by Alan Cooper
In the beginning of The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, Alan Cooper explains that any item crossed with a computer equals a computer. An airplane has lots of mechanical parts, including the engines, the seatbelts, and the bathrooms, but the total behavior of the system is controlled by the behavior of the computer inside. No matter if everything else that is mechanical or human is working correctly, the computer can have an error and halt the progress of everything else in the system. This is because current computer systems don't look at interaction with humans first. Whether it is an embedded computer system inside a submarine or airplane, or a desktop computer that you use at home, the programming and interaction was designed by a programmer. Because of this, systems fail and don't give proper warning messages, are hard to use in general, or do things and you can't understand why it's happening. Cooper argues that the solution is "interaction design" before programming design. We need to design the interaction of the system with its human users and how it communicates and behaves with them before we design how the system will be programmed.
Cooper also introduces the concept of "cognitive friction." Cognitive friction results whenever the human brain and intellect has problems understanding the complex system of rules that is constantly changing in computer systems. For example, the numeric buttons on the microwave don't have one single function; when in "cook time" mode, the numbers correspond to the amount of time you want your food to be cooked, but when in "cook power" mode the numbers correspond to the amount of cooking power to be applied during that time. It is interaction paradigms like this that cause cognitive friction to the average user. The problem is that the people who design this interaction are programmers themselves; they understand how complex systems work because they have studied this field, and do not think about how users will understand the reaction. They are the "apologists," the ones who fight for software and explain all the good things that come from it, and their users are the "survivors," those who learn just enough to get by but never enjoy using the system. Cooper calls for an interaction designer that is not a programmer and that represents the public and possible users. Since software today is like a "dancing bear," meaning that it is amazing the software can do this task, but it does the task very poorly, having an interaction designer makes sure that systems are protected from the design of the programmers and can be made easier for average users.
I really don't agree with a lot of things that Cooper says. I know that there are lots of error in programs that we write, and lots of times they can be devastating and fatal. But having more interaction design in the airplane navigation system that didn't alert the pilot of the fatal course change wouldn't have solved the problem. Extensive testing is more important for errors like that, where a key facet of the underlying functionality did not give correct feedback. But, I do agree that having an outside force in the construction of interactions in desktop and other low-maintenance software can be effective. This is because this person doesn't know the low-level details and can look at the system without bias. But, I really don't like the way that Cooper says programmers never understand real interaction. I am a programmer, but when I'm not programming, I don't view the world as a programmer. I am not able to understand some appliances or new things that I am exposed to just like normal humans. It has more to do with immersion and experience, and that a user needs to learn how to use the system. This is because not every complex system can be made a lot easier for all users.
No comments:
Post a Comment