Wireframes – Design Wireframe – Wireframe Tools – Website Wireframes – Wireframe Software

Ode to the Usability of Interface Designs

Though still unfinished pride of expertness

Thou wireframe of an interface design

A rapid paper prototype used to express

Ideas of layouts and navigation that lurk in the mind

What icons and buttons envelope thy shape

Of links and portals that strive with growth

through the fiber optic cables of an ISP

Streaming gigabytes of info with ease for you and me both

What mad pursuit ever since the struggles of Netscape

When the ripe World Wide Web became destiny

There is some debate as to whether the newest generation of iPod improvements makes them perform better or just adds some cosmetic flair and enough changes to reinvigorate the product for the public.  The truth is that the new iPods are probably a little of both: flashy and functional.  However, that seems to be Apple’s doctrine, marketing gadgets that are flashy enough to top the trends but easy and practical enough to use to sustain their popularity over a long period of time.  The fact that Apple gadgets interface easily with each other, as demonstrated by the iPod Touch Skype feature, also contributes to its secure technological reign over a court of very loyal subjects. It seems as though the new generation of iPods fits Apple’s credo like a glove and the popularity of the iPod in all its forms shows no sign of decline among consumers.

A while ago, the iPod Touch, iPod Shuffle, and iPod Nano user interface designs were all subjected to a variety of tweaks by Apple, although the iPod Classic model was left as is.  The changes are meant to boost usability, intrigue new and old customers, and make the new generation of iPods more accesible than ever. Some of the new developments for each product include:

•    iPod Nano: Smaller size, added touch screen capability, lost camera.

•    iPod Shuffle: VoiceOver capacity in 25 different languages in addition to a larger size and smaller price; at $49 it is the cheapest iPod to date.

•   iPod Touch: Improved screen and battery life and a front-facing camera that allows users to make calls via Skype to iPhone 4 and other iPod Touch users.

Several weeks ago Netflix, an American a company that offers online streaming and online flat rate DVD and Blu-ray Disc rental-by-mail, released its new iPhone app that is designed to allow subscribed users to stream TV episodes and movies directly to their iPhone or iPod Touch at no additional cost.  The announcement of the new Netflix app spiked the organization’s shares by 2% and Google searches were trending towards “Netflix Android” with many Droid users wondering when Netflix would release an app for their phones.  Netflix releasing an app only for iPhone can be seen as a good marketing strategy as it makes the services that much more enticing to non-Apple users.  If and when Netflix decides to expand their application to Droids and other smartphones, users will no doubt be chomping at the bit to download it.  Another bonus is that since Netflix is a subscription based service, people may be more willing to sign-up purely to use the services on their smartphones despite the fact that the user interface design might be a challenge for older users in comparison to the larger home PC screens.

The Netflix app user interface will allow members to organize their materials by personal preferences, genres, new arrivals and individual instant queues.  Members will also be able to access their Netflix content from both 3G and Wi-Fi networks, though Wi-Fi will provide faster and more reliable streaming and downloads. So after you have finished downloading music, checking email, and Facebook stalking, you can always watch a movie on your iPhone—if you even have the time left.

At Pidoco we market our wireframes as interactive and living, so when I came across Will Evans’s article in UX Magazine entitled “Shades of Grey: Wireframes as Thinking Device” my interest was certainly peaked.  If wireframes are “living” devices then surely it isn’t a far stretch to claim that they are thinking devices too—wouldn’t thinking be a prerequisite for existence? Or maybe we should leave terms like “thinking” and “living” in the metaphorical realm because how can something as inorganic as a wireframe really be alive? Ok I took that a little too far and so for the sake of avoiding my woefully amateur philosophical musings, perhaps it is best if we take a look at some of the reasons why Evans believes wireframes help us “think” and then maybe we can draw our own conclusions as to whether or not a wireframe’s capacity to facilitate our “thinking” brings it to life in its own right.

Thinking with wireframes: they are more than just an inert tool

First and foremost Evans claims that wireframes are thinking devices because they are the setting “for the exploration of a given problem space” (UX Magazine). Evans asserts that UX designers often view the development process as purely problem solving rather than an explorative process that both poses and solves problems based on user contexts and needs.  “I use my sketches and wireframes as means to make explorative moves and assess the consequences of those moves” says Evans.  Thus, the wireframe is not just an artifact but really a framework that provides designers the space to think through and iterate their UI designs, simultaneously facilitating their problem solving and creative capacities.   By viewing the wireframe as a partner in a dynamic process instead of a static, inanimate tool, designers “will find they have the opportunity to more successfully create great user experiences.”

This take on wireframes being a kind collaborative partner in the user interface design and development process is compelling and brings a fresh outlook to the wireframing method as a whole.  If designers can learn to see wireframes in this new way then perhaps they will also feel more inspired in their work. After all new perspectives often engender reinvigorated creative flows and ideas and that is what a living thought process is all about.

“To design an easy-to-use interface, pay attention to what users do, not only what they say. Self-reported claims are unreliable, as are user speculations about future behavior.” (Jakob Nielsen – Alertbox)

User experience, or UX, highlights the subjective experiential perceptions that come along with human-computer-interaction, or HCI, and product ownership. ISO 9241-210 defines user experience as “a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service”. The term itself was brought to wider knowledge by Donald Norman in the mid-1990s just as recent advances in computing technologies moved HCI into practically all areas of human activity. UX planning goes beyond fixing usability issues of a user interface design. In order to properly conduct UX planning one has to begin with the user. We need to take into account what they say, do and the decisions they make. According to Jesse James Garrett “User Experience is not about how a product works on the inside. User experience is about how it works on the outside, where a person comes into contact with it and has to work with it”

UX is about maximizing design and research in such a way that positive experiences occur at the intersection where users come into contact with your product. Experiences are momentary and brief, sometimes isolated and sometimes part of a multi-layered process. The customer always acts in the present influenced by former experiences, knowledge, abilities, and preferences. Forthcoming experiences, expectations and hopes also influence the present as users ebb and flow on a river of experience. The goal of UX is to meet a user’s exact needs without fuss creating products that embody simplicity and elegance, making them a joy to use. Achieving this requires a seamless merging of the services of multiple disciplines, including engineering, marketing, graphical and industrial design, and interface design. This requires teamwork and collaboration across an entire team.

With UX design the whole team has to take the users’ views of a graphical user interface design and ask themselves if their product fulfills all of Peter Morville’s “Facets of the User Experience”:

1.    Is the application useful for the individual user and his specific task?

2.    Is the application usable for the individual user and his specific task?

3.    Is the application desirable for the individual user and his specific task?

4.    Is the application valuable for the individual user and his specific task?

5.    Is the application accessible, i.e. available to every individual user, regardless of disability?

6.    Is the target findable for the individual user and his specific task?

7.    Is the application credible for the individual user and his specific task?

UX thrives on the iterative development process that begins with the basic strategy where proof of concept is established via Information Architecture, usability testing of prototypes (e.g. wireframes) and interface design until a detail concept is birthed. While working towards a detailed concept it is important to quickly come up with a rough concept as that allows for experimentation and rapid iterative evaluations of use cases and proposed interface design alternatives.

In order to facilitate a whole team’s involvement in UX design the target user has to be the centerpiece, like the Sun in our solar system. If a profile of the target user is not to be had then scenarios of use or workflows will suffice.  Developing a persona(s) of a target user, as well as the environment that precludes them, allows all members of your team to visualize how to use their respective attributes and strengths synergistically in creating a winning interface design or other product. Good UX, just like a good team, is about the sum being greater than the parts with the real ‘architects’ of an interface design being the target user.

With high speed internet and 3G connections, we have become so accustomed to the swift access of information that anything less than instantaneous is too slow. Perhaps nothing signifies our need for the rapid dissemination of information on the web better than Google’s new Instant Search.  As soon as users begin typing text into the Google search engine, live results will be displayed in real time.  Google claims this will save users at least 2 or 3 seconds per search because results will be provided before the inquiry is complete and users will not even have to hit the search button.

This new method of searching for information is predictive in nature which is on some level indicative of a loss of user control; results based on prediction put the power of selection into the hands of the user interface provider and not the user. The fact that Google selects search results before you have even finished typing (not to mention eliminates the finality of pushing the search button yourself) blurs the boundaries between user and interface in terms of who is in command. For a search engine this is harmless but as our insatiable need for speed and real-time activity barrels forward into the future, the concept of prediction will play a larger and larger role if interface designs continue to trend towards prophetic real-time features. How will this affect user attitudes and trends?  Will users give up autonomy in favor of speed?  Only time can answer these queries, but a good prediction is that whatever the future holds for real-time web capacities, Google will likely be on the cutting edge.

Folders in the sidebar now employ a heading-collapsing mechanism. There is a clear disconnect in having all other applications and folders one-way and little ol’ iTunes another. Surely Apple must have conducted usability testing, for example employing wireframe prototypes. Or would they not? The issue of color-coding the sidebar might not have come into play early in the design process, especially when using more low-fidelity wireframes. The orientation of the close/minimize/zoom buttons would have though. Although the exact reason why the interface design team made these decisions is not published, these choices are bound to start debate in interface design circles. It could be that we may be taking a sneak peak at the ideas being bounced around at Apple for future implementation in the interface design of the next version of Mac OS X.

Aside from contradicting interface design convention and to its credit, the new vertical orientation does have some merit from a usability perspective. The close/minimize/zoom buttons are now more isolated from the media control buttons thus reducing the chance of clicking the wrong one. However for this orientation to really catch on other programs will have to adopt it as a convention.
“If it ain’t broken. Don’t try and fix it.”

Here, Apple run the risk of alienating users but considering their penchant for innovation on their own terms (and smiling all the way to the bank while at it) it is a risk that could pay dividends. Microsoft Office 2007 is a great example of how radical changes to a tried, tested and beloved interface design can pay-off despite the risk. Vista on the other hand… well we all know it wasn’t quite the home run Redmond hoped it would be. Apple’s image is no longer that of the little engine that could. It is arguably the 21st century’s Microsoft and as such has to guard itself against becoming seen as a bumbling giant. Other positive interface design changes worth noting are that the volume slider bar and the album cover artwork frame are bigger now. As a result the volume is now easier to manipulate, possibly catering to an aging audience. Double-clicking the artwork opens a pop-up with an even bigger picture complete with media, volume and resizing controls that appear when you hover the mic over it. Please che
ck back on this blog for a look at the new Ping music social network.

That Apple has become THE dominant player in the post-Napster music industry is now something of a given. The mighty, albeit tiny, iPod along with its trusty sidekick iTunes played a big part in stealing the music thunder from under the venerable CD. Yet it seemed as if no one noticed the irony of the CD in the iTunes logo… Until now that is. The latest incarnation, iTunes 10, boasts a radical departure in design. Out with the CD and in with a more eye-catching blue backdrop that stands out better in the Dock (on the Mac).

Such a move boosts the usability of the software application even before it has started running. Being easier to spot (granted for mere milliseconds less) in an interface design and thus faster to open adheres to Steve Krug’s First Law of Usability: don’t make me think. Research shows that the brain makes decisions in just a 20th of a second of viewing a webpage. The program itself has a few surprise interface design choices. First among these is the sidebar. Up until now icons each had different colors that differentiated them on the interface design. Now it’s all a bland grey that blends with the background, which in turn requires users to think a little longer. Reminds me of that Joni Mitchell song:

“Don’t it always seem to go.

But you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.”

The chief radical interface design choice in the new iteration of iTunes is with the close/minimize/zoom buttons. Thankfully they remain color-coded but they now run vertically down on the top left of the program’s interface design. This goes against the virtually omnipresent convention of using the horizontal axis; top-left on the Mac and top-right on PC. Following conventions is a cornerstone of good usability. Considering Apple’s reputation for imposing its human interface design guidelines on developers, these choices are curiously interesting. Although the orientation can be changed, this is beyond many users, as they would need to enter a hidden terminal command.

Another property in the Google monopoly

Google’s Call me feature invokes images of Skype, except it is integrated into every internet user’s control center: email.  If Google is able to turn Call me into an easy and internationally accessible part of their platform, it could provide Skype a fair bit of competition.  Integrated user interfaces make things easier for the user.  If users only have to log into one service to email and make phone calls etc. an organization like Skype could take a hit because they do not offer the wide range of features that Google, and by extension Gmail, does.  Luckily for Skype, not everyone is a Gmail user.  Still, Google’s newest feature shows once again that they are fearless about trekking into various internet services terrains and are not hiding the fact that they want a share in all of the properties that make up the world wide web. So is Google trying to create an internet monopoly?  That’s a bit of a sensational stretch, but at the very least Google makes it clear that they want a share in everything and do not want to make life easy for their competitors.