Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope