Are Users Stupid

ARE USERS

STUPID?

An investigation into the theories behind semantics and to answer the question“Are users (of everyday products) stupid” INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to investigate the theories behind semantics and to answer the question “Are users (of everyday products) stupid” using research from various academic sources along with my own primary research through experiments conducted at University.

The reason behind this report is to gain an understanding into the theory and practice behind semantics, aesthetic-usability and transferring this into good design. I will use the information I gain to better understand the subject matter. I will take this information and use it in my present and future projects.

The question may seem simple enough, but with arguments from all sides, are users of everyday products and interfaces really stupid?

All this stems from reading a book by Donald Norman entitled ‘The Design of Everyday Things.’ This was however previously entitled, ‘The Psychology of Everyday Things.’ The reason for the name change? He had “been guilty of the same shortsightedness that leads to all the unusable everyday things.” (Norman, 1988.) This being the immediate cognitive understanding from a products’ ‘persona.’ This can be linked to judging a book by its cover.

During this report, the word product will mean the physical product, such as a DVD player and also the Human-Computer Interface (HCI) also known as Human-Technology Interaction A view on the meaning of semantics, is that it is, “an approach to developing a visual

vocabulary in products in order to give them an immediately identifiable set of mainly visual clues” (Demirbilek & Sener 2003) During this report I will cover product semantics (visceral, behavioral & reflective) ergonomics, cognitive understanding, aesthetic-usability, psychographics and semiotics. I will then bring in theories and argument from people such as D. Norman, Krippendorf and Gibson, and divulge results & information from researchers such as Berscheid & Walters, Taylor & Francis, Hassenzahl, plus others.

PRODUCT SEMANTICS The phrase product ‘semantics’ was first coined

by Klaus Krippendorf & Reinhardt Butter, who in the eighties defined semantics as the study of “symbolic qualities of man-made shape in the cognitive and social context of their use”.

(Demirbilek & Sener 2003) This basically translates to the look and feel of a product, (the semiotics) and defines the users behavior towards that product (the cognitive response).

GOOD SEMANTICS An example of good semantics, is that of the Sony Playstation controller (Fig 1.0). Here we see that the information presented within the semantics of the controller, allows it to be held in only one way if the user is to make full use of the buttons. This allows no confusion for the user and the cognitive power needed is very little as all the information needed is within the

Fig 1.0 products shape and size.

TO PULL OR TO PUSH? This is covered throughout D. Normans book, that looks at the frustration created within the design of everyday objects. One of the biggest problems found was that of doors. “ ‘Doors?,’ I can hear the reader saying , “you have trouble opening doors?” (Norman, 1988.) Yes. I push doors that are meant to be pulled, pull doors that are meant to be pushed, and walk into doors that are meant to be slid.”

Why did Norman have so much trouble with doors? Again this is all about the semantics of design, and the semiotics, that are used.

Why when a door is meant to be pushed do designers insist on putting a handle on it that says to the users cognitive process ‘pull me’.

This is not a generalization of all doors, but just those doors that have been badly conceived by the designers who design them. Why when we have had this knowledge for twenty or more years do designers still consistently make the same mistakes today; or is it that we as users of everyday products are simply stupid?

The theory and practice of product semantics, was founded due to the need for a new theoretical foundation for design after the the functionalism dominating era. (Vakeva, 1989) If we look back to when digital watches first become popular, designers were putting in calculators, remote controls, and a handful of alarms. Nobody knew how to use them but they were cool because they had all the functions.

Even with twenty years of research behind the subject, there are still users who oppose the idea that product semantics and conceptual models really work. Are people who argue that design overrules functionality, (Neilson 2001) really the stupid ones?

AFFORDANCE Along with Norman’s theories on semantics, we have the theory of affordance which first coined by James Gibson in 1977. A supporter of this theory as well as an advocate for product semantics is Klaus Krippendorf, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Gibson’s theory of direct perception stresses that ‘the attributes of an object could provide effective perceptual information about the object itself. (Hsiao-chen & Kuohsiang 2002) Krippendorf adopted these theories, and laid down his own theoretical foundation for product semantics. He proposed an embedded set of four theories “to tackle psychological , socio-linguistic, techno-economic and ecological issues focusing on use, language and ecology of mind.” (Väkevä, 1990) This is all well and good when looking at a physical product, and there have been years of research to prove these theories correct. But we are in the age of interaction and interfaces.

