Relatability - Matthaeus Krenn

Transcription

by Matthäus Krenn
Relatability
New design techniques in the field of consumer electronics
Matthäus Krenn
Relatability
New design techniques in the field of consumer electronics
Things From The Future Publishing
Vienna
© 2009 Matthäus Krenn
Things From The Future Publishing
www.thingsfromthefuture.com
Contents
Acknowledgments
Foreword
7
11
What is Relatability? Part 1
Electronic annoyance
Origins of a problem
The roots of Relatability
12 core actions
7 evaluation factors
Applying the Relatability theories
13
18
23
38
44
70
82
100
Appendix
106
Acknowledgments
In the seven years of university that lead me to this point, there were
many people who had an important impact on me on a professional
and personal level and who influenced me in positive ways. While I am
grateful for every experience I made and every person I met until now,
there is some people who I want to especially express my appreciation
for:
My supervisor Bernd, who believed in the idea to tackle this subject
despite the headwind that was to be expected from some of his
colleagues. By raising the right subjects, asking the right questions and
discussing my progress for hours in his spare time, he was able to act as
supporter, source of inspiration and critic at the same time.
Eve, who not only is the first teacher that I would consider a friend, but
who also gave me a whole new perspective on what it can mean to pass
on your knowledge in an inspiring way. In four years, she did not only
teach me a whole lot about the English language, but also about life by
sharing her valuable insights, obsessions and opinions.
Max, fellow student, friend, and “brain twin”, who throughout my
Industrial Design studies was my partner in crime in most curricularand especially all extra curricular activities. At the same time critical
and excited, and always open to new ways of achieving goals, he was an
important source of confidence in times of scepticism and a source of
scepticism in times of over-confidence.
The team of IDEO Munich that opened my eyes to a whole new world
of design.
8
Relatability
Markus, excited and critical, but also a very good friend, made sure that
three years studying Multimedia Technology would not only be worth
remembering for the lectures’ contents but even more for the many
times when we were able to thrive from each others obsessions.
Isabelle, who was such an important source of professional inspiration
and motivation but most of all personal joy and happiness in the last
year.
And finally, my family: Traude, Teresa, Sophie, Hannes, Lukas, Lukas and
Louis who have had a tremendously positive impact on my life. Who I
was always able to count on 100% no matter whether I was looking for
help, encouragement, critique, reassurance or empathy. Who supported
me over the many years to follow my passion but who would also bring
me back to earth when necessary.
Foreword
About this book
When I started working on my diploma thesis with the idea to investigate
all kinds of electronic products that we use on a daily basis, I knew that I
was getting into a complex area, but I was not expecting the theoretical
background in this subject area to be that important. Now, months later,
I am far away from a design diploma that focuses on transporting and
communicating ideas through a single product. I instead decided to lay a
strong focus on investigating and defining the most influential factors of
an area that includes dozens (if not hundreds) of products. Somewhere
along the way, I realized that the best way to communicate my findings in
their entirety was in the form of a book.
The tight time frame forced me into compromising in certain
situations between the detail of coverage and the possible amount of
invested time. In some cases, my wish to dive deeper into certain aspects
could not be fulfilled, some chapters had to be covered in less detail
than planned. Nevertheless, this book presents new perspectives and
approaches on how we cope with our daily confrontation with consumer
electronics and gives a preview on what will have to be explored and
documented in depth in the future.
About research
Because of the meandering process I used during this thesis, the many
times when discoveries would redefine the main focus of this work and
the fact that this subject is a quite uncharted terrain, I was never in the
12
Relatability
situation where I could rely on specific existing literature to support my
theories. Despite reading a multitude of books over the course of this
project (which I will be listing in the appendix) I do not use any direct
quotations nor do I refer to specific content. The lack of references to
other work does not come from ignorance or from over-confidence. I
stumbled upon many books that provided me with interesting insights
into areas that remotely had to do with the direction of my work, but
did not fit well enough to be worth quoting or referring to directly.
This also supports my intention to show that the subject of this book is
one that is entirely new and has not been dealt with in this way before.
Cross-referencing to existing lecture from other subject areas would
only mislead the reader into focusing on comparisons rather than taking
in my observations, analyses and thoughts in order to reflect on them
as a whole.
If we look at the world of today, we see many factors that have big
influence on our life. Politics, the condition of the planet’s environment,
the people that live in the same country, city and neighborhood as us,
our family, media, etc. But while these might have an impact on a higher
and more long lasting level, what influences us on a daily basis, are the
products that surround us and that we interact with pretty much all the
time.
As I am typing this, I am sitting on a sofa that forces my body into
a certain position, in front of me the table that is just high enough to
provide comfortable support for my legs and to my right, the stereo
that plays a not too intrusive yet engaging song. If I let my eyes wander
around the room, I could list another twenty products that I used in the
past two hours:
from the can opener, my external hard drive, my dish washer and my
office chair, to the oven, the TV set, two lamps and many more. These
products are always there. Every situation that I go through is more or
less directly influenced by them and so they become a considerable part
of my life.
A new type of product
The not too distant past saw an exponential progress in the development
of technologies and consequently a new type of product was born:
consumer electronics.
And today, these new products already make a considerable part of
what we use every day. Alarm clocks and toothbrushes have LEDs and
small displays.We control the temperature in our apartment with a little
14
Relatability
white box with three buttons that is hanging on the wall, we select from
a multitude of options when setting the washing machine to the desired
program and we navigate through endless menus of the touchscreen
interface of the ticket vending machine at the train station instead of
just talking directly to a person at a booth. That these products have big
advantages is out of the question. They allow for many new applications
and the inclusion of a multitude of functions in one single device. But
they also introduced new dangers and possible problems that affect the
user from that point on.
A huge difference, that distinguishes electronic products from their
earlier, non electronic counterparts, is that they have gotten much less
tangible for the user. Since they do not have to rely on mechanical
processes to achieve the desired goal anymore, and most of their
reaction to the user’s commands are handled on hidden circuit boards
in the form of electrons being sent from A to B, there is not much that
a human can observe happening to derive the functionality from. Their
shapes have become standardized, their parts static and very often, they
look and feel nothing like the products that they replaced.
Our everyday life is full of boxes that blink, glow and beep, that
have buttons and dials, small displays or large touchscreens that we
can interact with. But no matter how well we understand consumer
electronics, no matter whether we feel quite confident when using them,
there is one thing that we cannot do anymore: we cannot relate to most
of them. When we use them, we perform actions that feel completely
anonymous and unrelated to the goal that we intend to achieve. But we
do them because we know that they work.
As a user, we do not have too much of a choice.We might be fairly satisfied
as long as the products do as we please and there is no immediate
need for more reflection. For designers however, this situation should
be thought provoking or even alarming. A product that users do not
15
understand will never be able to be used satisfactory. Quite contrarily,
the constant deprivation of real control will likely result in frustration
sooner or later. But where does this problem come from and why is it
that, despite the awareness for the importance of “good design”, such
problems still exist?
A lack of defining criteria
As it turns out, this may very well be a result of the criteria that are used
to evaluate a product’s design. Materials, manufacturing, ergonomics,
usability, etc. are all well founded in design and respected amongst (most)
designers. They have existed ever since the need to define what makes
the quality in product and they will not likely be replaced in the future.
But as the world progresses and new product groups (like consumer
electronics) emerge, these evaluation criteria might not be sufficient to
cater for all their significant aspects.The following illustration is part of a
very simplified example that demonstrates this problem.
Figure 1.1: A whistle and an electronic device that emits sound at the press of a button
Both products on figure 1.1 serve a single purpose: generating a sound.
On the left, an ordinary whistle that many people know from their
16
Relatability
childhood or from sports events. Air is blown in the mouth piece and
the sound emerges from the small incision on the top surface. The box
on the right features one single button that can be pressed to make
the speaker emit a sound. Both products are comparably easy to use,
they are somewhat ergonomic and manufactured from sturdy material
that does not break easily. So while one could argue that both products
do their job equally good, the experience when using them is entirely
different. Even without understanding how the sound is actually created
in the whistle, it is much easier to comprehend the relation between the
air that we exhale and the resulting noise, than the one between the push
of a button and the activated speaker. And even though the outcome of
the user’s action is quite foreseeable in both cases, and the result similar,
the whistle’s use is more understandable and more satisfying. But what
theories in design look at this very discrepancy?
Simply put, the box on the right stands for all consumer electronics
today that achieve tasks of our everyday lives in sometimes good and
sometimes not so good ways. We interact with them more or less
successfully and (try to) achieve the goals that we set out to do. In the
provided example, this is quite easy due to the simplicity of the product.
But with the products’ growing complexity, it becomes increasingly
difficult for the users to make the connection between what they do
and the triggered reactions. This ultimately bears a great risks: The less
the user feels being in absolute control, the bigger the potential for
frustration when something does not go according to plan. And when
looking at how often people are puzzled by their products’ behavior
and unable to logically understand how they work, it seems like we are
already in a situation where consumer electronics not only open doors
to new experiences and possibilities but also cause confusion, discontent
and frustration.
While know methods in design focus on whether the user is able to use
17
a product, consumer electronics introduced the requirement to analyze
whether the user is able to understand why they use a product in a
certain way. This problem originates from somewhere in between the
“how” and is much more connected to psychology and the question
“why?”
Relatability looks at this in between-area, shows the factors that
define it and how design itself has to change in order to take them into
account.
Over the course of this book, I will document and explain these new
theories and tell the story of how I stumbled upon this subject, why
I believe that it is of high importance for the products of our future
and how Relatability can be included in the existing design processes
of today. Just like it was for me during the last couple of months, the
following chapters will feel like a discovery process where things come
together piece by piece. Only after presenting the many factors that
Relatability builds on, will the last chapter “What is Relatability? Part 2”
(see page 100) recapitulate all the findings and sum them up in order
to give a definite explanation of where this subject fits into product
design.
My personal motivation
To document how I stumbled upon the theories behind Relatability, I
will go to the very beginning of this project, which was based on very
personal impressions.
Growing up, computers and video games were my entry point to
many things connected to electronics and digital technology. I learned
programming early in my life, which helped me building a lot of confidence
around electronic products that were obviously working by the same
principles as the little pieces of software that I wrote myself. I knew
that it was very unlikely to cause any damage to something by using my
typical trial and error learning methods and was therefore never really
subjected to the fear and reservation that I see in so many other people
when they interact with machines today. I acquainted myself with every
electronic product around the house, be it my father’s stereo system,
my mother’s pager or our TV set and VCR. Over the years, I got to
know more and more facets of that area and in-depth knowledge of the
underlying technologies. To date, there are few devices that I am unable
to use, or to learn in a relatively short amount of time. I have mental
images of virtual processes and I understand how a machine “thinks”.
So one would assume that I am comfortable in this area and that
I am the last person who would see a reason to investigate potential
problems in it, right?
As as it turns out, the intense exposure to the subject has also made
me very sensitive to any quirks in the devices I use every day. I am
hyper-critical and get more and more impatient with them when I realize
that they have more mental strain on me than necessary. My growing
19
discontent does not come from the fact that I am unable to use a certain
product, but by the act of using it. Just because something works, does not
mean that it couldn’t work better and in the area of everyday consumer
electronics, I see big potential for improvement.
At the beginning of this work, I didn’t know what the source of my
frustration was but I knew that it was there and it was big enough of a
problem to make it worth spending the time I would have available on.
Unmet expectations
For a more diverse look on this subject area, I decided to begin with
interviewing and observing a range of different people in order to
get a big variety of impressions that would help me to find parallels
between what I was feeling and what other people would tell me about.
I expected that I would encounter many people that would tell me
about the reason for their own unhappiness in the area of consumer
electronics and consequently help me to better understand the source
of my own.
But to my surprise, observing and interviewing a first set of people did
not help me to fathom my own feelings but did pretty much exactly the
opposite: instead of being overwhelmed by stories about non-functioning
or unusable products, frustrating incidents in the observed people’s lives
and a discontent with modern devices, I found out something else.
Every single one of the people I talked to, showed a more or less
distinctive form of indifference towards the electronic products and
devices that surround them every day. Completely contrarily to my
initial gut feeling, the digital alarm clocks, stoves, washing machines,
thermostats, ticket vending machines, watches, (etc.) are not perceived
as nuisances that add unnecessary complexity to our lives. Their quirks
20
Relatability
and peculiarities are accepted as a fact, not as a problem. They are seen
as part of technological advancement: you either get both, or none.
If a certain situation arises that causes temporary frustration, it
is brushed off with a certain so what? attitude and quickly forgotten,
never resulting in lasting anger or annoyance. If an indispensable device
repeatedly fails to do as desired, users have developed different solutions
that allow for temporary fixes of a problem that range from looking
up solutions on the internet, asking relatives or friends for help, calling
someone for live assistance or simply delegating the problem to sons
and daughters. As long as there is someone to help, it seems like there
is no problem at all.
The following are some remarks of people and my interpretation of
them:
“Consumer electronics are a normal part of my day. Just like
everything else. So why should I fret?”1
Just like so many other things, quirks of consumer electronics are
perceived as a standard part of our everyday life. And just like we are
not able to change the weather, the color of the buildings we see when
looking outside the window or the time we need to wait for a letter
to arrive, people think nothing can be done about electronic devices of
today.
“If I can’t use an electronic product, I simply ask someone else
to handle it”2
Many users live in a certain dependency on others when it comes to this
subject. They spend their energy on finding savvy people to delegate the
use of some products to them and hand over the attached responsibility.
But they neither feel disempowered, nor do they feel annoyed by their
21
inability to use them. As long as they do not have to get their hands dirty,
everything is just fine.
“I simply ignore some products instead of getting into them and
failing”3
People deliberately choose not to use certain products if they have the
chance to do so. Being able to do that gives many people the impression
that they are in control of when they subject themselves to these
challenges. This might be a good way to calm down, but it also results in
a limitation of options and possibilities.
“I just sit down when setting my washing machine. This way, I do
not get tired if it takes a bit longer”4
In some cases, the level of acceptance and resignation in the people is so
high that they completely accept their inability to easily cope with many
electronic products today. They adapt to the machines that they use and
rather see the problem in their own lack of skill or understanding than
in the questionable design of the products.
“If something does not work, I just leave it be for a bit and then
come back to try again”5
Users sometimes see no urgent reason to get immersed into an
electronic device until they achieve their goal. If the desired function is
not quickly carried out, it seems like an okay alternative to set the task
aside and pick it up later to try again. There’s no vital things depending
on these products after all.
22
Relatability
Reacting to new impressions
So emerging from my first in-depth observations and contacts with
the users, I was confronted with an additional problem. Not only did I
have to understand where my personal discontent towards consumer
electronics came from, but also why other users seemed not to agree
that there even is a problem. Of course, the overshadowing indifference
in the other people could have be interpreted as a fact that simply
proves my own assumptions and views wrong. But I actually saw it as
an interesting observation that added more depth to the subject area.
It raised the following question: Why do people nowadays not see the
growing difficulty of using products as a problem, and why does their
impression so drastically differ from mine?
I decided that it was important to investigate these discrepancies
because this way, I would be able to really justify my work and show
that there is an actual need for people looking at this area in new ways. I
knew this investigation would not be about common research methods
with the help of literature that deals with similar questions, and that I
would probably not be able to base this on previous documentations.
I would have to come up with my own analytical models and make my
own connections between the facts in order to comprehensibly make
my case. And because I believed that my own feeling was not completely
wrong (after all, I am part of the target group too), I was not intimidated,
but rather intrigued by this fact. Consequently I set out to find ways to
document why there is actual need for someone to take a closer look
at the potentials and problems in the product area that reaches from
digital wrist watches, microwaves and home trainers to ticket vending
machines, ATMs, telephones, light switches and many, more.
The changing characteristics of products
To show the different characteristics of the products of our everyday
lives, how they are connected to each other and how their entirety has
influence on us, I developed a model that I call the “pyramid of abstraction
and complexity”. And even though it does not have too much to do with
the hierarchy of human needs, it does draw some parallels to the famous
Maslow model.
Top
Advanced Core
Simple Core
Base
Figure 3.1: The pyramid model consisting of four groups of products
The individual parts of the pyramid all represent one group of comparable
products that are part of our lives and that we need to use in order to
function in today’s society. The lower the group that a product belongs
to, the more indispensable it is and the more straight forward it needs
to be able to be used. The higher in the pyramid, the more complex and/
or abstract its nature.
Only if a major part of the products in our daily lives is located as
far down in the pyramid as possible, are we able to go about our tasks
unhindered and without wasting unnecessary amounts of their energy.
Shoelaces, door handles, jars, drawers, toothpaste, etc. come to mind as
part of this group. They can be used almost subliminally. These products
24
Relatability
create the very important base that is responsible for the biggest part of
interactions that we undergo every day.
The products in the higher groups introduce a degree of abstraction
or complexity and therefore become less easy to use and may require
a certain amount of analytical skills to be understood. They range from
- the still very manageable - light switches, or keys, to advanced devices
like digital radio alarms, air condition control units and stereo systems,
and reach the top group of the pyramid that includes computers and
mobile phones. While being essential to our way of living, the products
from higher groups are also much more likely to cost us energy and
cause frustration.
Placing products in the pyramid
Communication over long distances has been playing an important role
in all societies for a very long time. Since the invention of the telephone,
this has become much easier but as its development advanced, not only
did it change itself but also the effects that it had on people using it. It is
a good example to describe where products are placed in the pyramid
model:
Initially calls were placed by picking up the telephone receiver and asking
an operator at the switchboard to connect you to the desired recipient.
Of course, the total number of connections was limited, the connection
process slower than today and the interaction with an operator a
possible source for misunderstandings, but the actual process of making a
call was as straightforward and as close to human intuition as possible.
With the growing popularity, there was also a need for a new system
to replace the operator and with the advancement of technology, it was
possible to introduce the phone number paradigm that still holds today.
25
But giving each connection a unique number, meant that the process of
making the connection by talking to an operator was now abstracted
into dialling a number on the telephone’s interface. Of course, in this
case, the introduction of this new system came due to an important
need, but nevertheless, the action of making a call became a bit more
abstract and a bit harder to understand.
With the introduction of electronic landline telephones, the dial
plates were replaced with the still usual 0-9 button layout, abstracting
the process of dialling even more.The addition of new features like redial,
mute, electronic phone books, etc. added a great deal of complexity
obscuring the main functionality of the telephone.
Finally the mobile phone as we know it today is placed at the
absolute top of the pyramid model. The action of making a call is almost
entirely abstracted: phone numbers are looked up and selected in virtual
phone books, the data transfer is not made through a physical cable, but
through invisible radio waves and call-forwarding reroutes the call to a
receiver that might not even have been intended in the first place. The
hundreds of new functions a mobile phone has today distract from the
main purpose of actually making a call.
So while a product in the top group of the pyramid might sport
countless functions that give us incredible possibilities, it also comes to
the price of being harder to use and more likely to cause problems to the
user as well. This is why it is essential that products are well-distributed
over the entire pyramid to guarantee an everyday life in which we are
able to function properly. The base-category needs to include as many
entries as possible (also in the future) so that we can count on easy
to use and -understand products in most situations, while the higher
categories still contain advanced products with big sets of functions
that allow us to enjoy new technologies and open new possibilities and
perspectives to our lives.
26
Relatability
The model evolves continuously
While the distribution seems quite balanced as of today, there is an ever
ongoing change in the model.The progress in the field of technology and
the - arguably justifiable - urge to include these into everyday products,
causes the individual entries in the pyramid to move and evolve
independently. The integration of a new technology into a device can
cause it to move up in the pyramid into a new category due to its new
degree of complexity or abstraction. Of course this also impacts on our
ability to interact with this product and can cause it to be re-evaluated
by the user on the basis of an effort : gain analysis.
While such a development might not be problematic on a case-bycase basis, the accumulation of movement in the pyramid over time could
look as follows: the lower categories of the model shrink continuously
as the upper ones swell up. The consequences for everyday life are big.
Fewer products can be interacted with based on mere intuition and
without using our analytical skills. We will have to consciously “operate”
a product to undertake marginal actions every day more and more often.
This costs time, energy and strains our nerves.
At the top of the pyramid, an increasing number of products grow in
complexity and abstraction and might eventually elude themselves from
entire user groups’ understanding.
Ideal
Present
Future
Figure 3.2: A possible development in the future
A possible development of the distribution of products over the different
27
abstraction and complexity ranges is shown in figure 3.2. A big problem
is that many products from the base and simple core group will become
enriched with technology and functionality and will thus move up in the
pyramid. This will cause an instability in the model and also in our lives
since a growing number of products will be harder to use and become
a more likely cause for frustration. Remember how twenty years ago
it seemed unrealistic that most washing machines, electric shavers
and alarm clocks would have digital displays? Now think twenty years
in the future: Touchscreen controlled water-taps, lamps and suitcases
do not seem so unlikely anymore. When the equilibrium is lost, the
consequences will be very noticeable to all users. Right now, everything
still seems to be quite stable, which is also a reason why the awareness
of this development is almost nonexistent in most users.
Digitalism
The accumulation of these changes is the first indicator for the source
of my discontent that I described in the last chapter. Because it is not
about single products that do not work in a satisfying manner or that
are simply too complicated to use. It is about this shift in the distribution
of all products that are part of our lives and the changes of behavior and
attitude that they evoke in us. I call this evolution “digitalism” because
I feel that a lot of the changes in our (product) world have happened
as a consequence of the increasingly fast progress in the field of digital
technology.
Digitalism does not necessarily have to do with the fact that products
are actually based on digital technology but defines the feeling that they
radiate when we interact with them. It has to do with the abstraction and
complexity that is almost always a direct consequence when a product
28
Relatability
changes from being (mostly) mechanical to having an electronic core.
Digitalism also comes from technology being so strongly rooted in our
culture that we got used to thinking in machine terms, adapting our
language to meet the newest techno-slang and changing our behavior to
better meet the requirements of a daily life that is somewhat dictated
by consumer electronics, digital media, 24/7 availability and instant
information transfer.
The differences in our use of an analog or digital alarm clock, the
consequence of having a virtual phone book on your mobile phone
instead of using pen and paper to remember the most important
numbers, and the definition of a “friend” when comparing real life and
Facebook. Digitalism is a factor in all of these developments that have
happened in the not too distant past and I expect it to get even more
significant in the future.
The users can not adapt
One might argue that the occurring digitalism will cease being a problem,
because the people that grow up in a world that is subjected to it, will be
a lot less sensitive to its effects. Just like the kids of today seem to have
no problem whatsoever understanding the computers, video games and
mobile phones that adults are almost unable to use anymore, the kids
of tomorrow will be much more confident around the new consumer
electronics that will be of even higher complexity and abstraction than
today. Consequently, one day, everyone could be able to use every
product without hesitation.
But the problem is that the subject area of consumer electronics
and their connected technologies are not a static one, making the skill
development of the users much more complicated.
29
Linear development
To describe this, I first want to give an example of the exact opposite:
Areas like sports allow enthusiasts to grow continuously, starting as
beginners and making their way to higher and higher levels until being able
to be considered “pros” at what they are doing.This acquired knowledge
and skill set cannot be taken away from these people anymore. Sports
do not make drastic changes and so a “pro” will always be someone
others look up to, ask for help and advice. Even after a pause of many
years, coming back to a sport will not require more than a short period
of reacclimatizing.
Non linear
This is completely different for areas that are subject to a development
over time that runs parallel to the one of the user. The music sector
is a good example of a field like this. It is undergoing very dynamic
and continuous changes with which an interested person needs to
constantly keep up in order not to fall behind. Collected knowledge can
only be applied to new developments at a limited extent. “Pros” in the
area of music can never stop informing themselves about news in the
business and simply rely on what they already know. This would cause
them to miss new trends and movements, and will displace them from
their status.
The area of consumer electronics behaves a lot like that. As new
products and services are launched, common habits have to be
reconsidered and the user needs to adapt to the new circumstances.
Even after many years of keeping up with every new device and feature,
a pro user can easily fall behind again when ignoring new developments
for a certain amount of time.
30
Relatability
The progress of technology
The user’s knowledge
The point where
the user is outpaced
Period of Confidence
Figure 3.3: The connection between the user’s knowledge, technology’s progress and the
user’s resulting confidence
Therefore the typical beginner/advanced model becomes irrelevant,
since a much more dynamic change happens over the course of a user’s
life. The exponential growth in technological advances that became
apparent in the past decades, will keep putting more and more pressure
on people in that area. It will get harder and harder to keep up because
change will happen faster and in more areas than ever before. This is
also why the assumption that “our kids will be comfortable with any
technological progress” is wrong.
Differing user development
Taking into account that not every person is willing or able to develop
at the same speed, another problem presents itself: When analyzing how
users behave differently from each other, I was able to see a total of nine
groups of different user types that people can be divided into and that all
undergo a varying skill-development.
31
The experimenter
The excited
The pro
The able
The interested
The dependent
The traumatized
The scared
The ignorant
Each of these groups has a different development when it comes to their
relationship with consumer electronics.And while I will not go into detail
on every single one individually (Figure 3.4 gives an overview), I can say
that there is a broad range of people who are everything from afraid, to
confident, full of prejudice or curiosity, independent or dependent.
Dependencies emerge, a support system is created
Only three out of these nine groups are able to support the other
six. And this only over a certain amount of time during their lives. The
problem is that over time the “needy” user groups have become used to
their place in that system and have started using their relationships to
the “helpers” in order to be able to function in the world of consumer
electronics. This means that the three predominantly positive and able
user groups are - deliberately or not - taking care of the six much bigger
groups of people who are unable to find their own way in this area.
Combining the observations of this interconnection and of the
nonlinear development of the user’s skills, shows the following risk:
The number of users who feel confident enough to support others could
be shrinking and the sensitive system that allows everyone to function,
Relatability
helper
32
needy
traumatic event
Figure 3.4: Each user group goes through a specific development during their lives.
The “base” at the beginning of a lifespan is the most influential factor in whether a user
develops confidence towards consumer electronics or not. From there, the different
types of people will also go different routes that depend on personal interest, social
surroundings and other factors. Development late in the timespan usually shows a
decrease in abilities/confidence.
33
might collapse. But only as long as this system is intact, the users can
help each other out when problems caused by digitalism arise. It is an
essential factor in the enduring ability to cope with today’s and future
electronic obstacles and the effects of digitalism. As the development in
the past shows, the system has grown weaker and weaker, because more
people are depending on a decreasing number of savvy users.
This support system does not only influence how people cope with
the challenges that consumer electronics pose to them, but also strongly
influences their awareness of the indicators that suggest digitalism
to become a real problem in the near future. It therefore also helps
explaining why my initial gut feeling about this subject is so different
from the impressions that other people told me about:
The model of teacher/student does not apply in this model as
everyone can adopt different roles over time. The development of users
can slowly happen subliminally or be triggered by acute events. Parents
e.g. will eventually be overtaken by their kids when it comes to the
ability to cope with new technologies. From that point on, they will
either try to catch up or cherish the possibility to free themselves from
some responsibility.
Being part of one of the dependent user groups does not necessarily
mean that your life is negatively influenced by frustration (many members
of these groups feel quite empowered and relieved by delegating digitalism
tasks) but like mentioned before, it is already becoming obvious how
uneven the number of positively contributing- and depending groups in
the system has become.
As for now, thanks to the willingness of some users to help others,
the symptoms that are caused by poorly designed consumer electronics
stay hidden. Symptoms like the frustration of not being able to use a
product like desired, the amount of energy and time that we have to
put into their operation and the augmentation in complexity that it
causes in our daily lives. This also shows in some of the quotes from my
34
Relatability
first user observations and interviews (see page 20). It does not come
as a surprise that users do not perceive the ongoing development as
alarming because they simply are not aware of the negative impact it has
(or soon will have) on them.
Continuous change
The way humans deal with continuous change is another reason why
people are in a state of denial concerning the potential drawbacks of
digitalism.
The weather changes, fashion changes, interpersonal relationships evolve,
work conditions, politics, languages, etc.They all change continuously and
we humans have accustomed ourselves to this situation and - despite
reluctance - manage to adapt quite well. We have developed a relative
flexibility and ability to adapt to new situations in order to be able to
function better. We have absorbed this attitude so much that we often
do not even realize that change is happening as long as it does not beat
us over the head with a stick. And while relieving in most situations
of our lives, this attitude desensitizes us also to the dangers that this
change might sometimes bring along. We often ignore slowly growing
issues as long as possible only to find ourselves in unfortunate situations
as a consequence.
35
Technology is outpacing us already
As technology advances at an ever growing rate, new products and
services are launched and replace known institutions that earned their
right of existence over a long time in the past.With different motivations
like lower prices or increased functionality, advanced technology is
incorporated in situations where not necessarily needed and potentially
harmful to the intuitive understanding for the user. Already today,
the stores’ shelves are bursting with infinite electronic iterations of
the same product and when we look for the replacement of an old
device, we might be unable to find one, simply for the fact that it looks
unrecognizably different than when we last purchased it.
The fact that more and more new products or changes applied to
existing products will be introduced at even shorter intervals, means
that it is becoming of increasing importance that the user reflects on
these changes in order to keep an overview over how the world around
them evolves, and whether this is for the better or the worse. Ultimately,
it is always up to the user to articulate wishes and concern. And this is
only possible if they awarely form an opinion about an area.
The user does not care - yet
As observations showed, users neither derive a special amount of joy
from electronic products, nor do they lastingly suffer from a device that
fails once in a while. The lack of emotion makes people forget about
the incidents and they do not realize when negative situations start
happening more often. Therefore they are unable to formulate real
criticism.
The same indifference can also be seen when it comes to people
reacting to new products on the market: Even though the quickly
36
Relatability
increasing number of market launches could raise suspicion, they are
perceived as technological advancement and therefore as “justified”
or “interesting”. But they are never judged upon their possible effect
on our lives in the long run even though we can already observe the
significant effects that the intrusion of more technology in our everyday
lives have on our behavior:
The mobile phone,- Twitter- and Blackberry-induced “always on”
culture deprives itself from sleep, silence and peace. Information and
knowledge moves faster and faster, we can do more simultaneously but
feel like we already have less and less time for the things we need or
want to do. Our devices allow us to control more things in our lives
than ever before, but at the same time, their complexity withhold most
of their functionality from us.
When the breaking point comes, it is too late
The mainstream user misses the big picture. They only see their own
success on a case by case basis and as long as they are able to use their
products (or find someone who can help them), they see no reason
to doubt today’s development. But as digitalism finds its way into an
increasing number of appliances, the potential for frustration will grow
and as with so many things, sola dosis facit venenum1 There will be a
certain breaking point where the accumulation of all the confrontations
with technology we have to endure every day will become too many.
The way people perceived global warming not too long ago is a good
example of this:
For decades, specialists argued that humans’ behavior will affect the
planet to a much bigger extent than believed. The actual changes to the
planet and its climate came so slowly and subliminally that people only
realized the seriousness of the matter when finally, there was a record
37
breaking warm winter in 2007. People’s eyes were opened and suddenly,
hurricanes, floods, forest fires, warm winters, rainy summers, food
shortages, etc. were perceived as logical symptoms of global warming
and our carelessness towards the planet. But as soon as you feel it, it is
too late.
And today, we are struggling to fight these symptoms whereas twenty
years ago, a better awareness could have led to important changes that
might have prevented the problem.
The following graph shows the public’s reaction when in the winter
of 2006/2007 unprecedented high temperatures finally put a face on the
issue of global warming. Even though Google Search hits are unlikely
to represent the actual change in awareness, it gives a good hint about
how volatile this development behaves instead of gradually building over
time.
Winter 06/07
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 3.5: The amount of Google Searches for the terms “Global Warming” over the
last five years.
© Google Trends
Transferred to the subject of consumer electronics, this means that one
day, people will realize that the problem is not the failure to operate a
product once in a while, but the constant and inescapable exposure to
their shortcomings.
Now that I had an idea of where my own discontent towards consumer
electronics came from, how this will most likely become a considerable
problem in the future and why it is not a surprise that other, less involved
people, do not agree with me yet, the next step would require me to
turn my findings into a meaningful project.
The challenge
While researching and analyzing what would eventually become the
content of the last chapter, I naturally came across different possibilities
for interesting theses. But most of them focused only on the symptoms
that digitalism causes. I deem it much more valuable get to the source of
a problem and fight it right there so this is why I decided to concentrate
on the very design of the electronic products themselves.
But working on all devices that we come across every day in one
project was unlikely to produce satisfying results since the products
cover such a huge range of characteristics and applications. In order
to be able to efficiently work on an area where I can cause the biggest
impact with a reasonable amount of effort, I chose a field that is at the
same time not too diverse but big enough to allow for significant change.
The pyramid model helps to explain this:
39
Top
Advanced Core
Simple Core
Base
Ideal
Present
Future
Figure 4.1: The core groups of the pyramid undergoing the biggest change
The two “core” groups in the pyramid are the ones that feature the
most resembling entries and at the same time are likely to undergo the
biggest change in the future. This makes them the perfect candidate for
investigation. They are full of products that serve one or a low number
of very specific functions and can therefore be optimized to do what
they do with the help of all new interaction and design paradigms.
I left out the two remaining groups for good reasons: The quality
of the “base” comes from products undergoing as little change- and
remaining as straightforward to use as possible. They should stay
unaltered because they are part of the extremely important portfolio
of products that we are (almost) able to use without thinking. Change in
this category is almost certainly negative.
The “top” group includes products of huge complexity. Their sheer
infinite set of functions requires a certain standardization of interface
elements since they need to be as versatile as possible (see personal
computer or mobile phone). Introducing new paradigms for them would
easily go beyond the considerably tight time schedule of this work. It
is also most likely that important change in that area will be due to
software and not hardware, which is an entirely new subject.
There is no doubt that the field that is incorporated in the two
remaining “core” groups of the pyramid still includes a considerable
number of products whose applications are extremely diverse and who
all seem to follow different (and badly defined) design principles. So it
was clear that it would take more than a quick look to understand what
40
Relatability
would be the defining factors in this and how they could be influenced
and consequently argue for new design principles.
a look at the area
Here is a short excerpt of my extensive list of devices. It gives a nice
idea of how broad the range in this area actually is: shaver, clothes dryer,
scale, refrigerator, coffee maker,TV, DVR, thermostat, answering machine,
blood pressure analyzer, bluetooth headset, digital watch, navigation
system, WLAN router, scanner, electric rearview mirror, air condition
control, vending machine, intercom, light switch, payment booth, ATM,
etc.
At the first look, this list seems incomprehensibly diverse, the
products strongly differing in size, shape, function and ease of use. On
top of that, each product exists in seemingly infinite iterations that look
different and take care of the same functions in entirely different ways.
The only strikingly common characteristics are the very limited choice
of physical interaction elements that mostly rely on pushing buttons and
reading off small displays. In some cases, these elements are exchanged
for new technology (like the momentarily popular touchscreen) but the
underlying problems that make most of these products so hard to use
stay the same: They rely on complex systems that do not come naturally
to people’s minds and their functionalities are hidden in labyrinth-like
menu structures that have to be navigated with the help of counterintuitive methods.
41
Considering the user and looking closer
While taking a closer look at many representatives of my long list, I
realized that investigating the manifold hardware characteristics of the
products alone would not be enough. It would not give me answers on
how to improve them in a way that would lead to them being not only
more useable on a hardware level, but also more understandable and
more intuitive on a psychological level. And this brought me to looking
at the one important common factor between all of them: The humans
that interact with them.
The users are even more diverse than the products themselves and
as discussed in the last chapter (see page 30), I could not even stick to
usual models like how “beginners” and how “pros” behave. But if there
are no significant common factors in neither the products nor in the
users, where could a base be found that would allow me to build a
whole new design theory about the interaction between humans and
machines? As it turned out, the answer was not far away from these
two. In fact, it was right in the middle and I found the focus for the rest
of my work neither in the user nor the products, but in what we actually
do with them.
It turns out that no matter whether a device cooks food, brushes
teeth or regulates the temperature in a car, the core actions undertaken
by the user to achieve these desired results are always the same. While
a function of a typical digital alarm clock would be “program it to ring
at 07:00 and at 07:30” the core actions that the user undertakes are
“decide which button to press, select a certain menu, monitor what is
happening on the display, adjust the alarm time, etc.” These core actions
act like building blocks that never change, but that allow - in different
combination - sheer infinite results.
