meta data. Data about data. Thats all it would take. Basically the “core focus” of the systems we use is data. It’s something i think, none of the os’es have got right till now. I need some way to find, manipulate, share data - someway thats instinctive. Think about how we think and remember things. Do we have folders in our minds arranged in a heirachical order? I think not. Instead we use associative memory (sounds similar to the tagging concept?) where we remember data based on other data/memories/thoughts that have a related link/tag. And such a system is massively scalable. Any human mind has far, far more data that the largest computer memories available today. And we’re doing pretty good without windows/osx in our head. God forbid if our heads had them running :)_
One thing about the flying/zooming thing: Don’t you think that Apple with the Expose-thing is doing something like that? I think it’s quite the same idea, you fast zoom out, choose your “frame” and zoom in. Sorry for my bad english.