Up until recently there has been no substantial research into the effects of semantics and

aesthetic usability when referencing interaction and interfaces.

Kuohsiang Chen explains that designers nowadays, take both the theory of product semantics, and the theory of affordance, combines them together and uses them in the relatively unknown field of interface design.

He goes on to say in recent years, “the development of the affordance concept in design practice is by far not yet matured, and the differentiation between the affordance of the symbolic meaning of the designed artifacts is not clear. As a result that wrongly exercises the techniques of ‘Product Semantics’….” He goes on to say that “… such confusion can not only can hinder the development of ecological approach in design research “ (Hsiao-chen & Kuohsiang 2002) Another important area of product semantics to identify is the work of P. W Jordan who defines four areas of pleasure associated with products, which include, physio-pleasure; the act of touching and holding the product, social-pleasure, related to social relationships, and the communication the product enables - psycho-pleasure; gained when the product helps the user to accomplish the specific task and ideo-pleasure; related to the values the product gives. (Demirbilek & Sener 2003) If we take a look again at Norman’s theory of semantics, we can see that the design of a product is much more than just “looking the part.” Products speak to the user, at a level many of them will never understand, so it is fundamental to the survival of a product and its’ success to get this right everytime. How many times have people sat at the computer bamboozled at an error message that has just popped up. How many times have people gone to use someone else’s mobile phone, only to hand it back and say “you do it.”

Is this because they are stupid? Or is this because the designer is in-fact stupid. Most of the general public would blame themselves for not being ‘tech-savvy’ but why is this the case?

Neilson explains in his book, Usability Engineering, that usability and functionality are undeniably very important attributes of

products but are not sufficient on their own to convey pleasure and happiness to users. P W Jordan a researcher in the field of aesthetic usability conducted a study in 1996 on the displeasures of everyday commodities and found that the main factors that caused displeasure were lack of usability, poor performance, lack of reliability and poor aesthetics.

Interfaces have something most single products do not and that’s instant feedback. With the principle of feedback, every action a user performs, can be readily confirmed by a sensory feedback, be that visual, audio, or touch (vibrate). This can been seen (or heard) when a PC beeps as a warning message is displayed or when a key is pressed on a mobile phone. You have an audible tone through the speaker to let you know the key has been pressed. A visual feedback would be when the screen flashes instead of the usual audible tone. Although this is for people who are hard of hearing, I use this everyday and find it very useful. An example of touch would be the Xbox controller, which vibrates in relation to what is happening in the game.

Examples of bad interface design can be found at the interface hall of shame, examples inlude heavily tabbed broswers, unsightly. One example is a pop up box that claims “You’re about to update 0 records, are you sure you want to continue?” All to often coders simply copy code and don’t personalize it.

So, if designers have failed to understand the simplistic nature of semantics in product design, then how are we as designers going to understand semantics in the relatively new and eerie field of interface design?

CONCEPTUAL MODELS An example of a conceptual model is as follows; Norman argues that users are not, in-fact stupid, but that the designers behind the products are. To understand what Norman is getting at we have to understand the ‘conceptual model.’ Above we have already learnt about the ‘affordances’ of doors. These

are classed as the bar to pull action and the handle to turn actions. You also have ‘constraints.’ These being the push plate on a door, this constrains the user to do one thing, and that is to push. The other visible structure Norman talks about is ‘mapping.’ This will be covered later.

If you walk towards a door that has a push plate and no pull handle, this affords the action to be pushed only. It also constrains the user to only perform one action and that is to push, another constraint is on which side the plate is on. The door leaving our University building has a pull handle yet is a push door. This affords pushing and pulling yet is only a push door.

Norman also argues that if designers used a good conceptual model when designing products, then products (and interfaces) would not be contrived and create a doomed outcome from the start. Using a conceptual model (Fig 1.4) , “will allow us to predict the effects of our actions.”

