Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Invisible Interfaces

Don Norman talked about the "Invisible Interface" and the "Invisible Computer" as one that the user expresses no thought effort on how to do the task, only on the task to be done.

In many interfaces, we learn what to do so that we don't have to think about how to do it. For example, driving a car. When we are first learning, it seems overwhelming: you have to look at the road, but you have to also watch your speed, but you should constantly check your mirrors, but pay attention to which foot is where, and keep both hands on the wheel, but be ready to shift at any moment. And the feet! By the time we learn, we don't think about all the steps necessary. We think about where we want to go, and we go. The interface with the car has become invisible.

There are common designs for many things in our lives. A toilet handle is, well, a handle. An HTML link is blue and has an underline. A submit button looks remarkably "button-y". A car's steering wheel is round and has little ridges on the back where our fingers fit. The important thing to remember is that these designs didn't start out that way. In any product, industry, and technology, there is a period where competing designs are tested and one dominant design wins out. Here is an example of a steering handle, a different design to a wheel.

When designers (or more usually, engineers or marketers) tinker with an existing design, alter it in some way, the design is no longer invisible. We have to think about how to do the task again. Try driving a car in a country that drives on the opposite side of the road from what you are used to. All of a sudden, you don't just point the car and go. Everything is on the "wrong" side, from the door locks to the gas pedal, never mind that ONCOMING BUS!

When we encounter a suddenly visible interface, it is jarring, disconcerting, and can prompt the phrase, "what were they thinking?" An example of this was a local watering hole who thought it would be cute to rename the labels on the bathrooms. Every bathroom was unisex, so it didn't matter what one was chosen.

They could have done a simple sign, like this, or this, or even a uniform look like this. But they didn't. Somebody chose the following:
  • Pointers
  • Setters
  • Democrats
  • Republicans
Suddenly, the interface is visible. Which one do you choose? You were focused on the task, whichever one you were going to do, and now you have to think. What if you choose incorrectly?

It is very frustrating to suddenly be confronted with something that is no longer invisible.

Of course, I could be a bathroom-phobe. What do you think?

3 comments:

  1. It is thoroughly annoying when bathrooms are unisex and unlabeled. What is really annoying is when there are communal handwashing stations. It probably sounds silly, but it is very jarring when I go into a room full of door-ed stalls and a woman goes in with me. It feels weird. I guess I have been conditioned there is one room for boys, one for girls, and another for either with a kid. I am old.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for sharing with us...
    ___________________
    Susana
    Online Marketing of your brand

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post, Ben. Really good stuff.
    Those signs made me pause the first time I saw them, but pointers vs. setters seemed pretty unambiguous, and a clever allusion to the dog theme of the restaurant. I thought Rs vs Ds was a universalist "everybody poops" message. In either case, the aim of the designer was to make you think, which seems to have been successful, although maybe not entirely consistent with the main purpose of a restroom.

    ReplyDelete

No seriously, what do you think?
I'm probably full of s***, so tell me why I'm wrong.