Instruction books are admissions of failure

In my youth I did a lot of work on user interface design for computer programs - and the essence of good design was to make the program so intuitive that you could just use it without training or a manual.

This is something the Apple iPhone does so well - and much technology fails on. You should be able to just pick something up and use it. If you can't, it's the designer's fault.

This can sometimes be demonstrated in trivial ways. Our oven hob has four rings, like most hobs arranged rectangularly. The controls, however, are arranged in a straight line. So the manufacturer has had to include a form of manual - in this case a series of little pictures showing which ring each knob controls. I have to consult these each time I use a ring. Yet had the designer put the controls in the same rectangular layout as the rings there would have been no need for the manual - it would have been obvious which control was for which ring.

So often people put themselves down when they can't use technology. 'I'm not very good at this,' they say. Setting VCR timers used to be the classic case. But it's not the people who are at fault, it's the designers.

I'm not saying it's easy. Even Apple can't always be perfect. For example, I've only recently learned (thanks RPG) that if you hold your finger on a key it will show alternatives (e.g. hold it on the .com button and it offers you .co.uk etc. - the same with symbols). This wasn't obvious. There would be ways to show there was something lurking underneath if Apple had thought it through a bit more. But on the whole they do very well.

So here's a challenge, manufacturers. Don't think 'The manual will tell them how to use it.' Make sure you can put a random person in front of your technology and have them use it unaided.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog