In a previous post on Ethnography, I invited Aza Raskin, founder of Humanized, a consultancy that aims to help companies design more humane products — from consumer packaged goods to software interfaces — and, son of Jef Raskin, the inventor of the Macintosh and author of The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems — to possibly answer reader’s questions about design, visual management, ethnography, genchi genbutsu, man-machine interactions, or anything related. He accepted!
Students of the Toyota Production System will quickly see the very close parallels between humane design and the way Toyota approaches their treatment of people, work environments, and business.
A little more about Aza:
Aza brings over six years of interface design and consulting experience to Humanized. He gave his first talk on interface design at his local San Francisco chapter of SIGCHI at the age of 13, got hooked, and has been speaking ever since. By the age of 17, he was talking and consulting internationally; by age 19, he was coauthoring a physics textbook because he was too young to buy alcohol; and at age 21, he started drinking alcohol and co-founded Humanized. Aza has also done Dark Matter research at both Tokyo University and the University of Chicago, from where he graduated with honors in math and physics. For recreation, he does Judo, speaks Japanese, and invents in his lab. He also enjoys playing the French Horn, which has taken him all over the world as a soloist. Be warned: Aza is an incorrigible punster, so please do not incorrige.
Here’s What You Do
If you have a question for Aza, please submit them in the comment section of this post. I will keep comments open until ~midnight of June 30, 2007. Aza will take some time to answer those questions, and then I will begin posting his responses during the week of July 9, 2007.
Humane Interface Philosophy
1. It’s not your fault.
The main thing you have to remember”and please remember this, because it could be vital to your sanity”is that any problems you have with an interface are not your fault. If you have trouble using your microwave, it’s not because you’re “not good with technology”, it’s because the people in charge of designing the interface for that microwave didn’t do their job right. User interface design is incredibly hard, and carries with it a great deal of responsibility; this is something that’s taken quite seriously when it comes life-critical systems such as flight control software. But in today’s consumer culture, what should be blamed on bad interface design is instead blamed on the “incompetence” of users. Just remember that it’s not your fault.
2. Simple things should stay simple.
Some tasks”for instance, teaching a child arithmetic”are intrinsically pretty complicated. But some aren’t. Setting the time on a wristwatch, for instance, shouldn’t be that hard; on old analog wristwatches, it basically involved pulling out a knob, twisting it until the watch showed the correct time, and pushing the knob back in again. But on newer digital wristwatches”ones that claim to be more powerful and feature-loaded than their analog counterparts”it involves pressing a series of buttons in a hard-to-remember, often unforgiving order. Most people dread setting the time on their digital watches, and for good reason.
It’s right and proper for complicated tasks to take time and expertise to accomplish. But something that is fundamentally simple”like changing the time on a wristwatch”should stay simple.
3. Fewer choices mean fewer worries.
People love having choices, because having choices means having freedom. Well, we don’t think this is necessarily a good thing when it comes to usability. We believe that when someone wants to do something on their computer, they want to spend their time doing it, not deciding how to do it. For instance, Microsoft Windows provides you with at least three different ways to launch applications and services on your computer: desktop icons, a quick-launch bar, and a Start Menu. Each one of these mechanisms is useful in one or two situations but horrible in others, and each has completely different instructions for operation. Microsoft even gives you a wealth of choices to configure them the way you want, which makes the situation that much more complex.
When we can, we try to avoid burdening our users with choices like this: we’d rather just take the time to make one simple mechanism that the user can use for all their purposes. Because the less burdened a user’s mind is with irrelevant decisions, the more clear their mind is to accomplish what they need to get done.
4. Your data is sacred.
It’s that simple, really. When one ensures that a machine can’t lose a user’s work, interfaces become a lot simpler; no more dialog boxes asking questions like “Are you sure you want to delete that entry?”; no more remembering to click a “Save” button like it’s a nervous twitch. You never need to regret any action you take, because any action you take can instantly be undone. Not to mention your complete lack of terror when you’re in the middle of working on your computer and the power goes out.
5. Your train of thought is sacred.
You can only really think about one thing at a time. If you’re thinking about paying your taxes, you can’t be thinking about your vacation in Tahiti. Indeed, thinking about that vacation in Tahiti will actively prevent you from thinking about your taxes. That’s why when you want to get something done, you want to get everything out of your head except the task at hand.
Quite simply, you need to preserve your train of thought. And that means that the interface you’re using can’t derail it. No talking paper clips bothering you from the sidelines, no fiddling with windows to find your work, no distractions.
6. Good interfaces create good habits.
When you’re first learning how to use even the best of interfaces, preserving your train of thought can be hard because so much of your mind is focused on how to use the interface, rather than on what you need to do. But as you become more proficient at using a good interface, it eventually becomes second nature”it becomes a habit, like walking or breathing. You don’t need to think about what sequence of motions you need to perform an action because it’s like your hands have memorized them as a single continuous gesture, saving you the trouble of having to think about them.
Bad interfaces, on the other hand, prevent habits from forming”but they can also make you form bad habits. Have you ever closed a window and hit “Do Not Save”, only to realize a split second too late that it was exactly what you didn’t want to do? That’s a bad habit from a bad interface.
Good interfaces make forming good habits really easy, and they make forming bad habits nearly impossible.
7. Modes cause misery.
There exists a mortal enemy to your habits and your train of thought: it’s called a mode. If an interface has modes, then the same gesture that you’ve habituated performs completely different actions depending on which mode the system is in. For instance, take your Caps Lock key; have you ever accidentally pressed it unknowingly, only to find that everything you type LOOKS LIKE THIS?
When that happens, all that habituation you’ve built up about how to type on a keyboard gets subverted: it’s like your computer has suddenly turned into a completely different interface with a different set of behaviors. And that derails your train of thought, because you’re suddenly confused about why your habits aren’t producing what you expect them to.
When you think about it, almost everything that frustrates us about interfaces is due to a mode. That’s why good interfaces have as few as possible.
8. It’s easy to learn.
Good interfaces aren’t just effortless to use once you know them”they’re also easy to learn to use. This doesn’t necessarily mean that someone should be able to use it without any instruction, though”it just means that knowing how to use any feature of the interface involves learning and retaining as little information as possible. Keep it simple, and keep it consistent.
Other articles in the “Ask Aza Raskin” Series:
- Ask Aza Raskin
- Aza Raskin on Poka-Yoke & The Humane Interface
- Aza Raskin on Quasimodal Design and The ATM
- Aza on Feature-Bloat and Site Clutter
- Aza on Google Search Results Page
- Aza on Cooperation and Team Size
More articles on Genchi Genbutsu and Ethnography?
Become a Lean Six Sigma professional today!
Start your learning journey with Lean Six Sigma White Belt at NO COST
Cees de Groot says
Hear, hear.
One of the books I think that everyone who works with user interfaces should read is “The Design of Everyday Things”. Raskin’s book has, alas, been lingering for too long on my todo list, although I did check up on some of the stuff that’s available on-line, like The Humane Editor (http://sourceforge.net/projects/humane) which certainly is worth a look.
Astute Observer says
Aza, the following picture was taken by a friend. It is an ATM at an airport. I know the image is difficult to see, but would love your thoughts on the interface of this ATM machine.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1227/581888502_af8c1b3f0f_m.jpg
Can't Wait for the iPhone says
Steve Jobs argues that the problem with all smart phones is the bottom 40%: the keyboard is there whether you need it or not. I would love your thoughts on the iPhone interface and features such as “pinching” of images, the lock feature, etc. Could the iPhone be committing featuritis? Is the iPhone humane?
Mary says
Aza,
I work as a product manager for a technology company in the valley. In large companies like mine, the department of Product Management, Software Engineering, and Customer Experience work together, but in a clunky way, to build a product. What is the best way, in your opinion, to infuse the Humane Design Principles in a hot political environment?
For example, the classic problems of: product will define a feature based on market research and define the personas. Engineering feels like we define something and “throw it over the fence” to them to develop. At the same time, Customer Experience is bothered that Product Management didn’t involve them, etc.
My question is turning out to be more of a human resources question than about design, but wanted your thoughts.
Maybe you should start an “Ask Aza” column, like a Dr. Phil segment, or something.
UnclutterBug says
One of the problems I observe frequently is that web sites with otherwise intelligent product managers and designers seem to have a cumulative UI habit tending toward clutter, user confusion and stress. In other words, each great new feature added to a site requires its own breathing room and consumes space; so other elements are rearranged and shrunken down to make room for the new tenant on the page or, in an even worse accommodation, a new tab or completely separate offshoot is created in the site navigation structure to accommodate the new feature. It seems to me that a much smarter approach would be to acknowledge the value of simplicity and focus and decide that something must be removed when a new something is added (kind of like some moms who tell their children each Christmas that they need to give away some of their toys to make room for the new ones) — but how do you build a culture of continual reduction and focus rather than continual expansion and bloat in building an ever-evolving web UI?
Ron says
We lean fans spend a lot of time explaining how great Toyota is. And great they are. See what I mean? We can’t help ourselves. Anyhow, I am interested in your thoughts related to the way Toyota deals with interfaces, etc. I personally have two Toyota vehicles in my driveway and love them. But I was recently in my brother in laws new Camry and noticed they made some rather big changes to the way things looked and felt inside. I dare say things looked a little un-Toyota-like.
psabilla says
Smooth flow; Memory Simple; Motion Simple — clearly Toyota concepts that are popularized by Industrial Engineering and Design.
How can software companies better align themselves to that model?
Alvarez says
A simple and effective concept from Toyota is Poke-Yoke, or mistake-proofing. Products and Interfaces are context-sensitive — that is, products and interface features have a particular pupose, but I’m curious if you can share any generic context-agnostic approaches to mistake-proofing, or Poke-Yoke? Principles of Poke-Yoke you can apply to anything; to any product or interface?
Jessie says
Can you define Mode more precisely with examples in interfaces and other products? Why do they suck so bad?
Marcus says
A lot of the Humane Interface principles are very Toyota-esque. Was your dad influenced by Toyota? Toyota has been doing Humane Interface Designe for decades.
A Toyota concept is single-piece flow. Instead of “batchy” processes, where large batches of inventory are processed, Toyota takes the one-piece approach of “Take one, Put one.” One-piece flow is critical to velocity in a system, throughput, and overall flow.
Large batch manufacturing, on the other hand, can be visually seen by queues of inventory sitting in front of an operator waiting to be served.
What are some Humane Interface approaches similar to one-piece flow? It seems that many software interfaces and processes have many steps, require much mental thought and “memory-burden” (another Toyota concept), and large batches of features. Ideas?
Googler says
The Google search box is simple, clean, and intuitive. BUT, the search results, from what customers tell us is confusing and messy as hell. How do you suggest we clean up the natural search and the paid search results? Is there a more intuitive way of doing it?
The Street People says
Can you comment on the Dyson vacuum? It is an industrial engineering wonder, in my opinion. Can you share, though, exactly how it is so good? What are some principles it satisfies well? How would you improve it?