If you were in any doubt; the above is very much written tongue in cheek. However, the amount of times I’ve seen these mistakes in the wild you’d think that people were deliberately trying to alienate their customers and users or taking the above seriously!

I’d be interested to hear of things that you have encountered in software that almost seem like they were added for the sole purpose of annoying you!

This made me notice a parallel between learning a new piece of software and learning to juggle. The more features your software has the harder it is to learn; the more balls you have the harder it is to juggle. Notepad is the juggling equivalent of one ball – it’s easy. Let’s say this man on the train made the leap to Word Pad, or even worse to Word. Now he’s got more to worry about; formatting, fonts etc. More features, more balls. The formatting can get messed up, the fonts might keep reverting to the wrong size – he’s just dropped his juggling balls and is frustrated.

The problem is; people want features (whether they need them or not!) so will put pressure on you to add them: features add complexity, complexity increases bugs, bugs increase support issues …and…erm… support issues lead to the dark side…

Users are selfish. I don’t mean that as a criticism – they have their problems and they bought your software to solve them, so it’s only natural that they will ask for features so that solve them exactly. When you only have one customer the problem is contained – you are writing it just for them. Unfortunately, the more customers you have the more incompatible their requests become. You will eventually reach a point where 2 customers want completely the opposite thing. Adding all the features your customers want doesn’t scale – you can’t be everyone’s girlfriend. The further you go down the path of trying to please everyone; the more complex your product becomes, the harder it is to maintain, the harder it is to learn, the harder it is to use. Ultimately, you’ll please no one. Each feature must add to, rather than dilute, the value of your product to your entire community. Simply say no to the rest.

This philosophy will upset some customers, they may even go as far as to threaten to abandon your product. But, they bought your software for what it is now, they have already decided that what you offer is the best on the market – otherwise they would have taken their custom else where in the first place. Had you said yes to every feature earlier customers had requested you might not have won the customer who is now complaining!

It’s a difficult balance to strike, especially when you are starting out and grateful for every sale. But there comes a point when your product becomes bigger than any one customer. You must use your judgement and recognise your role as the software’s custodian; challenge the value of each feature so that your application stays focused on being the best in its niche rather than a poor product in many. If your goal is the best user experience then you must aspire to give your software the best features, not just the most.

“You know you’ve achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away”
–Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Here’s how Apple do it in Safari (click to enlarge):

Here’s how it’s done in Firefox (click to enlarge):

And here’s it done right in Google’s Chrome (click to enlarge):

Tab panes are used to group together related items and navigate between them. The address bar, the navigation controls and the page that it loads are obviously related. Firefox and Safari have created 2 visually distinct groups; the controls and the page content itself. Whilst It doesn’t take long to realise that changing the tab attached to the controls also changes the page (their close proximity helps) they should all be grouped together so that the behaviour is less surprising to the uninitiated.

By re-arranging the window so that the tab encloses the address bar, the navigation controls AND the page you are browsing, Chrome ties together the entire view, makes the relationship explicit and it just feels more natural.

This approach has other benefits too;

• Switching tabs is a fairly frequent task – I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve missed the tab bar and clicked a link in my bookmarks bar. Moving the tabs to the top and leaving the bookmarks bar where it is solves that one!
• Whilst the tabs are physically further from the content, when the browser is maximised you can take advantage of Fitts’ Law so that selecting them is quicker – possibly even quicker than in their conventional position.
• Safari supports dragging a tab into a new window; doing this from the top of the window feels more natural – like you are tearing a page from a notebook. Although, Apple’s slick use of animation to produce a mini version of the tab mitigates the worst effects of this.

Whilst writing this post, I have been pondering why the tab bar is where it is on other browsers. I think the most likely explanation is that whilst it isn’t attached to the content it is very close to it. Its proximity gives it the grouping effect and makes the tabs convenient to click. Also, it is probably the approach that required the least re-design! However, I think on balance it’s Google who are right in this case.

I’m really pleased that Google have released Chrome; though whilst I wont be using it (no Mac version!), I think a fresh face in the browser market with new ideas who is willing to rethink existing conventions is something we all should welcome.

The Virgin set top box has a common look and feel throughout the user interface which makes the system feel nice and unified. However, the BBC decided that they should have a completely different appearance for the iPlayer; the layout, the colour scheme, the button placements etc. are all different. This immediately removes the user’s sense of familiarity with the system. Given that the cable box already has the controls necessary for implementing this kind of interface it seems a little unnecessary. Having said that, the BBC will be wanting to establish a strong brand around the iPlayer so it’s at least understandable.

Changing the appearance is one thing, but what is unforgivable is how they have disregarded the interaction conventions that were already established on the platform. The major means of interaction with the box is through the remote control; a directional pad for selecting items plus the 4 coloured buttons for short cuts. Throughout the whole system, whether you are buying a play on demand movie or just using the basic TV guide, the red button on the remote is “Page Down” and the green button is “Page Up”. The BBC decided to ignore this and have red for “Home”, blue for “Page Up and the yellow button for “Page Down”!

By doing this they have introduced what are known as ‘Interference Effects’; in this case an example of ‘Proactive Interference’. This is where existing memories interfere with learning. The user is so accustomed to red being page down that they instinctively press it and are then surprised when it takes them back to the home page. On one level this makes the user feel stupid – “I know it goes back to the home page, it says so on the screen!” and you should never make your users feel this way by doing unexpected things. They aren’t stupid, they are just assuming the system will be consistent.

The BBC really should have followed the conventions set out elsewhere in the system in this case; it just makes their application unnecessarily frustrating – would it have been so bad to make the yellow button go to the home page?!

Conventions are a powerful aid to improving the learnability of a system, so whenever possible they should be used. That isn’t to say you can never ignore them; sometimes there is a compelling reason to. Just be aware that you are probably going to trip people up so your reasons need to be good!

Imagine you’ve just bought yourself a new car, let’s say it’s a Volkswagen. You’re excited; you’ve been looking forward to this moment since you first saw the advert. You get in, and turn the ignition.

Over the car speakers a stern voice starts speaking:

“Have you stolen this car? Stealing cars is a crime and can be punished by a fine or a jail sentence”. This goes on for a few minutes telling you about how car crime funds terrorism etc. Mercifully it ends. So you try to set off. The controls of the car still aren’t responding. Suddenly, a rich deep voice starts to speak; “Coming soon from Volkswagen, the company that brought you the Golf GTI, the Beetle and the Polo…” you are now frantically pressing buttons in vain to skip the adverts – you just want to get on with your journey!

Finally, after being accused of theft and forced to sit through adverts for the last 5 minutes, the engine springs in to life. However, before you are allowed to set off you are shown a large image of the Volkswagen logo on the Sat Nav display, then the logo of the tyre manufacturers, then the logo of the stereo manufacturer, then the logo of the….

You think that having to endure this is bad enough. But, you have to go through it all again the next time you get in your car! Aaaagh! You just wouldn’t stand for this, so why do the film companies think it’s acceptable?

I love films, I own 100s of DVDs. I’ve never downloaded or bought a pirated film. Why am I punished for this? It makes me angry that I have to sit through unskippable accusations of theft, unskippable trailers and worst of all unskippable “Coming Soon to Cinemas” trailers for films that have by now been sitting in bargain bins for months since I originally bought the DVD!

If I lived forever I probably wouldn’t mind losing a few minutes. But I don’t. So I do. My leisure time is limited and I don’t like to spend it being spoken at. Maybe if there was a technical way that these trailers and notices could only be displayed only once it wouldn’t be so bad, but they are shown EVERY TIME I want to watch the film I’ve legally purchased!

Masochism!

So, what does this have to do with usability? Mainly the irony of the situation. If I had downloaded these films illegally I would just get the film itself. I’d double click the file and the film would start playing. I’d watch it then get on with something else. From a usability perspective the illegally downloaded film is a superior product – I’ve paid money for a less pleasant experience!

What I really want to see when I insert a DVD is to be taken directly to a menu with a prominent “Play” button already selected so that I can sit down, pick up my drink and press play. I’d probably watch the trailers after the film if they were listed as extras. Just don’t take liberties with my time and force me in to it!

The anti-piracy notices are a waste of time. It’s better to accept that a small proportion of people are dishonest, some just don’t value your product at the price it is sold for. They won’t buy it. They’ll get the cracked version without the notices anyway.

When designing interfaces and the user experience, take the most simple case. Assume your user is playing by the rules. Don’t blanket punish everyone and make the illegal option preferable! Make it as quick and easy as possible for your customers enjoy the product that they have paid for.