AESTHETIC USABILITY EFFECT (AUE) To understand the AUE you first have to understand what is being said,. There has been a lot of research in recent years into Aesthetic-Usability. This is explained as “a condition whereby users perceive more aesthetically pleasing designs to be easier to use than less aesthetically pleasing designs.”

(Mark Boulton 2005) Put simply, this is the users’ instant “perceived” ease of “usability” from the immediate semiotic symbols presented to them in the design of the interface. This like semantics, can be different depending on the social environment that the product is in.

WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD From what has been said so far, you would put it simply as, if the product looks good, then its going to work good. Or as Dion Berscheid & Walter’s aptly named seminal was called “What is beautiful is good” (Conklin , Koubeck & Thurman 2006) This not only covered products, but also introduced people into the fold. It was found that the general populous expected people that were seen as more

attractive, would be more successful in life, be better partners, and have a happy social life.

With the introduction of the user interface, it has been culturally and aesthetically informed, and has now become to emotional value and taste judgements. (Hammel, 2005) So what am I getting at here? Everything that looks good must work just as well.

Unfortunately not. This is about the perceived usability of a product. For years now it has been drummed into our heads that, if something has style and flair, its a winner.

HAZZENZAHL & MOGGRIDGE I will now put forward some arguments for and against, the Aesthetic-Usability Effect (AUE).

At NordiCHI 2004, Jari Laarni of Helsinki School of Economics, on the subject of aesthetics and emotional evaluations of computer interfaces, argued that curiosity, flow, nurturing and socialization where critical factors in satisfying users needs within user interfaces. (Larni, 2005) Hassenzahl in 2006 was quoted as saying, “to summarize, while effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction are definitely important determinants of human-technology interaction, other aspects, such as aesthetics of system design and emotional experiences during the system usage, certainly impact on the perceived quality of use as well.” (Thurig, 2005) Hassenzahl had however conducted tests two and five years earlier, and had said that “he found no evidence of a relationship between perceived aesthetics and perceived usability” What had changed? Had the user become smarter, are the general public beginning to change? Bill Moggridge explains in his book “What is interaction design?” There are three types of users; the enthusiast stage where users do not care if the technology is easy or hard to use, they’re so excited by the technology itself they just buy it. The professional stage; where the buyer is not the end user, and finally the consumer stage; this is where the user demands the product works well, or they simply wont buy it, I think Hassenzahl’s backtracking proves this theory correct; users have started

to change from people who were once excited by the new technologies and ‘needed’ to have them, to users who simply need their product to do what it was made to do.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS FOR THE AUE Thüring & Mahlke argue for a broader perspective of user experiences it there paper, ‘Usability, aesthetics and cognitive style’. They set these out as three basic elements. One, the perception of instrumental qualities, such as the controllability or the effectiveness of a system.

Two, the perception of non-instrumental qualities, such as visual aesthetics, or haptic quality, and three, the user’s emotional responses to system behavior. Thüring & Mahlke also conducted their own experiments, which we will go into later.

Kurosu and Kashimura were the first to look at the relationship between, perceived usability and aesthetics, they used ATM screens and found that beauty and ‘apparent’ usability did in fact have strong correlation. This research was then replicated in 1997 and 2000 by Tractinsky, who confirmed earlier results.

Sara M Conklin, a student at Pennsylvania State University, conducted her own experiments based on the the subject title, The Effects of Aesthetics and Cognitive Style on Perceived Usability, Conklin hypothesized that “people who interact with an aestheticallypleasing product will rate it more usable than will people who interact with an aestheticallydispleasing product” (Conklin , Koubeck & Thurman 2006) Conklin used a PSSUQ (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire) to evaluate users thoughts after using the device and she concluded that “the perception of product aesthetics is related to perception of product usability…” she goes on to say that “… the present study supports the growing body of research that perceived aesthetics and perceived usability are not in fact independent of each other.

Another supporting argument for the AUE is that of Benbasat & Dexter, (1985) and Dwyer & Moore (1991), who provided preliminary evidence that colour, or cognitive style can interact with the users cognitive process.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE So the evidence presented is substantial.

Lets look at research into the ‘role of first impression and its effects on the subsequent interactive experience’. Zajonc went about creating experiments where he would show the subject slides for a mere 1-20 milliseconds. In the second round he would pair stimuli the subject had previously seen.

The results were conclusive in proving that the emotion preceded cognition or visa versa, (Lingard 200?) These results were verified

by Bornstein & Ledoux. This tells us that before the users’ cognitive function can even mobilize a response, neurons travel from the hypothalamus (the hypothalamus is responsible for regulating your hunger, thirst, response to pain, levels of pleasure, sexual satisfaction, anger and aggressive behavior, and more.) to the amygdala (Boeree 2002) (an almondshaped neuro structure involved in producing and responding to nonverbal signs of anger, avoidance, defensiveness, and fear. It also inspires aversive cues, such as the freeze reaction, sweaty palms, and the tense-mouth display. ) (Givens, 1998) across a single synapse.

So how do we define if something is ‘beautiful’ or not? The Oxford English dictionary states beautiful as “excelling in grace of form, charm of colouring and other qualities which delight the eye, and call forth admiration.” Although for different cultures this can mean something completely different.

Whilst at the NordiCHI IN 204 Giulio Jacucci from the University of Oulu argues that, “aesthetics is not simply the icing on the cake, rather aesthetics is the point of departure for enabling stronger focus on presence rather than use.”

Lets look back at Thüring & Mahlke, and the in-depth experiments they conducted recently. In study 1 Thüring & Mahlke looked at usability and emotions, and asked the question, “do systems of different usability influence emotional experiences during humantechnology interaction?” Thüring & Mahlke used the emotional triad according to Scherer.

They used a Self-Assessment Manikin, EMG (Electromyography), EDA, physiological responses, and responses were recorded for the muscle sites that control smiling and frowning (zygomaticus and currugator supercilli respectfully.) They also recorded the time taken to complete each task, so they could record effective usage. The results of the experiment showed that the ill designed system sparked more of an arousal (where arousal means provoke or anger) whereas the well designed system received low arousal scores, and high scores in valence (positive response) INTERFACES & INTERACTION Looking back over this report I think its fair to say that product semantics and aesthetic usability have a key role in deciding the fate of a product whilst its on the shelf in the shop.

But what about when it gets home and the user starts using word of mouth to spread that the interface is awful to use. How many times have you said to a friend or colleague “don’t bother, that phone rubbish, its so hard to navigate” how many times have we heard the age old argument “Apple is better than a PC!” or vice-versa. More and more products are being released each and everyday, and more and more of them are of very poor quality.

This could be seen as a generalization but its not that far from the truth, admittedly there are some amazing products out there such as Sony Ericsson, Nokia & Apple. Eliminate from your mind now the aesthetics of a product and the semantics. Even if designers concluded a way and means of making the perfect product, and a lot of products that are out these days, do look good, but the sad fact is many of them do not work in the way we want them to.

I have informed you of the research into semantics & aesthetics. Now its time to look at the user interface itself. Why in todays fast paced and technological advanced world, do we continue to churn out mediocre interfaces, barely usable to the general public, such as the Motorola software, the light switches in my University building and many more at the User interface hall of shame.

WOULD YOU CLIMB THROUGH THE BOOT OF YOUR CAR? Why as consumers do we put up with this kind of behaviour? If we purchased a car, and had to climb through the boot to get into it we wouldn’t stand for it. If everytime we turned the radio on the engine would cut out, we wouldn’t stand for that, so why do we stand for it in everyday products like printers that need a degree to change the ink, scanners that never do what you ask, and photocopiers that need dedicated engineers ready to do repairs for simple things such as a paper jam. Maybe this is where the user is classed as stupid, not for being too stupid to use a product but for the basic fact that everyday we put up with the same mediocre interfaces.

Overbeeke, Djajadiningrat, Hummels & Wensven state that interfaces should be smart, rewarding, tempting, even moody, and thereby exhilarating to use. Im inclined to agree.

Djajadiningrat argues that the designer should stay tuned to the experiential, and focus on designing the ‘interaction’ He goes on to put forward three methods, which “will build a stage of emotionally rich interactions.” These are as follows; Don’t think affordances, think temptation., Don’t think beauty in appearance, think beauty in interaction. Don’t think ease of use, think enjoyment of experience.