At the same time, they also represent our way of subliminal (and
therefore intuitive) thinking. Because even if we might think “I need to
42
Relatability
turn on the oven so I can make dinner”, what our brain does sounds
more like “Let’s find the right dial and turn it to the temperature that
we are looking for”.
By looking at all the products in my chosen area, I was able to define
this set of twelve characteristics that repeat themselves again and again.
Understanding that they never change gave me a point where I could
take action in a meaningful way, affecting not only single products but
the whole area.
Decide
Measure
Combine
Select
Monitor
Adjust
Access
Program
Connect
Activate
Follow
Wireless Connect
“How do these building blocks affect design?” you might ask and as
it turns out, as of today, they are only very passively represented in
products. The prevailing approach in the design of consumer electronics
is strongly focused on defining a certain set of desired functions
and options and figuring out a way to make each of these accessible
individually.The attention is neither given to the user’s subconscious way
of thinking nor to the actions that they perform as a consequence.
Take the example of a modern washing machine: A multitude of
buttons, dials and LEDs help us to choose an individual program that is
best fitting to the clothes that we want to wash. What is less obvious is
that in this case, our underlying core intention is to “combine”. Because
only by combining the right settings, the washing machine will execute
the desired program (see the chapter “Applying the Relatability theories”
for a more in-depth look at this example). Our life is full of examples
where the concept of combination is applied: We combine ingredients
when cooking, combine parts of our outfit to match a certain style,
43
mood or dress code, or we combine people with different skills in
order to form the best possible team. Why is it then that the design of
a washing machine does not communicate the concept of combination
at all? Why are the different options and settings scattered all over the
interaction panel and we can press buttons and turn dials at will, with no
structure or following logical steps?
The concept of focusing on these very core actions when designing
a product does not mean to simplify products and strip them of so
many functions that they become unmistakably useable. It is about
understanding our intuitive way of thinking and providing frameworks in
the interface elements of products that enforce this intuition in order to
make devices easier to use as a consequence.
If the design helps users to understand what core action they
are required to perform, the interaction with a consumer electronic
suddenly shifts from random button pressing to intuitively carried-out
steps that lead to the desired goal.
The strength of these core actions comes from the fact that we use
them in infinite situations in our lives for situations that are far from
having anything to do with consumer electronics. Situations that we
grow up in from the beginning of our lives. This is why they come so
naturally to us and why we can relate to them much better.
12 core actions
Just knowing that these core actions exist is not enough. This is why
this chapter will give a one-by-one explanation of each one of them,
describing what they are about and what the factors are that make them
work. My intention is not to give suggestions on how products should
be designed to the standards of Relatability design and communicate
each one of the core actions. I rather want to raise the awareness of
the designers to think about what people do and think when interacting
with their surroundings and how these behaviors could be meaningful in
changing how functions are integrated into future products.
Page 45:
Decide and Select
Page 48: Activate and Access
Page 51:
Measure and Monitor
Page 55: Program and Follow
Page 58:
Combine
Page 61: Adjust
Page 64:
Connect
Page 67;
Wireless Connect
12 core actions
45
Decide and select
Figure 5.1: (top left to bottom right) shoe shop, football team, key chain, TV connector
panel, elevator buttons, gas pump, restaurant’s menu, guidepost.
A selection is every moment in which the user needs to make a decision
when interacting with a product. Pretty much all actions are based
on decisions and it is up to the user to make the right one. There are
countless different types of choices that need to be made while using
consumer electronics ranging from simple to elaborate, from intuitive
to analytical, them all being an important part of successfully carrying
out a task.
Humans learn the process of decision making from the first months
of their lives on and it is only natural that they translate it onto the area
of technology.We decide and select with the same underlying methods in
situations that include products and other areas alike. So to understand
and to improve how we make decisions when using digital electronic
devices, it makes most sense to investigate what influences our decision
making in more intuitive areas from our everyday life.
46
Relatability
Criteria
At the beginning of every choice it is the criteria that help us make a
well-founded decision. These criteria are either known to us before or
need to be come up with at that very moment.
In the former case we access our knowledge and preconceptions
about a subject and apply them to that specific situation. When deciding
on the right shoes to wear, we consider which situations we will likely
be in that day or we will try to match the shoes’ colors to the rest of
our outfit. When choosing a member for our team in sports or at work,
we will consider the people’s strengths and weaknesses, remember
comparable situations where they performed in a certain way or take
our ability to communicate well with them into account. In these cases,
a decision is easily made, since we can base it on criteria that we are
comfortable with.
Other situations require us to be more flexible with making a choice
and to improvise when it comes to finding the essential criteria:
When we try opening an unknown door with someone else’s
key chain, we cannot choose the right key by basing our actions on
knowledge. We cannot know which key will fit into the lock before
trying, so we come up with criteria on the fly. What is the approximate
size of the lock and the keys on the chain? What is the shape of the
keyhole? Does it resemble anything on the chain?
Constraints
Constraints are powerful product features that guide us when we have
to make decisions in situations that we have no established knowledge
about. Constraints warn us from putting the wrong fuel in our car or
help us finding the right socket for a specific cable in our TV setup. Just
12 core actions
47
by using their observation skill, even most unskilled users can be guided
through an advanced decision making process if the products provide
sufficient constraints.
Stereotypes
Since stereotypes often trigger a very specific reaction in the user, they
need to be considered when designing products that need to be picked
up and understood spontaneously. Stereotypes and preconceptions can
be harmful to our ability to learn new things, but used appropriately, they
can also be helpful to guide the user in a specific direction.
Personal preference
When it comes to using a product for functional reasons, keeping a
certain level of rationality is important. While personal preference is an
important decision factor in many everyday situations, it is of no use
when trying to successfully solve a task with the help of an electronic
product. After all, it is not up to us which button to press when accessing
the right program on our washing machine. Sometimes not enough
information is apparent to allow to make an informed and rational
decision.
48
Relatability
Activate and Access
Figure 5.2: (top left to bottom right) car ignition, safe deposit boxes, cutting a ribbon,
record player, swiss army knife, light sticks, present wrapping, folder tabs.
The act of activating and accessing can be found in almost everything
that we do in our daily lives. It strongly affects our thinking, which is
most often based on a tree-like scheme of organizing things: When I
do not oversleep in the morning and decide to have my breakfast at
home, I will most likely run through the process of breakfast-making in
my head to set my mind on what is to come (and reevaluate whether
I have sufficient time and energy to do it). This will sound something
like “Go to the kitchen. Open the fridge. Take out eggs and vegetables.
Open the cupboard. Pull out the bottom drawer. Take a pan. Put it on
the cooker.Turn on the cooker. Open another cupboard. Get some olive
oil. Pour the oil in the pan. Open the egg carton. Take out two eggs.
Cut some vegetables, etc.” The process of me making my scrambled
eggs with vegetables is not much different than programming my digital
video recorder. Sub-menus are like cupboards and drawers. The options
I select are like the eggs and the vegetables that go in the pan. There is
one very important difference though:
12 core actions
49
Every single step that goes into preparing my breakfast feels entirely
different, and by that gives me more control over where in the process
I am and how my actions affect the whole. When programming my DVR,
all I do is pressing buttons and looking for changes on screen. Every step
feels the same, not giving me any clue whether I am in the middle of
deleting, setting a new date or adjusting the length of a recording.
Size does matter
This discrepancy does not come as a big surprise. The DVR needs to
manage a sheer endless amount of functions on very limited interaction
space (usually the remote) while a kitchen - in comparison - is huge and
leaves space for so many different objects to interact with in different
ways.
Our electronic devices cannot grow significantly with the addition
of every new function. The user demands a certain reasonable form
factor and would be alienated by products that are significantly bigger
than their predecessors (especially since the trend of miniaturization in
electronics leads in the exact opposite direction).
Not all forms of interaction need to be as rough as going though
a pile of pans and pots or as messy as breaking eggs. The beauty of
electronics is that pretty much everything (beyond buttons, dials and
levers) can be turned into a control element (as described later in the
section “Arbitrary Design” on page 72). So variety should not be an
issue while size can still be taken into account.
The importance of a strong statement
In the best case, every action that we undertake in our daily lives has
50
Relatability
a well defined beginning and end point. This helps to split our days into
smaller parts and to give us a better overview of what we are doing
right now and when the next activity is going to start. It gives a sense
of order and therefore control. In many products, the activation itself
can also be very satisfying: Opening a can of Coke, turning the key in
the ignition of a car or dropping the pick-up arm onto a record. These
actions make us feel like we are in control and that we deliberately set a
process into action that will lead to a certain result.
Electronic devices mostly lack these important moments. Giving us
little possibility to connect to them and their functions on more than a
purely rational basis.
Infusing reality
By designing the activation or access of a certain function more drastically,
even a virtual process can be made to feel a bit more real. This has little
to do with actual feedback but with engaging the user on a physical level
even before the product’s reaction comes into play.
By making processes more “real” and more memorable, it is easier
for users to remember which action accesses which function and they
will gradually improve their ability to use a product over time.
12 core actions
51
Measure and Monitor
Figure 5.3: (top left to bottom right) sun dial, the color of melting glass, babies’s emotions,
smell of burning food, balance, body heat, water temperature, decaying food.
Monitoring allows us not only to check discrete states of a process, but
also its change in real time. Monitoring can be much more subliminal
than measuring and is often not intended to be as precise. Examples of
products where monitoring plays an important role include:
Car dashboard: The speedometer gives continuous information
on whether the user’s interaction with the car needs to be
adjusted or can be maintained.
Electric shaver: The battery display shows how long the product
is likely to stay functional.
Microwave: The countdown tells impatient users when their
food is ready.
In contrast to the world of electronics, the monitoring we do every day
happens somewhat subconsciously. This is why it might seem hard to
come up with examples as to how it influences us in our actions. But
52
Relatability
rest assured: We monitor everywhere and all the time.
We feel the flow of air on our skin and decide to close the window.
We realize the continuous darkening of the sky to get an idea of what
time it is. We smell that our food burns in the oven or gradually see the
fruits in the basket go bad. Or we feel the heat on our faces when we
work out and decide to get a drink.
Precision
Monitoring the state of a process with the help of discrete units is only
possible in the very cases that can be defined by using standardized
systems that are commonly known. When measuring time, temperature
or counting the people entering and leaving the bus, for example, we rely
on systems like numbers and mathematics. But these actions also require
very active participation and analysis of the user and work against our
intuition. Another big disadvantage of this approach (which by the way
is the most commonly used in electronics) is that it can only be applied
to situations that underlie the above mentioned systems, leaving more
abstract - but nevertheless important - cases untreated.
Feeling
The kind of monitoring that comes more intuitive and “natural” to us
is the one that is not based on discrete units, but a “feeling” that the
characteristics of a status convey to us. When boiling water in a pot,
we do not need a thermometer in the water to tell us whether its
temperature is at 53°c, 83°c or 99°c. Looking at the water is enough to
judge its temperature by identifying small bubbles at the bottom of the
pot, single bigger bubbles that rise to the surface or the typical behavior
12 core actions
53
of actually boiling water.
This approach does not require explicit knowledge of units and
their translation into a system, but only the ability to recognize the one
desired state. We know what cold water looks like and we know what
boiling water looks like. Everything in between is either negligible or
quite easily identifiable by figuring out where between the two known
states the current condition can be classified.
An interesting example for where units are needlessly added to
a product feature is how manufacturers choose to make TV’s display
the volume status once the user presses the respective button on the
remote: In many cases a system of numbers is used to represent the
volume. The TV will display a number between 0 (meaning silence) and
50 (meaning something like “too loud”). But these units do not represent
any scientifically acknowledged volume level measurement (like dB). And
they are very unlikely to influence the users behavior since they already
have a way of monitoring volume levels that comes much more natural
to them: their ears. Users turn the volume up when they have difficulty
listening to the sound and they lower it when feel that it is to noisy.
Never did I hear someone say “Let’s crank it up to 32” or “At night, I
won’t raise it above 16”. People go by their gut feeling and not by some
integrated abstract unit systems. These are as useless as a pot displaying
the temperature of water to indicate when it will reach the boiling point:
People would most likely still just look at the water.
Intuitive monitoring is dependent on a maximum of two things:We need
to be able to identify the two states that represent the extremes of
the process. Like the appearance of a child and an adult, the colors of
an unripe and a ripe banana, or the size of a young and an old tree. All
the states in between should be quite easy to identify by interpolating
between the two extremes.
54
Relatability
In some cases it helps to understand the underlying system that causes
the (visual) characteristics in order to make more sense of them.
Comprehension of blood pressure and the body’s heat management,
for example, can help to identify many conditions of our body just by
looking at the color of our face.
12 core actions
55
Program and Follow
Figure 5.4: (top left to bottom right) route drawn on a map, graph, ATM, birth control
pills dispenser, IKEA manual, shopping list, marching band, calendar, navigation system,
cooking instructions, sheet of music, punch card.
Program and follow represents the opposing sides of one subject and
never occur individually since one is the cause of the other. In some
cases we program a product to do certain things at specific points in
time, or we follow a program that is specified by the device. Examples of
products where “program and/or follow” plays an important role:
Digital Video Recorder: Specifying times and channels to
record.
CD Player: Choosing only a set of tracks on a CD that are to
be played.
Alarm Radio: Programming a different time to wake up on seven
56
Relatability
days in advance.
ATM: The user follows a very specific set of instructions.
Navigation system: The user programs it to follow its
instructions later.
There is a multitude of different situations where programming and
following play an important role. And to get better grip on the subject, I
will look at them individually.
Following a route
When we run into a situation where we have to master a certain task
that requires specific knowledge about a process or subject, it is unlikely
that there is always another person around to help us out. So when we
build the furniture that we just bought at IKEA, when we try to locate a
certain address in the middle of a big city or when we cook ready meals
from the supermarket, there is usually some kind of a user manual that
takes us through the whole process one step at a time.
Small and manageable pieces
By breaking big tasks up into smaller pieces, the impact of the complexity
perceived by the user is lowered to a level that feels comfortable and
manageable. Very often, these step by step guides come in the form of
a book or some other kind of printed material, but instructions can
also be given over the phone by people with more knowledge of the
subject or be displayed one by one on the dashboard of your car. The
underlying principle is always the same: The user is guided by a program
and becomes part of the system that leads to the desired result. As long
as the fractions are small enough to be individually grasped, understood
12 core actions
57
and executed, this system works.
The other way around
This principle also works when turned around: A series of small action
pieces strung together by the user create a program that a machine
(or another human being) can follow if interpreted correctly. Humanto-human instructions can be communicated in a multitude of ways and
often do not rely on a high level of precision in the delivery thanks
to our ability to interpret the given information and to complete or
correct it by using common sense.
The framework supports the input
Passing information on to someone else also comes very natural to us.
We use spoken or written words, drawings and any other means of
communication that seem appropriate in the situation.
In some cases though we need to rely on preset frameworks in
which we can communicate long strings of information that consist of
many very small individual parts. When composers write a music piece
for an orchestra, they uses a “code” that can be interpreted by the
musicians in real-time and converted into action note by note. The lines
on the paper and the limited symbols that can be drawn onto it create a
framework for the composers that enables them to stick to the way of
editing information, so the recipients can easily understand it. It is those
understandable frameworks that many electronic devices lack.
58
Relatability
Combine
Figure 5.5: (top left to bottom right) caffé Latte, assembled outfit, structure of glass
and steel, street network, color mixing palette, ingredients in a bowl, geometric shapes
forming a drawing, moving box full of important stuff.
“Combining” is a special way of approaching a task that is entirely
dependent on the end result and not sensitive to how this end result was
achieved. Products where “combine” plays an important role include:
Washing Machine: A set of options is represented that need
to be selected or deselected before finalizing and starting the
process.
Dish Washer: Very similar to the washing machine, the desired
program is composed by choosing from a set of options.
Coffee Maker: The many different kinds of coffee beverages
and the individual preferences of the users require the devices to
allow for much customization. Usually, this is achieved by letting
the user choose from many optional settings.
Our life is full of examples where the concept of combination is applied:
12 core actions
59
We combine ingredients when cooking, combine parts of our outfit to
match a certain style, mood or requirement, or we combine people with
different skills in order to form the best possible team.
The whole is more than ...
The essence of combining is that a variety of different options can be
put together and consequently create a whole new result that can serve
a range of purposes. And while the individual parts can be quite simple
and easy to understand, the outcome can be very complex and at the
same time satisfying. Additionally, different combinations of a fixed set of
parts can result in a significantly bigger number of possible results, which
allows great potential, while requiring limited resources. Fashion aware
people know how much fun it can be to stand in front of a closet full of
different types of clothes and match them according to our daily mood
or a specific occasion. And while the number of possible outfits is almost
infinite, the potential to do something wrong and commit a faux-pas is
almost as big.
How to
The most important part of the action of “combining” is to know how
to actually combine the available parts to create something that works
and delivers the desired results. People need to learn how to cook, to
dress fashionably or to mix colors in the right way when painting. And
while these tasks are somewhat complicated and need some time to
be mastered, they also have one very approachable fact to them: Their
“ingredients” leave a lot of room for experimenting. It is quite obvious
how each of them impacts the final result.
60
Relatability
Context and framework
To give the user the reassurance that they are combining the options
in a meaningful and successful way, a context needs to be created in
which the individual options can be put together. Like the bowl in which
ingredients are mixed together or our body, that we put clothes on in
order to see whether they fit together. Only in the right context does it
become obvious whether the combination is working or not. Half of the
time I forget my socks, when packing for a trip. But I would never forget
to put on socks in the morning before leaving the house. Why? Because
in the context of my body being fully dressed, I obviously realize when
something is missing.
So to facilitate the combination of options, the best possible
framework has to be provided, that limits the user to some extent and
helps them to make the right choices.
12 core actions
61
Adjust
Figure 5.6: (top left to bottom right) bow tie, trombone, gas stove, office chair, water tap,
sun visor, air vents in a car
An adjustment always requires a preexisting condition that the user
wishes to change. Therefore, its success does not only depend on the
user’s abilities, but also on the quality of the communication of the actual
state.
Adjust - not unlike select - is one of the most important core actions
that the users have to take when using any kind of product. Therefore it
does not make sense to list them individually. They range from electric
toothbrushes that need to be adjusted in speed, to ovens that need to
provide different amounts of heat and TV sets and their volume level.
In everyday life, we do adjustments in nearly all situations. Most of them
subconsciously or at least without being actively aware that we are
doing an “adjustment”. When opening a window to control the amount
of fresh air in the room, when turning away the desk light to lower its
intensity, when shifting from one foot to the other when waiting in line
at a ticket counter or closing the zipper of our jacket a bit more. All
62
Relatability
these are situations in which we take action to improve (or sometimes
worsen) a condition.
Big gestures
The physical actions that we undertake when adjusting something in our
surroundings are very important in helping us understand what rules
the systems we change obey on. With these actions we control flows,
intensities, positions and other attributes.
And their characteristics define how easily we remember them and how
much sense they make to us. Comparable to the “activate and access”
core action, adjust benefits from strong and unique ways of interaction
to increase tangibility.
Trial and error
Doing adjustments is often based on the personal notion that something
is “right or wrong”. Often times, we do not have an idea of what is
“right”, we are simply dissatisfied with the current situation. Only during
the process of adjusting, we realize what we are aiming for.
This is why action and reaction need to be as directly connected as
possible in order to give immediate feedback to the changes that are
made to the system. And this is also why a product needs to provide
enough clues for the user to evaluate whether an adjustment is proving
to work out.
12 core actions
63
Justifying
The other big group of adjustments that we do in our lives are the
ones where we justify something according to a very specific preset.
Straightening a crooked picture frame on the wall is an example of an
action where we follow a definite idea of the end result. The horizontal
upper edge of the frame acts as an intuitive indicator for the status. Even
though these cases can be evaluated more precisely, they also require
more concentration to meet the exact initial intention.
64
Relatability
Connect
Figure 5.7: (top left to bottom right) carabiner, leash, cogwheels, holding hands, pot and
lid, ropes in a knot, zipper, jigsaw puzzle pieces, pen and cap, funnel and bottle, kids toy,
Connect in is a core action that is almost exclusive to TV or computer
situations where one main product’s functionality is extended by the
addition of external peripherals. And at the same time, these two
areas are very heavily subjected to this action: The cables between the
different products are the only physical indication that an exchange of
information is happening.
Physical influence
The purpose of a connection between two things (or people) is
12 core actions
65
very often the transmission of some kind of action. When of physical
nature, these actions are very obvious to an observing user because
the transmission of movements or matter normally leave a strong
impression. When feeling water flow through a hose, when watching a
dog pull on the leash that is in the owner’s hand or when looking at how
an entire set of cog wheels is being set in motion by the turn of a single
one of them. These are examples from our (more or less daily) lives
where the connection between two individual parts very obviously acts
as a transmitter of some sort.
This obviousness helps us make more sense of an action and the
reaction it triggers. If we can comprehend the direction of energy flow,
we can also make quick assumptions about origin and destination and
thus make more sense, even of complicated systems that consist of many
interconnected parts.
In the case of TV peripherals for example, it is much harder for
an unsavvy user to comprehend the information flow between the
products. Even when the connecting cables are visible, they do not give
a clue on the kind or amount of information that is flowing, its direction
and therefore also not on which one of the devices is the actor and the
reactor.
Completion
Many products in our lives also require a connection of two parts in
order to be able to successfully deliver their purpose. The cap of a pen
prevents it from getting dry, the two halves of a zipper that connect
to close a jacket, the right lid for a pot and two pieces that form the
remaining missing part of a puzzle.Without one, the other would also be
worthless and in most situations, these dependencies are quite obvious
in the products that we use day by day.
66
Relatability
A strong factor in communicating the affiliation of two parts is often
their shape which leads to no other conclusion than that they would
naturally belong together and the fact that the connection is perceived
as successful as soon as two parts have been brought together in the
intended fashion.
12 core actions
67
Wireless connect
Figure 5.8: (top left to bottom right) Synchronized swimming, UN Soldiers’ helmets,
eye contact, magnetism, tagging, pushing a car together, grouped personal objects, relay
runners.
The breakthrough in advanced wireless technologies opened a lot of
doors for potential new functions in products and so it was only logical
that a fast-increasing number of new consumer electronics would take
advantage of these possibilities. They also introduced an entirely new set
or characteristics that users had (and still have) to get used to. What
adds to the difficulty of this is that wirelessness is the very technology
that is the hardest to grasp and to understand while it causes the biggest
amount of virtualization and abstraction in products.
Where it was hard enough for many users to understand why two
products connected by electrical wires would be able to transfer data
(that would then lead to displayed pictures, opened doors or closed
window blinds), it is close to impossible for them to understand how
two products can interact without any physical connection. We are so
much used to learn about objects, by looking at them from different
angles, touching them, feeling their characteristics in our hands, that a
complete lack of physical touch points poses considerable problems to
68
Relatability
our confidence. The only remaining solution for many people in these
cases is to trust these wireless products blindly and hope that they work
whenever they are needed. Products where “wireless connections” play
a big part:
Wireless LAN router: Once installed, there is practically no
human machine interaction.
Bluetooth headset: An activation is required every time the
wireless connection to the mobile phone needs to be made.
Remote control: The connection to the TV set is made by
directly pointing towards it.
Relation visibility
While it seems that the issue of wirelessness is only reserved to
consumer electronics, when looking closely, it is possible to observe that
this subject plays an important role in many situations in our everyday
lives, without the advanced technologies being part of them.
What it comes down to is the context that two separate objects or
people are put together. The more defined this context and the more
precise the shared characteristics, the more likely it is to identify a
connection despite the lack of a physical one)
Visual characteristics play a big role in this because they are the
quickest and most intuitive way to realize a relation between two things.
Sometimes, they happen to exist from the beginning (like members of a
family sometimes look incredibly alike) and in other cases, a connection
is made by applying something unique (like football jerseys or the light
blue helmets of UN soldiers).
12 core actions
69
Grouping
Grouping is another common way of showing the relationship between
seemingly unrelated objects without using an actual physical connection.
Frequently, grouping is achieved by minimizing the distance between
products to make them appear as one big entity. While the motivations
to do this might be different, the underlying principle stays the same.
Bird swarms work like that and form huge, dark clouds in the sky
that scare off attackers. Books are often grouped in shelves according
to the owner’s preference to facilitate searching through them. And the
products that people use during their morning routine in the bathroom
are often arranged in individual groups according to their function to
facilitate a step by step execution.
Sharing a task
When people are working on one and the same task, this automatically
creates a connection between them for the time that this task is being
carried out.This way, completely unrelated people on the street suddenly
form a working system when helping someone out pushing a damaged
car out of harms way. In this case, the car represents the symbol of
the connection between these people not unlike the stick that is being
passed on from one runner to the next on a relay team: Without the
stick, the four people on the racetrack are unrelated individuals. But
by passing it on, they wirelessly connect to form one entity trying to
achieve a goal together.
Besides the twelve core actions that are derived from the interaction
between the user and the product, there are a couple of other important
factors that I stumbled upon during the course of my work. They might
be not so strongly connected to the user, but they also fall under the
Relatability theories. They are important (yet maybe not very obvious)
characteristics that distinguish the use of a consumer electronic from
the use of other products. They need to be taken into account in order
to understand why people are often alienated by electronic devices and
to realize what chances lie in designing them.
Distances
In the world of consumer electronics distances have almost become
entirely insignificant. It is not mechanical movement that has to be
transferred from one part of a product to the next anymore, but control
signals in the form of electrons. Where in the past there had to be a
mechanical connection between actor and reactor, today, a simple wire
that transfers electricity is sufficient. Since it makes almost no difference
whether a wire is two centimeters or five meters long, the designer can
theoretically place electronic parts as far apart as desired.The technology
of wirelessly transferring information has enabled an even more extreme
approach to this fact recently and makes products possible the parts of
which have physical connection to each other at all.
71
Separated control units
Typical consumer electronics today, especially the ones that still include
some kind of mechanic function, can be divided into two main parts: the
part that contains the biggest the main hardware and a control part.
These two parts are most often strongly separated. The controls are
usually grouped in a dedicated area as if they were added separately to
the product at the end of the assembly process. This characteristic was
only made possible by the technology behind electronic products and
while this has some advantages, it also adds complications.
Advantages
In the case of a TV set or the controls of the electric shades on the
roof-windows, this possibility adds a lot of comfort to our lives. Here,
technology enables an obvious added value to an experience. What
would otherwise be feasible only with considerable effort, has become
a negligibility.
Disadvantages
All this comfort comes at the price of the loss of directly understandable
action and reaction between the user and the product. The further the
controls are being distanced from the actual product, the harder they
are to be set in context. The push of a button becomes so abstract and
gives close to no clue at all over the function that is about to be called
up.
An added problem is that, since control elements work almost
independently from the actual products, they do not need to be
72
Relatability
customized for them accordingly. Often, standardized control elements
are casually slapped onto different kinds of products with the result that
the interaction with them becomes even less comprehensible for the
user.
Before the electronic revolution, the products were at the same time
the controls themselves. A juice squeezer would be operated with a
logical turning motion. A record player would be activated by placing
the pick-up arm on the record. This straightforward interaction made
products understandable and this principle that designers need to
approach again.
Arbitrary design
In the past, the size and shape of products was directly dictated by their
functionality and the way users would interact with them. Staple guns
and the remaining pendulum clocks are good examples of this fact until
today. These products’ primary shape does not depend on the designer’s
mood, but on strict functional specifications that needed to be met.
The shell remains
Concerning arbitrariness, consumer electronics of today are entirely
different. Since mechanical processes have become so insignificant in
many cases, the outer shell of devices is simply there to hold a set of
electronic innards. Its shape does not need to meet strong guidelines
and oftentimes any clues about the functionality of the product. While
this freedom could be very deliberating, it is mostly used as a reason to
go as plain and anonymous as possible. Consequently many consumer
73
electronics have been degraded to simple boxes with a few buttons on
them.
Arbitrary possibilities
This lack of inspiration in design is especially striking when looking at the
working principles of electronic products.
A device can be controlled by changing the status of any object that can
be logically connected to- and the status of which can be retrieved inside
the electronic system. Why is it then that designers have settled on the
eternally same buttons and dials to input information into these systems?
Quite contrarily, they should embrace the fact that new human machine
interface elements can take pretty much any desired shape which could
be beneficial in communicating a product’s use. Instead of the push of a
button, a string could be pulled, a hole covered or a disc spun with the
same effect: An electric signal would be sent to the microprocessor in
the device which would then trigger the desired action.
The limited technological possibilities in the past might have been a
reason why the button paradigm has been so predominant in consumer
electronics. And maybe it is simply the manufacturer’s way to squeeze
the last penny out of the value chain. But for the sake of products that
will not ultimately drive us into constant frustration and disgust, we
might have to reconsider these factors.
74
Relatability
User education
Abstraction
One of the biggest effects that the introduction of more and more
advanced technologies has on consumer electronics is the quickly
growing level of abstraction.
Abstraction stands for the characteristic of replacing an event with
a simplified process that has the same result. The higher the grade of
simplification and the less likely the possibility to analyze the occurring
process triggered by an action, the higher the level of abstraction. With
digitalism, this abstraction is most often a replacement of mechanical
operations by electronic counterparts due to different factors like
savings in production cost, increase of functionality, upgradability, etc.
Abstraction most often comes at the cost of hiding a certain process
from the user, which is very likely to make the functionality of a product
harder to understand.
A piece of paper for example:
We know that paper is not toxic, it will hold the things we write on
it, we can fold it, we know the amount of strain it can take before it rips,
we know what happens when we pour water on it, etc.The causalities of
using paper are very straight forward thanks to the almost non existing
level of abstraction. This makes it a refreshingly easy product to use.
The lock on a door is a bit of a different story: We assume to know
that the key will influence the position of the pistons inside the lock
when inserted, that only that combination will open the door, that the
metal, a lock is made from, makes it durable and burglar-proof, that it
will work every single time we insert our key in it, etc. But since we can
neither see nor fully understand the causalities of our interaction with a
lock, we need to trust its functionality. The higher level of abstraction of
75
that products introduces a factor of uncertainty.
But abstraction does not exclusively apply to products and devices. The
effect that digital media have had on people’s thinking and communication
patterns (although not limited to these) is also a good example of how
abstraction changes very important parts of our everyday life.The virtual
representation of something does often not simply replace its real life
counterpart, but also triggers more or less subliminal change to it as a
result of abstraction.
People used to go to a library to look up a fact in specific literature,
looking through books and magazines, crosschecking quotes and sources,
and developing a feeling for the viability for different sources. Today the
use of search engines and internet sources is much more common,
but despite augmented speed in the production of results, the act of
actually finding the desired information is entirely concealed. We subject
ourselves to computer programs and algorithms losing any feeling for
the quality of our research and the origin of the information.
Consequences for the user
It might come as comfort to the user, if the press of a single button
actuates an entire set of automatic reactions in the products, but it also
leads to disempowerment. If we press the “Latte Macchiato” button on
our coffee maker, we expect the machine to execute a program that
will ultimately lead to the perfect cup of coffee without requiring any
action from us. In our heads, the creation of the beverage has stronger
connections to the push of a button than the mix of the ingredients.
Despite “making” it every morning, there is a realistic possibility that
some coffee addicts couldn’t recreate a Latte Macchiato without the
help of an automated machine.
76
Relatability
And users are not even to be blamed for this disconnection between
action and reaction. The consumer electronics of today enforce the
indifference towards the processes that need to be undergone by a
product to deliver the desired result. They are so intransparent, that
people using them have no other choice than getting used to blindly
trusting them and subjecting us to this level of automatization.
In the long run, this strongly enforces one very behavior in the user:
understanding the system, that a product is based on, is becoming nearly
impossible. So people focus on remembering which buttons do what and
memorize sequences of buttons to press to access a certain function.
Instead of thinking in the actual steps that the software needs to go
through in order to reach the desired functions (e.g. menu -> phone
book -> all contacts) they have a savvy (= a “helper” as shown on page
32) person demonstrate it to them once, and simply write down the
buttons that have to be pressed to get there. From then on, they repeat
this sequence and hope to end up in the right submenu of their device.
And as long as they can stick to standard procedures, the users might be
fine doing this. They might even feel empowered to use their products
in an efficient way.
The big downside of this system of automation and memorization is
that it becomes nearly impossible to induce changes to the static and
defined programs. If someone asked me for a “Caffé Latte with less
milk” I would probably respond “I’m sorry, but my machine only makes
Espressos, Lattes and Cappuccinos”, being unaware that a Cappuccino
is in fact a Caffé Latte with less milk. If I mixed the ingredients myself, I
would just add a little less milk. Simple as that.
Positive impact
If consumer electronics enforced the possibility for the users to learn
77
about the ongoing processes, it would give them a higher level of
confidence when using these products.And because confidence is a good
antidote against frustration this would directly impact the satisfaction of
the user.
The positive impact is not limited to this, though. Users who are educated
about what makes their products produce the right results have a much
higher potential to draw conclusions of their actions. Self moderation
is easier, which can help not only adapt to new requirements easily but
also learn about one’s own preferences and consumption habits and
maybe make changes based on these observations.
Thinking about the discussion of sustainability: It relies so much on the
users to make the right decisions. But in order to do that, they will need
products that allow them to make these decisions.
Restoring trust
More than ever before people have started mistrusting new products.
This certainly comes from people’s general scepticism towards new
technologies and is only reinforced by the abstraction and anonymization
that they cause in products.
In this discipline of consumer electronics, it therefore has to be a very
strong aim for designers to create products that people can relate to
easily and that are not unnecessary sources of confusion. Unfortunately,
products today often do the exact opposite. Their look gives barely any
clue about their functions. Their HMI elements are small, anonymous in
appearance and mostly serve many purposes at once, only adding to the
user’s inability to understand even more.
78
Relatability
The “standby mode” debate is a good example of this: With an
increasing number of products around the house that need electricity
to operate, it has become a common thing for users to wonder whether
these products are actually not consuming any energy when they appear
to be switched off. People can go on forever in discussions whether the
red LEDs on consumer electronics consume “near to no power at all”
or “many kilowatt hours per year”. But this whole debate could be made
futile if products gave the user obvious ways to separate device from
electricity (without having to crawl under the table and unplugging it).
Control vs manage
One of the most characteristic functions of electronic products is
the possibility of automation. Thanks to the possibility to electronically
store the user’s input, and the ability to call it up at all times, products
can be programmed to do certain things at moments that the user
anticipates to be important, or it can help maintaining the desired status
quo without the users having to do adjustments themselves. There is
many examples that can make the control vs. manage controversy more
tangible. The following is one that many should be able to relate to:
People who do not have a thermostat in their home need to control
the heater by hand. They turn it up when they are cold and they reduce
the heat when they feel too warm. Consequently, they are in direct
control over the status of the heater.A programmed thermostat replaces
the need for the user to do manual adjustments. In other words: it is in
control. But while the added benefit of comfort is certainly positive, it
also has its drawbacks: Being less directly in control, often causes the
user to be skeptical. This causes them to check on whether the system
is doing as told (and therefore managing its functionality). So maybe they
79
ultimately end up checking the temperature on the thermometer more
often than they would have adjusted the heater before. And possibly,
the uncertainty of whether the automatic system is functioning is a
bigger strain on the nerves than having to control it oneself from time
to time. Finally, when the user decides to change a parameter in a preprogrammed system, it becomes apparent that this task is also much
more complex than simply making a manual adjustment every now and
then. So while the comfort of not having to control a device manually
in regular intervals might be welcome at first, it might also come with
its own share of problems. In the end, it is the accumulated strain on
the user that defines whether it was a good decision to make a product
more or less automated.
Sphere of Action
As discussed in the “Distances” section of this chapter (see page 70),
huge liberties can be taken by the designer when it comes to putting the
controls into or out of context with the rest of a product. Especially in
connection with the wireless nature of some consumer electronics, it
becomes increasingly difficult for the user to judge where the influence
of a product begins and ends. How do we know that the push of a
button on our remote does not change our neighbor’s channel? And
how can we be sure that strangers cannot listen in on the conversations
that we have while using the bluetooth headset of our mobile phone?
Users are required to trust the products they use - now more
than ever. Anything that reinforces this trust helps to make people feel
more comfortable when using consumer electronics and helps them
understand the extent of the connection between two wirelessly
connected objects.
80
Relatability
HMI Elements
By mapping all sorts of processes onto the very limited interaction
elements that are incorporated in consumer electronics today, the
possibility for users’ confusion does not come as a surprise. But while
buttons, dials, LEDs and displays seem quite limited in their possible use,
it does not mean that they cannot provide a satisfactory interaction
experience. Their use and cooperation might have to be reconsidered,
before jumping to the conclusion that more advanced interaction
elements are unavoidable. The described requirements can often also be
met with old fashion elements that are used in ways that take the core
actions into better account.
Touch
The need for more flexibility when it comes to interacting with
consumer electronics of high complexity, has driven the development
and application of the touchscreen technology. And while it makes
sense in some cases, it will likely be included in products that would
ultimately not profit from it too. While it may open the doors for more
user friendly, graphic user interfaces, its nature will simultaneously have
negative effects:
The fact that a touchscreen gives no feedback to the touch
whatsoever is another step away from the tangibility and materiality that
is so important for the user’s intuitive understanding. Buttons and dials
will be replaced by the graphic representation of buttons and dials and
will therefore be subject to interpretation by the user.
Touchscreens might open the doors to many new interaction possibilities,
but they will definitely not be the answer to all the problems in this
area. They might have a lot of “touch” but they lack the “feel” that is
81
so important for users to confidently acquaint themselves with new
products.
Bidirectional elements
When looking at the differences between HMI elements that were
common in older, analogue consumer electronics, an interesting
fact to note is that most of them were operable in two ways. And a
characteristic as simple as that made the interaction between the user
and the product a lot more intuitive:
Pretty much in every situation in our lives, when we interact with any
imaginable object (or even people), the possibility to undo an action by
doing the same thing in the opposite direction, is vital to our feeling of
control. When opening the wrong drawer by pulling, it is easily closed
again by pushing. When we fasten a screw a bit too hard, we unfasten it
again by turning it in the other direction. When we need warm water to
wash our hands but mistakenly push the lever of the tap to the wrong
side, we can undo this easily by pushing it to the other.
Many consumer electronics today have no more HMI elements
that work this way. Buttons are pressed for on, off, up, down, select or
deselect. The physical action always stays the same but the reaction may
differ each and every time. Of course, this causes a discomfort in the
users. They become afraid of pushing buttons, fearing they will be unable
to undo a faulty action.
The content of the last two chapters represents the theoretical
components that Relatability Design relies on. It gives new impulses
to look at the characteristics of consumer electronics from a different
angle. But being aware of them and using them right is a different story.
Relatability does not require a whole new design process, but shifts the
focus by adding two phases that will provide designers with a framework
that gives indicators for what they could or should focus on.
This chapter will explain parts of the design process of an electronic
product to demonstrate how the Relatability theories are put into
action, how they are reflected in the final product and how they change
the way a person uses it.
Define
The initial phase in the design process will (and needs to) stay the
same. It is the phase where the definition of the product’s functions and
characteristics is taken care of.
Whether the subject is an entirely new product, or the redesign of
an already existing one, does not matter. In the former case, the designer
will stick to whatever they can or must. Maybe it is user observations,
interviews, marketing analyses or simply educated gut feelings. In the
latter, the functionality is already defined.
Ultimately, the result of the first phase should be a strong base that
the following steps can build onto.
I chose to document the step-by-step redesign of a washing machine to
83
provide a tangible example during this chapter. As mentioned, the first
step is to define the functionality of the product that is to be designed.
Figure 7.1: An ordinary washing machine interface of today
The picture above shows a typical washing machine interface panel of
today.
A variety of different interaction elements allows the user to select
from a set of options that include water temperature, spinning speed
(both controlled by the +/- buttons bellow the dark display) the type of
laundry (set by rotating the big dial) and some detail settings (scattered
over the remaining space in between). There is also the on/off button on
the far right of the picture next to the unlock button that releases the
machine’s door.
A product like this is the perfect example of the development of
consumer electronics that I criticize, and of digitalism itself: A once very
simple and straightforward product has been enriched with an increasing
number of technological gimmicks to appear more functional an/or
modern to the customer.Yet, at the same time it increased in complexity
and abstraction.What used to be achieved with a very limited number of
interaction elements, now uses up to twenty. And they are quite different
in their characteristics at that.
In the multitude of buttons to press, dials to turn and displays and
LEDs to read off of, it strongly depends on the user’s ability and will to
84
Relatability
achieve the desired results. Confident users with enough experience
won’t have too much of a problem to make sense of how this works but
others might quickly be intimidated by the sheer amount of interaction
elements and approach the product with hesitation. Hesitation that
will likely lead to wrong judgment, fear of making a mistake and most
probably to the inability to perform the desired actions.
Why does a product that needs to be used by such a huge target
group have to be anything but very simple to use? Especially if the reason
for its existence is not to provide an enjoyable service, but only takes
care of a nuisance? As if doing the laundry is not unpleasant enough, why
does controlling the washing machine have to be a hassle too?
What it comes down to is that an unrelatable interface like this
always requires active analytical skills and therefore energy from the
user. No matter if they succeed or not in the end.
And the accumulation of all this wasted energy, might sooner or later
result in a general feeling of frustration of people towards consumer
electronics.
Dig
This is the first of the two new phases that implement the Relatability
theories into the design process. It concentrates strongly on the twelve
core actions and on finding the most important ones to shift the focus
of the following rest of the designer’s work.
It is important to note that even though the core actions are what the
users will ultimately respond to in the most natural and intuitive way, it
is not necessarily important that they are actively aware that they are, in
fact performing them. It is up to the designer to identify the crucial core
action(s) and incorporate them into the product in a way that the user
85
automatically understands and does them. First subconsciously, and later,
well aware. This is why the “digging” phase is the one that significantly
impacts the design of new consumer electronics.
The definition of the desired feature set in the last phase is not enough
to provide information that will suggest a design that is intuitive to use.
A deeper look is required: What do users actually do when interacting
with a washing machine? What lies beneath “I need to choose the right
program for my jeans and turn on the machine”?
And this is where the core actions come into play. A washing machine
typically includes the following:
“Decide”: This action applies whenever users need to determine what
button to press, what dial to turn or what display to look at based on the
criteria that they are provided with. It is normally directly followed by
“Select”, which is the very moment that the user goes for a decision.
“Activate” is both the moment of input of one option and also the
final activation of the machine itself. “Follow” is much too poorly
reinforced in the example shown on the figure 7.1. There is no obvious
framework that users can follow while putting in the single options. In
western cultures, the user will most likely work their way from left to
right.
Finally “Combine”, the most important core action of a washing
machine: Every washing program is defined by three variables:
1. Setting the right temperature of the water
2. Specifying what kind of fabrics the clothes are made of
3. The speed with which the machine will spin to dry the clothes
As of today, these are individually and randomly selected by interacting
with the different elements of the interface panel of the product, giving
no clue that the setting of the program is actually quite simple and
86
Relatability
straightforward. It is up to the designer to understand that “combine”
is the most important appearing core action in this case, because the
nature of the washing machine functionality is based on it.
Not only is understanding which one is the predominant core action in
a product important to be able to appropriately set the direction for
the next phases of the design process, but it can also be an eye opener
in re-evaluating whether a design has a strong functional focus and is
therefore more likely to be easy to use.
As mentioned before, “combine” is the superordinate core action.
The purpose of all interaction with a washing machine if you will: The
user combines the right set of options to assemble a program that is
right for the fabric which is to be cleaned. It can be changed at will until
it is finalized. All the other mentioned core actions function as support
to enable the user to do this.
Design
The focus of the actual phase of designing the product is changed
according to the decisions that were made in the process of “digging”
for the core actions. Because instead of concentrating on somehow
making each required function available on the product individually, the
new goal is to incorporate the communication of the core actions in the
best possible way. In other words: The designer must give the action of
“combining” the best possible look and feel in the context of a washing
machine and its main functionality. And later, the other factors “decide”,
“select”, “activate” and “follow” will have to be taken into account as
well.
87
Possible new design
The following pictures will demonstrate a possible redesign of a washing
machine and the way the user would interact with it. This way, I can later
refer to the individual interaction steps when explaining where which of
the mentioned core actions apply and are reinforced.
Figure 7.2: The washing machine with traditional dimensions but not so traditional
interface
Despite keeping general shape and size, the traditional interface area
of the washing machine looks nothing like before. It is much cleaner
and gives the user a tidy impression that does not confuse by its mere
appearance. Apart from the lid and the small detergent drawer, there are
three well defined and visible indentations and only one button.
88
Relatability
Figure 7.3: Three different kinds of RFID chip cards. From left to right: temperature
settings, laundry programs, spin cycle speed settings.
Included with the washing machine comes a set of different RFID chip
cards that contain the information for the different settings. After
putting the laundry in the machine, the lid is closed. This activates the
power supply. To program the device, the user takes one card from
each group and inserts them one by one into the matching indent on
the front. Finally, the button is pressed to set the machine in motion.
Figure 7.4: Closing the lid, inserting the temperature chip card
Figure 7.5: Inserting the laundry program chip card
Figure 7.6: Inserting the last chip card and pressing the play button
Figure 7.7: Waiting
89
90
Relatability
Implementation of the core actions
Now that the functionality of the proposed new design is clarified, let’s
have a look at how the individual core actions come into play at different
stages of using the products.
Combine
Figure 7.8: The ultra simple interface area
Figure 7.9: Three components make one program
When approaching this new design solution, the very simple yet
distinctive interface area (Fig. 7.8) will suggest to the user that the whole
interaction will remain within these three manageable components. At
first, it might not be perfectly clear how the programming of the washing
91
machine will be achieved, but in connection with the RFID chip cards,
the user will be able to logically comprehend, that these features belong
together.
The focus lies on the three components that define each laundry
program (Fig. 7.9): water temperature, type of fabric and speed of the
spin cycle. No other elements distract the user from concentrating
on these, which helps reinforcing the understanding that setting up a
washing machine is not a mystery, but really just based on three very
understandable factors. By grouping the user’s selection closely the
design communicates the fact that only the combination of three options
creates a functioning program.
This neatly arranged interface and the number three create a mind-set
in the users that they will keep in the back of their head for the rest of
the interaction with the washing machine. It will influence their actions
and help to tie the individual actions together in a more relatable way.
This is why communicating the “combine” core action is the first thing
that the product needs to achieve because it is superordinated to the
following.
Decide and Select
Figure 7.10: Looking for the desired setting in the RFID chip cards
92
Relatability
Figure 7.11: Comparing the in order to make a decision
Since the individual settings are each represented as small, physical
objects, the process of making a decision incorporates all senses that
humans are accustomed to using in such a situation. The chip cards
can be looked at, touched, flipped through and compared. They can be
designed in a variety of ways to give better clues to what settings each
one of them stands for. Information like temperature and spinning speed
can be printed onto them, using numbers or graphics. The choice of the
type of laundry is made more tangible by actually applying fabric samples
to the surface of the cards and printing a description on the backside.
By giving each option a distinct look and feel, they also become much
more memorable than just one of many buttons or a certain position
of a dial.
The act of selecting is as straight forward as it gets. The desired option
is selected by picking up the respective card. No option needs to be
93
accessed through a set of menus. No element serves more than one
function and could therefore be mixed up.What you see is what you get.
There is no reason to wonder, which will reassure the user that they are
not missing anything.
Activate
Figure 7.12: Inserting the temperature card into the indention
In common consumer electronics, the activation of a desired option or
function is mostly done by the very unsatisfying and abstract action of
pushing a small button.
In the case of this example design, the cards are placed in the
designated spot and are magnetically snapped into the right position.
This gives a strong impression of a successfully carried out action and
reassures users that they did something right.
The disappearing LED light next to the respective indentation
reconfirms (Fig. 7.12) that the card is in the right place and that the
machine scanned its information.