Writing this post reminded me of this funny clip from The IT Crowd:

“How do I know to do that?”

It’s a good question, and it follows on quite neatly from my last post. It’s quite possible that someone could never find that feature. I knew about it because I -

• Watched the keynote when the iPhone was announced (no it’s not sad!)
• Have read about it in the news
• Have seen the adverts
• Have spent hours drooling over it on the Apple web site before deciding I needed one!

Most people will not have done any of those – so how are they supposed to know? Once you have discovered it, it’s the most natural way of doing this; but nowhere on the device itself does it tell you that this can be done! Nor is it a particularly intuitive feature – in the web browser it makes sense to rotate the device to get a better view of the information, but it’s not as instinctive to rotate a list of artist or song names.

Discovery vs. Direction

When designing new products we should strive to make things as usable as possible. However, this becomes harder as products become increasingly complex with more and more features. The iPhone has this doubly bad because it’s a new paradigm for interaction – you can’t assume that users will have any knowledge of how things are supposed to work through using similar devices. They need to be told about it somehow.

Apple do a great series of video tutorials, but the old computer in the corner with the videos on just isn’t as exciting as the new shiny toy in their hands! Other products come with a thick multi-language manual. If the videos on the computer in the corner are ignored the manual doesn’t stand a chance!

People are curious and like to experiment, they won’t put down their new toy to go read a manual. There is a certain joy in discovering new features which should never be removed, so we must hold a new user’s hand and encourage their experimentation. We need to just make sure we are there to help them when they get lost.

Now, I imagine that it is a rare case that someone would invest in an iPhone without being aware of its features (there are cheaper phones and contracts out there!) but making assumptions of knowledge on a brand new idea is never good. I would have added the following:

• When you turn on the iPhone for the 1st time, it should play a very short video introducing the key modes of interaction; pinch, touch, device rotation etc. and then encourage the user to try them out with each of the applications. It just sets the scene.
• Have the video tutorials pre-installed on the device within the iPod (so they can be easily removed using iTunes to reclaim the disk space). These could be referenced in the 1st boot video.
• Include help pages! I’m not sure if Apple see it as a failure if people need help with their products, but there really should be a consistent and obvious way to show help on a per application basis. It doesn’t even need to be detailed – just explain the basics and give pointers for more detailed information!

Having said that, there’s no doubting, of all the phones I have ever owned, the iPhone is certainly the one with the least need for instructions! But that isn’t a reason to not help out when someone gets lost!

NB. This post is my entry to the killer titles contest fun over at ProBlogger!

There are many things they could do to improve, but the one I want to look at today is the 2nd step – entering my PIN number.

Some bank’s cash machines are bad at this. I walk over; insert my card and enter my PIN. The machine stares at me blankly; almost sinister. I stare back. The machine is daring me… it’s thinking ‘just one more number and I’ll eat your card’. I look around nervously… then spot some tiny text hidden away on the dimly lit screen to: “Enter your PIN then press Enter”. I hate those machines.

Why do you make me press enter?!

Everyone’s PIN is EXACTLY 4 digits long. Passwords on a computer or a website can be any length so you need a way of saying you’ve finished typing, but here they are always 4, this is common knowledge – the step isn’t necessary.

So, why do they make you press enter? It’s a confirmation step so you have chance to go back if you made a mistake whist entering your number. But that’s not really an excuse to add friction to the process – the confirmation is only of any value to the last number you enter! It doesn’t make a difference to the first 3 numbers – you can go back and correct these before the confirmation even comes in to play!

Pick a number between 0 and 9

In practice, this step only saves you if you type in the last number incorrectly. Cash machine keys are pretty large so I’d imagine the chance of mistyping is pretty slim in the first place! Even then, the consequences of getting it wrong are minimal – you get 3 attempts – so even if the first attempt is wrong you get another 2 shots. Human nature is such that if you get it wrong the first time you’ll pay more attention the second.

If mistyping is a frequent problem, I’d still remove the step (the 4 asterisks on the display don’t exactly help here!). I’d accept the 4th key as confirmation, but then insert a pause whilst displaying a way to cancel the confirmation before the validation actually takes place. The user would perceive this time as part of the validation process. You could even display an advert for another service whilst you have their attention.

Wherever possible you should try and reduce the number of steps and interactions you make your users go through to achieve their aim. Ask them to participate only for the essentials. If you can reliably guess what they will do, don’t make them do it!