Category: interaction design

A Little Bit Louder Now…

Published March 7, 2010 by cgerrish

We move from one metaphor to its opposite, swinging like the bob on a pendulum. As our daily activities start throwing off streams of data, and we aggregate the data of others into composite parallel streams for our consumption— we look across the great divide and gaze at the old metaphor of files, folders, explorer/finder and the desktop. We hop back and forth between the metaphors, juggling streams and file folders. Wondering at what point will we leap across the chasm— and be mostly here in the stream, instead of mostly there on the desktop.

Personal computing is largely a matter of time and where the user spends it. Using applications to manipulate files located in folders has dominated our computing experience for a long while. Perhaps it was the steady stream of emails filling up our inboxes that provided the bridge to the stream of tweets flowing through our selective view of the consolidated lifestream. The metaphor of a desktop, folders and files gave us a handle for managing digital things inside the world of personal computing. A user might have a messy desktop or clean one. One could use up energy keeping things organized, putting them away in the proper folder— or allow them to become messy and spend energy finding things amidst the chaos.

The Desktop, folder, file model corresponds to the outline. Other words we might use to describe this kind of formation include hierarchy, name space or tree structure. The problem with things is that they don’t seem to know where they belong. They don’t take the initiative, always have to be told what to do. But, as long as the numbers stay small— not too many files or folders; not too many streams, or too much velocity, we can manage on either side of chasm. However, to stay small in this context means to exclude possibility. And once the numbers get large, the amount of energy required to keep things organized in outlines exceeds the value derived from the organization.

As David Weinberger points out in his book Everything is Miscellaneous, search transformed the value of the outline as a system of organization. Once everything has been indexed, sorted and ranked by algorithm, the findability of a thing doesn’t depend on its place in a hierarchy of categorization. This was a transition from organization based on the metaphor of extension in physical space to the random access metaphor of computational space.

Moving from Space to Time is another kind of transition. David Gelernter is one of the few who has spent time thinking about organization based on time and stream. Why should we have to give names to digital files or assign them to folders? Can’t things just take the initiative?

Once we shift the axis of organization from Space to Time, we begin to think about how we could relate to dynamic flows of information. We glance again at outlines, files and folder systems. The numbers are too big, if we look a the problem through that lens we’re inevitably lead to the view that there’s information overload. Clay Shirky rebuts that claim, and calls it filter failure. But a filter is only one of the tools we’re missing. The spatial metaphor can’t even give us the basic steps to dance to the music of time. We need a different starting point. Gelernter, in his essay “Time to Start Taking the Internet Seriously” improvises on a theme:

17. There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it’s obvious how to blend two streams. You simply shuffle them together like two decks of cards, maintaining time-order — putting the earlier document first. Blending is important because we must be able to add and subtract in the Cybersphere. We add streams together by blending them. Because it’s easy to blend any group of streams, it’s easy to integrate stream-structured sites so we can treat the group as a unit, not as many separate points of activity; and integration is important to solving the information overload problem. We subtract streams by searching or focusing. Searching a stream for “snow” means that I subtract every stream-element that doesn’t deal with snow. Subtracting the “not snow” stream from the mainstream yields a “snow” stream. Blending streams and searching them are the addition and subtraction of the new Cybersphere.

18. Nearly all flowing, changing information on the Internet will move through streams. You will be able to gather and blend together all the streams that interest you. Streams of world news or news about your friends, streams that describe prices or auctions or new findings in any field, or traffic, weather, markets — they will all be gathered and blended into one stream. Then your own personal lifestream will be added. The result is your mainstream: different from all others; a fast-moving river of all the digital information you care about.

19. You can turn a knob and slow down your mainstream: less-important stream-elements will flow past invisibly and won’t distract you, but will remain in the stream and appear when you search for them. You can rewind your lifestream and review the past. If an important-looking document or message sails past and you have no time to deal with it now, you can copy the document or message into the future (copy it to “this evening at 10,” say); when the future arrives, the document appears again. You can turn a different knob to make your fast-flowing stream spread out into several slower streams, if you have space enough on your screen to watch them all. And you can gather those separate streams back together whenever you like.

So, what does the toolset look like? Filters are a part of it. We’ll want to filter the stream based on keywords, selected social circles, location, time period, velocity of flow, media type of hyperlinked citation, authority of a person in particular slice and more. The results of a filtered stream will look like the surfacing of particular elements of the stream and the backgrounding of others. Stream splicing is a pre-requisite of filtering, blending together a bunch of streams doesn’t result in information overload if you have the right tools at your command. You’ll be able to filter and pause; go to super slo-motion; fast foward and even loop a section, manage public and private streams in the same workspace, mix recorded on-demand tracks with live real-time feeds and add in your own commentary in a live chat running alongside.

Music may provide the most developed set of metaphors to think this new landscape through. Here’s Thelonius Monk stream splicing:

Here’s Michael Tilson Thomas blending streams, pulling themes to the surface, modulating the information as it flows past:

The blends and modulations can be sophisticated and complex or rough and full of energy. Some lads from Liverpool get a little bit louder now:

When Gelernter describes the process of searching for ‘snow’ in the composite stream, he gets to the difference between search and track. Search was built on the ability to spider the corpus of web pages and links, build an index, and provide ranked results in response to queries. Track is a tool to help us manage and explore the real-time stream. The days of the world wide web conceived as a static set of hyperlinked pages are coming to an end. The file is a finished product, the stream is always unfinished. Gelernter describes the emergent new cyberstructure:

13. The traditional web site is static, but the Internet specializes in flowing, changing information. The “velocity of information” is important — not just the facts but their rate and direction of flow. Today’s typical website is like a stained glass window, many small panels leaded together. There is no good way to change stained glass, and no one expects it to change. So it’s not surprising that the Internet is now being overtaken by a different kind of cyberstructure.

14. The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.

Your connection to the item in a stream is open ended— the flow is open, or it is closed. If it is open, there’ll be a next item, and one after that. All these items are unfinished, they need response, routing, to be ignored, or decorated with gestures. We find ourselves in the in-between moment between the photograph and the motion picture. Our tools are at the level of the zoetrope, the praxinoscope, or the magic lantern. But once we start thinking in terms of Time instead of Space, the world looks very different.

At this moment of transition, we now have the tools to analyze our direction. Are we building tools for the static hierarchical namespace of the world wide web, or building tools for the real-time stream of the Network? If we look at Salesforce’s introduction of Chatter, Google’s introduction of Buzz, the expansions of Facebook and Twitter, FourSquare and GoWalla, the augmentation capabilities of Kynetx— we can see a shift in orientation from Space to Time. And while we might expect the leap across the chasm to require the bravery of the early adopter, I think we’ll be surprised at how natural most people find living in the stream of time to be.

Comments closed

Intuition and The UX of Physics Engines, Both Literal and Imaginary

Published February 16, 2010 by cgerrish

The transition from a store and retrieve computing experience to that of a real-time stream is still rippling through all aspects of our human-computer relationship. At the point of interaction, we’ve moved through punch cards, command lines and graphic user interfaces. We’ve coalesced around the Apple Human Interface Guidelines for installed software, and then splintered in a thousand directions for web-based software. The conservative impulse of the usability movement caused a brief fascination with the plain vanilla HTML 1.0 UI. The advent of vector-animation engines (Flash, then Silverlight) and then Ajax and dynamic HTML (javascript + CSS) exploded the interaction surface into a thousand variations. Taking a cue from 3-D first-person immersion games, the iPhone (and iPad) imported the physics of our every day mechanical interfaces and settled on the metaphor of “reality” for the multi-touch screen interaction surface.

Of course, when we speak of physics, it’s from a very specific perspective. We’re looking at the how the physical world experienced by human beings on the third stone from the Sun. Here we don’t discover physics, but rather we produce a physics by way of a physics engine.

A physics engine is a computer program that simulates physics models, using variables such as mass, velocity, friction, and wind resistance. It can simulate and predict effects under different conditions that would approximate what happens in real life or in a fantasy world. Its main uses are in scientific simulation and in video games.

As a designer of interaction surfaces, I often hear the request for an “intuitive user interface.” Most businesses would like there to be a zero learning curve for their online products. In practice what this means is creating a pastiche of popular interface elements from other web sites. The economics of the “intuitive interface” means this practice is generally replicated with the result of a bland set of interaction models becoming the norm. And once the blessing of “best practice” is bestowed, interaction becomes a modular commodity to be snapped into place on a layout grid. Conformity to the best practice becomes the highest virtue.

Arbitrary interaction metaphors have to be learned. If they’ve been learned elsewhere, so much the better. To the extent that it exists, the user’s intuition is based on previous experiences with the arbitrary symbols of an interaction system. Intuition isn’t magical, it works from a foundation of experience.

With the advent of the iPhone, we’ve slowly been exposed to a new method of bringing intuition into play. The interaction system is simply aligned with the physics and mechanics of the real world. Apple’s human interface guidelines for the iPhone and iPad do exactly this. A simple example is Apple’s design for a personal calendar on the iPad. It looks like a physical personal calendar. The books, look and work like physical books. It’s as though non-euclidean geometry were the norm, and suddenly someone discovered euclidean geometry.

By using the physics and mechanics of the real world as a symbolic interaction framework, a user’s intuition can be put to use immediately. Deep experience with the arbitrary symbolic systems of human-computer interaction isn’t required to be successful. If a user can depend on her everyday experience with objects in the world as the context for interaction; and have an expectation about how the physics of direct manipulation through multi-touch will work, then you have the foundation for an intuitive user interface.

CD-ROM multi-media experiences, moving to immersion-oriented electronic games and virtual worlds like Second Life have started us down this path, but the emergence of the World Wide Web deferred the development of this model in the application space. Of course, there’s a sense in which this isn’t what we’ve come to know as web site design at all. Once you eliminate the keyboard, mouse and documents as the primary modes of interaction, and substitute direct manipulation via multi-touch things change rapidly. The base metaphor of real life spawns an unlimited variety of possible interaction metaphors. And unlike arbitrary interaction systems, diversity doesn’t damage the user’s intuitions about how things work. Creativity is returned to the design of interaction surfaces.

Tightly integrated software and hardware designs, initially from Apple, but now from Microsoft and Google as well, are laying out a new canvas for the Network. The primary development platforms on the software side are iPhone OS, Android, Webkit, Silverlight and Flash. We won’t compare these runtimes based on whether they’re ‘open’ or ‘closed’ – but rather based on the speed and flexibility of their physics engines. To what degree are these platforms able to map real life in real time to a symbolic interaction surface? To what extent do I have a sense of mass, friction, momentum, velocity and resistance when I touch them? Do I have the sense that the artifacts on the other side of the glass are blending and interacting with real time as it unfolds all around me? The weakest runtime in the bunch is Webkit (HTML5/H.264), and it’s also the one that ultimately may have the broadest reach. HTML5 was partially envisioned as a re-orientation of the web page from the document to the application. The question is whether it can adapt quickly enough to the new real-time, real world interaction surface. Can it compete at the level of physics, both literal and imaginary?

Comments closed

The Virtual as Analog: Selectors and the iPad

Published February 10, 2010 by cgerrish

It turns out the virtual is analog. The analog is being atomized, the atoms mapped to bits, and then reassembled on the other side of the glass. It’s probably something like how we imagine teleportation will work. As computer interfaces advance, they are tending to look more like real life. We’ve always connected to the digital through a keyboard, or a cursor control, and set of commands in the form of text or menus. As the iPad continues the roll out of touch screens and multi-touch gestures— this model will radically change. While radical change in computer interface usually means having to learn a whole new set of random abstractions to trigger actions; this change is a radical simplification. The layer of abstraction is no longer random. The physical world is being abstracted into a symbolic layer, a control and interaction surface, to act on the software operating on the other side of the glass. The physics and culture of the natural world provide the context we need to understand how to interact with, and control, the software.

In the light of this new interaction environment, initiatives like Information Cards start to make a lot more sense. In analyzing the problem of internet identity, including the subtopics of authentication, authorization, roles and claims— it became clear that a metaphor was required. Something that would connect to a person’s everyday experience with identity in the real world. The idea of wallets (selectors) and cards seemed like a natural fit. The behaviors an individual would be expected to perform with a selector are analogous to those done every day with the wallet in your back pocket or purse.