One advantage of consumer electronics which main purpose is to initiate
some sort of physical process, is that they often require traditional,
94
Relatability
manual interaction. In case of the washing machine, detergent is poured
into the small drawer and the door is also closed by hand. These facts
should be embraced by the designer because they give the user the
impression that they are still interacting with a “real” product. The
closing of the door is an important way for the user to signalize “The
laundry is ready, let’s go.” It is a strong and memorable action that should
not be replaced by yet another button to push.
Follow
A considerable problem with today’s washing machines is that they do
not provide any interaction framework for the user that communicate
the possibility to input the desired settings step by step and complete
the program. People jump back and forth, pushing one button here,
turning a dial there, and maybe decide along the way that they need to
go back and change a setting from the beginning. If the interface does
not help the user to easily overlook their selection, this back and forth
can cause confusion and ultimately force a restart.
Figure 7.13: The interaction area
95
Figure 7.14: An easy to follow, step-by-step assembly of the program
The hardly misunderstandable interface area of on figure 7.13 shows
three dedicated indentations that suggest to the user that they need
to be filled in order to activate the machine. This automatically forces
the person into a step-by-step routine, figuring out, which setting needs
to be placed in which spot and selecting the right card for it. By giving
each indentation a slightly different shape it becomes clear that not only
a total of three components is required, but they also all have to come
from the three different setting groups. The wrong card will not fit in an
unmatching spot, which acts as an important constraint that is intuitively
understandable.
After closing the lid below the lowest indentation, the user fills the
empty spaces with cards one-by-one and is automatically led to the
finally illuminating “play/pause” button that sets the machine in motion
when pressed.
96
Relatability
Evaluate
During the design phase, the seven evaluation factors only play a marginal
role: They should be kept in mind, but not get in the way of coming up
with design solutions that focus on the core actions.
But now that this is completed, they take a significant role. One by
one, they help to analyze whether a design concept is lacking in some of
the factors that are also of high significance for a successfully relatable
consumer electronic.
Not all of them have to be taken into account in every product. It
is up to the designer to realize which ones apply and which ones can
be neglected without compromising the quality of the concept. The
following list shows the impact of each of these factors on the example
of the new washing machine:
Distances
By grouping the latch of the lid, the selection area and the play/pause
button closely together (see Fig. 7.4), users can easily understand the
relation between their input and the machine’s reaction that follows.
The functionality of a washing machine is not complex and its size does
not allow for much liberty in the placement of interaction elements. Still,
keeping things close helps communicating what the user needs to do
between closing the door and setting everything in motion.
Arbitrary Design
Arbitrary design is not so much a constraint, but an opportunity. In this
case, the usual armada of buttons has been replaced with an entirely
97
new interaction element. The cards allow for much more individual
design (Fig. 7.15) and can therefore provide a stronger and longer
lasting impression that the user will remember each new time when
using this product.
Figure 7.15: The diverse design of the chip cards
User Education
Understanding that each program of the washing machine only requires
three components to work gives users a better chance to overview
their action. The complexity of the interface does not get in the way of
understanding this anymore and it becomes very obvious how to adjust
individual settings. If a garment requires special treatment (like an extralow temperature), the user can now confidently do the required change
to the program. The focus stays on making the change instead of how to
make it.
98
Relatability
Restoring Trust
The design proposal is also aimed to be as straightforward as possible
to minimize any situation where the users might be skeptical about the
washing machines reaction to their actions.
The activation of the power supply is shown by the illumination of
the LEDs on the machine’s front and only happens when the lid is closed.
This way, the users can be sure that, when the machine is not in use and
the lid slightly open, the product is actually deactivated.
Since a washing machine is not the most complex of products,
the potential for the user’s mistrust is also quite low. This is why this
evaluation factor is not too significant.
Control vs. Manage
Does not apply to this example. Setting up the washing machine is a very
straight-forward act of controlling its actions. As soon as the machine’s
program is initiated, users takes neither a controlling nor a managing role
since the machine does not allow any interaction (except for cancelling
the process).
Sphere of Action
The form factor and immobility of the washing machine does not
allow for any influence of its surroundings. The sphere of action can be
confidently judged by the users and does not make them suspicious.
99
HMI Elements
The strong focus on providing exceptionally tangible interaction
elements is an important factor in making the design more approachable
for people.The chip cards unique look and feel make for a distinguishable
choices that the user can relate to. No element is programmed to be of
more than one use so the potential for confusion is also at a minimum.
The action of filling an indent with a card of the appropriate size is
comprehensible to the user and in case it needs to be undone, it is just
as simple to take the card back from its spot. This way, activation and
deactivation is a logical set of actions that feel natural. There is no need
to figure out advanced combinations of actions in order to achieve a
desired result.
As promised 90 pages ago, I want to recapitulate and sum up the content
of this book in order to give one more condensed look at the subject
and a very straightforward analysis of where I believe Relatability fits
into the design of today’s products.
Between the beginning of this thesis and today, lies a very
heterogeneous development of my findings and theories. I did not set
out with a clear goal in mind but I was rather surprised by the insights
that presented themselves and that, quite naturally, made me leave the
path that I expected to go and showed me much more interesting
opportunities. But this also meant that my own perception of the subject
area changed (sometimes gradually and sometimes spontaneously) over
time, slowly fleshing out what I now call “Relatability”. Along the way,
people would ask me questions like “But isn’t this the same as usability
and ergonomics?”, “Is a relatable product one that is impossible to
misunderstand?”,“Is this an Interaction design project?” or “Is Relatability
not just another word for intuition?”. And for quite some time, I was not
able to answer these question confidently. Because even though I knew
where my theories came from, and how I would apply them to a product
design, I had a hard time defining where Relatability begins, and where
it ends.
I expect you, the reader of this book, not to feel very much differently
at this point, because the information I provided, documents what makes
this subject in detail, but never takes a step back to explain how it is to
be seen in relation to design as a whole.
I chose to do this for one particular reason: In order to reflect on the
actual definition of Relatability, one needs to know where it comes from
and its defining parts. Only by compiling this information first, I was able
to create the needed base that is needed to do the following analyses.
What is Relatability? Part 2 101
Since the whole thesis is strongly focused on the connection between
the user, the products and the way of using them , the assumption that
this work is another take at usability is somewhat understandable. But
the comparison is at the same time premature and not very purposeful.
Let alone defining “Usability” itself is not an easy task. Different literature
suggests different definitions some being very specific in detail and some
using a more general approach. Fact is that the reach of usability within
design is not perfectly established and therefore does not provide an
especially good base for comparisons.
Second, the theories that make usability are not static, meaning
that they need to evolve over time just like products evolve. New
technologies, new functionalities and all new types of products will
always require usability experts to add new chapters to their area. So
even if Relatability was just part of usability, it wouldn’t mean that it
only re-evaluates known theories that have been set in stone forever.
Relatability would add a new set of perspectives to the subject of
usability an possibly become its most important component.
But when taking a close look at where in a product Relatability
comes into play, it becomes obvious that this comparison is not justified.
While usability looks at whether the user understands how to use and
control a product, Relatability caters for showing the relation between
the user’s actions and the products reaction. This means that Relatability
is a superordinated factor in all levels of interaction within a product. It
can at the same time define whether users understand why they press
a certain button at a specific moment, or look at the big picture of
whether a product’s design is in comprehensible relation to its basic
functionality.
But just because Relatability always takes place on a higher level
than, for example, usability, it does not mean that it also always comes
chronologically before the user’s action. It is not about the user being able
to perfectly understand the Relatability-message that a product intends
102 Relatability
to communicate. In many cases, the factors that make Relatability (like
the core actions) only become apparent during the use of a product.
So while the user’s understanding for the meaning of a relatable factor
might be superordinated to the physical interaction, it might only be
recognized after the action was undertaken. Sometimes even, there is no
need for the user to be aware of the relatable qualities of a product. It is
enough if they subliminally facilitate its use.
The new washing machine design gives tangible examples of these
different situations:
Relatability first comes into play when the user takes a look at the
interface and realizes that it will require three parts to create a program
that will lead to the desired result. Whatever these parts may be, it is a
valuable insight for the user to get a feeling for what is the scope of the
interaction with the product.
Since the chip cards are the only part of the washing machine that
make sense to fit into the indents, the user starts looking through them
to find one that represents the desired setting. While browsing through
the pile, the user will realize that there is cards that belong to different
groups and might understand that the it will be necessary to also pick
one of each of them later. So while carrying out one action, the next
step can already be anticipated and the chain of single interactions starts
connecting to a whole, comprehensible and relatable task.
You might still ask yourself whether Relatability means to design a
product in a way that is perfectly understandable even for a first time
user. And the answer to this question is: no. A relatable product does not
have to be perfectly understandable from the first second nor does it
have to be perfectly intuitive at every price. Consumer electronics have
introduced new functionalities that are not comparable with actions that
we can relate to from our analogue daily lives. There is no reasonable
intuitive interaction that communicates “downloading an MP3 from the
internet” or “re-dialing the last number on a telephone”. Relatability
is not about finding the perfectly natural action for every individual
function of a product. Its strength comes from showing designers how
to achieve the positive effects on a product’s whole functionality range
by influencing the less obvious factors that ultimately have a big impact
on the user’s ability to relate to what they do with a device.
This is why Relatability primarily sticks to the twelve core actions and
uses them to influence a products design from the bottom up. Of course,
sometimes a perfectly relatable and intuitive solution to an interaction
problem can be found without being derived from the core actions. And
this does not mean that it is any less valuable. But it is Relatability’s aim
to use a set of methods that can be systematically applied to give be able
to evaluate a design with the help of objective parameters.
Finally, I would like to use an analogy to explain my definition of
Relatability on a more emotional level and by comparing it to something,
that most people should be able to relate to:
The quality of a movie depends on many different factors like the
camera work, the film music, the actors’ performances, the beauty of
camera shots, any many more. And so does the quality of a product
depend on factors like whether it is beautiful, whether it is easy to
use, whether it is well manufactured and whether it delivers satisfying
results.
But in case of the movie, the most defining factor that ties the whole
experience together is the plot. Without it, actors are just random
people appearing on screen with no understandable motivations and
scenes are just separate shots of different locations. Without a plot,
there would be neither beginning nor end. The experience as a whole
would be relatively unsatisfying.
A huge benefit that Relatability introduces is that it gives a “plot”
even to products that are complex, confusing and therefore hard to use.
104 Relatability
Relatability ties together the individual actions that are performed on a
product and helps the users not only to get an overview of what they
just did, what they are doing right now and what they will do next, but
also the understanding of why they are doing it and what result they can
expect.
Appendix
1
2
3
4
5
Kurt Weihe, 45 - March 2nd 2009
Anna Regner, 29 - February 28th 2009
Maciek, 49 - March 1st 2009
Hilde Loidl, 82 - March 2nd 2009
Maria Paerson, 24 - March 5th 2009
Origins of a Problem
1
Literal translation: “Only the dose is what makes the toxin”
Literature Suggestions
“In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World” by John Thackara, The
MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-20157-7
“The Design of Everyday Things” by Donald A. Norman, Basic Books,
ISBN-10 0-465-06710-7
“Emotional Design” by Donald A. Norman, Basic Books,
ISBN-10 0-465-05135-9
“Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age” by
Maggie Jackson, Prometheus Books, ISBN 978-1-59102-623-5
“Wie wir leben werden” by Matthias Horx, Campus,
ISBN 3-593-37777-2
“Der digitale Wahn” published by Bernhard E. Bürdek, Suhrkamp
Even though consumer electronics belong to a relatively young
breed of products, their characteristics, quirks and qualities
have significant influence on our daily lives. Their features and
functionalities require always new ways of interaction and
understanding, while they continue to develop at a significant
pace. Users are already struggling to keep up and never before
has it been more important that designers not only develop
products that work on a functional- but as importantly on a
comprehensibility level. “Relatability” provides theories and
techniques that will facilitate creating such products in the
future.

Relatability - Matthaeus Krenn

Transcription

Similar documents

Electric Go-Karts The exciting way to learn power electronics

w w w . a n t h e m A V . c o m

ERL-0631-GD PR

please click here for the entire story

MacroFlow Brochure - Innovative Research, LLC

Cleveland Institute of Electronics Electronics Symbols Handbook

Electronics

of the show here http://billtmiller.com/vampirecant thanks to Bill T

Individual products for optimal pain relief.