The problem with information cards has been that the computing environment hasn’t allowed human-computer interaction at the level of real world analogy. Web site login screens are geared toward keyboards and text fields, not toward accepting cards from a wallet (selector). Now imagine using a selector on an iPad. It looks like a wallet. You can apply whatever surface style that complements your personal style. You’ve filled it with cards— both identity cards and action cards. When you surf to a web site or an application that requires authentication, your selector is activated and provides you with a small selection of cards that can be used for this context. You choose one, slide it out of the selector with your finger and drag it to the appropriate spot on the screen. In the new era of the iPad, that’s an interaction model that makes perfect sense.

In their interaction design guidelines, Apple addresses the issue of metaphors very directly:

When possible, model your application’s objects and actions on objects and actions in the real world. This technique especially helps novice users quickly grasp how your application works

Abstract control of applications is discouraged in favor of direct manipulation:

Direct manipulation means that people feel they are controlling something tangible, not abstract. The benefit of following the principle of direct manipulation is that users more readily understand the results of their actions when they can directly manipulate the objects involved.

Originally selectors were tied to a specific device, and this made them impractical when hopping between multiple devices. However a number of cloud-based selectors have recently emerged to solve this problem. As with all current internet identity solutions, there’s a lot of machinery at work under the covers. But from the user’s perspective, simply selecting a card and tossing it to the software application requesting authentication will radically reduce friction for both the user and the system.

Taking the metaphor a step further, it’s simple to imagine carrying my selector on an iPhone or iPad (or similar device) and using it to replace many of the cards I now carry in my wallet. The authentication event, rather than occurring within a particular device, would occur between devices. The phone becomes a key.

This new interaction environment heralds a radical change in the way we work and play with computers. Authentication, internet identity and information cards are just one example. We could have just as easily examined the human-computer interface of the financial services industry. Portfolio management and analysis, stock trading, and research will all need to be re-imagined in light of radical simplicity of this new world. The random, abstract and symbolic interfaces of computing will start to look quite antique by this time next year.

8 Comments

iPad and the new Puritanism

Published February 3, 2010 by cgerrish

The framing of the debate in advance of the availability of the iPad device has centered around control of the words “freedom, choice and health.” The reactionary forces claim the iPad will be detrimental to all three. Within minutes of the conclusion of Steve Jobs’s presentation, the swiftboating of the iPad was under way. Our freedoms are being curtailed; our choices limited and the health of the ecosystem is threatened. The iPad is a deviation from the one true path.

Another vector of dissatisfaction involves the paternity of the iPad. One look at its features and cognitive dissonance sets in among its detractors. Surely a tablet computer is the child of the laptop– what happened to all the ports, the keyboard; where’s the operating system? This Jobs fellow has disfigured the child, removing ports to satisfy some twisted personal vision— and, no doubt, because he hates our freedoms.

But the iPad is the child of the iPhone, not the laptop. There never was a physical keyboard, the ports are the same and so is the operating system. You can’t remove a port that was never there. The child resembles its parent in every way. Although, one must admit, it’s quite unusual for the child to be larger than the parent. Brian Dear, who has criticisms of his own, may have captured the seed of the idea in an interaction between Steve Jobs and Alan Kay:

…Steve announced the iPhone for the first time to the public. After the event, Alan recalled Steve walking up to him to show him the new iPhone in person. He asked Alan, “So, did we build something worth criticizing?” Alan recalls telling him sure, but if you could just make the screen 5″ by 8″, you would take over the world. Steve’s eyes apparently lit up.

The iPad is definitely worth criticizing. And what can you say about a product when both people who love it, and those who hate it, admit they must buy it? Its significance is big enough that simply withholding attention and comment will have little effect on the course of events. You’ll have to pick the device up and touch the glass.

In advance of holding one in my hands, there are two areas I’d like to explore where it looks like the iPad will open doors and make new connections possible.

While we attribute much of the success of the human species to our brains, we owe an equal amount to the dexterity and power of our hands. While the power of thought enables us to apply levels of abstraction to the world; it’s the fine motor control over our hands that allows us to bring these ideas into the world. Apple made a significant design decision when they chose the hand over the stylus, the scrollwheel, the trackball and the physical keyboard. Our fingertip touching the glass makes a direct connection to the virtual controls. This is both a technical and an emotional interaction point. The pleasure derived from the multi-touch interface with real-time responsiveness will quickly make it the most desirable and the most used.

The larger multi-touch interaction surface of the iPad will open the door to a whole range of personal computing gestures. It’s likely that electronic gaming will lead the way, and this is where users will try out thousands of new gestures — some will rise to the top and become defacto standards. Here the opposable thumb, the power grip and the precision grip will expand their repertoire to include the pinch, the spread, the swipe, the twist and others. And the accelerometer expands this interaction model into three dimensions.

And while Apple isn’t the only company whose worked extensively on these new interaction models, they get first mover advantage for introducing the tablet computer in 2007 and calling it a telephone. Creating a product in the lab is one thing, but putting a product on the street and getting uptake is another entirely. We’re seeing the new digital network joined to the original digital network.

Another kind of interaction that the iPad will change is the technology-mediated consultation. In these scenarios, typically the client gives the professional a bunch of personal data. That data is entered into a laptop or a desktop, numbers are crunched, reports formatted and then presented to the client in a meeting. The technology introduces large breaks into the human interaction. Melanie Rodier in her post for Wall Street & Technology asked whether the iPad has a place in the capital markets:

“I see the laptop as not a good collaborative tool,�? he explains. A laptop computer acts as a barrier between the adviser and client, since it is only one person (presumably the adviser) who will handle the keyboard, hit the return key and flip the computer round to face the client.

On the other hand, with an iPad, you can reach over and touch the screen, instead of having to navigate with a button or a mouse. “With the iPad, an adviser could navigate better, sweep pages across, look at a client’s financial plan and statements, and work more collaboratively side by side. It’s a subtle difference. The touch-screen means you can sit on the same side of the table, work as a partner,�? Dannemiller adds.

This kind of change isn’t necessarily in the algorithms used to crunch the data, but rather in the human interaction— the human transaction between the parties. The bond between the consultant and client is strengthened, as is the connection between the client and her data. The tablet format changes the sheer physicality of the interaction. The affordances, or action possibilities, of the consultation are no longer dominated or broken by the technical mediation. The devices recede to allow the people to connect.

The new Puritans have sprung up to save us all from this new impure device. Somehow I’m reminded of the early reaction to Elvis Presley, or when Dylan went electric. The iPad has abandoned the folk movement, it’s sold out, it’s left the one true path of protest music. The iPad smiles and looks askance. “Well, I just think of myself as a song and dance man. You know…”

The Puritans have coalesced around the mantra of “open.” For the Web, HTML5 is the sacred book— although it is unfinished, and there are still many sects within the fold. A specification isn’t a platform, so HTML5 must extend its control through the major denominations: Webkit, Gecko, Trident, KHTML and Presto. When we say, for instance, that HTML5 supports the H.264 video codec, what we’re really saying is that a runtime plugin for that media type must ship with all orthodox HTML layout engines. On this point of scripture, the Gecko sect has reservations. Runtimes outside the Holy stack are strictly the devil’s work.

But purity is just a myth. Dylan’s electric music had elements of the folk song; and his folk songs had elements of rock and roll. At bottom the “closed” iPhone OS was built up from the open source Darwin operating system. And Darwin had its roots in Berkeley Unix. If you want to build an “open” iPhone OS, you can take the same raw materials and knock yourself out.

The real question is what does it take to break through? To create a new kind of computing experience, not in the labs, but in people’s homes, in the cafes, schools and businesses. The answer isn’t in feature sets, ports or adhering to technical religious dogma. When you pick the device up, does it make you want to dance? I know that the puritans have forbidden dance. They’ve given us stern warnings about what will happen if we dance with this new partner. But when you put your fingers on the glass, do you feel a tingling in your toes?

One Comment