(Overbeeke, Djajadiningrat & Hummels ,2005) AN ARGUMENT AGAINST? This may sound like Djajadiningrat is arguing against everything aesthetic. Whilst he states “don’t think beauty” he also states that beauty is still a major part of design, but its not time to bring the interaction of the user to the forefront. He does however argue that making things as easy as possible is not the way forward as users will have a resulting feeling of enjoyment if things aren’t as easy as they expect. He bases this on the theory that musicians didn’t learn to the play the violin because it was easy.

This may be the case for musicians, but for the majority of people, microwaves, ovens, alarm clocks, MP3 players and mobile phones, are there to make life easier not harder.

Image Left: Fig 1.6. An example of a door with confusing instructions, the sign says push yet the handles on the door denote a pull action is needed.

UNDERSTANDING SOMEONE ELSES UNDERSTANDING Krippendorf further explains how designers should be designing the next generation of interfaces, “… thus trying to understand interfaces, we cannot be concerned with technology as such, but need to understand the relations between users’ understanding of a technology and designers’ understanding of that same technology” (Krippendorf, 1997) We as designers have to take a step back, and start thinking from the minds of the user. This is aptly put, although rather difficult to grasp in the following excerpt “our understanding of someone else’s understanding (of technology) which I maintain is indispensable to the design of interfaces, recursively embeds another understanding into ours and thus becomes an understanding of understanding, or a second order understanding” Krippendorf goes on to say that this second order understanding needs to be a goal of the emerging paradigm.

Furthermore, he adds that interfaces should be enabled to be language-like, utilizing metaphors, metonymies (the substitution of an attribute for that of the thing meant, for example, the word ‘suit’ for business executive) and icons that are self evident.

If we take a quick look back at Norman’s book, The Design of Everyday Things, we touch upon another good example of how interfaces (or interactions) should be designed.

(Norman, 1988.) Norman talks about ‘mapping,’ meaning the relationship between the two things concerned. In our case the users actions and the feedback given. This needs to be simple and straight forward, and this can be done by using sound for visibility (Norman, 1988.)

The majority of errors occurs when the user has several modes of operation, why do we need devices that do anything & everything, simplicity works in design, this is shown through Apples undeniable success with the iPod. Yes were told to think outside the box, but why not just think outside the box in a simplistic manner.

EXPERIMENTS To further reinforce the results and theories

of the people quoted throughout this report I decided to conduct my own experiments to see if all of this was true. I conducted three simple experiments to show semantics in action along with affordances and Normans’ theory of conceptual models.

For experiment one I used the main entrance door to the university to monitor people coming in and going out. This door has two pull plates on either side of the door.

I recorded footage over a ten minute period at lunch time to see how many people tried to pull the door when in fact it was a push motion that was needed. (fig 1.6) My results were conclusive in the fact that over half the people tried to pull the door rather then push the door. This shows that Normans theory on conceptual models is real; this being that a user creates a conceptual model of what he or she is going to do before they even realise it. The pull handle on the door simply told the brain to pull, even though it was a push door.

For experiment two I demonstrated the theory of semantics, by using a block of wood that gave no message to the user about its overall functionality. I gave the user two minutes to identify what the object was used for. (fig 1.7) I conducted the experiment on 10 people of which none had any idea what the product’s function was. After I gave the subjects the piece of wood I also gave them a controller for a games console, this was greeted with smiles and immediate understanding of how to use the controller.

Overall the results from this experiment back up my initial theory that products that do not have any obvious semantic properties simply confuse the user, and cause frustration within the use of the product.

For experiment three I used the light switch panel in our lecture theatre. This consists of 12 small black buttons with no labels to control several lights that dim in the theatre (fig 1.8).

This was to show how overcomplicating a simple action such as a light-switch can more often than not cause frustration.

I asked 5 people to turn the lights on in the lecture theatre, turn them off again, and have them dimmed. Again I was proven correct, and nobody was able to operate the lights first time. Also, due to the delay from the operation of the switch to the lights changing, this caused an immense amount of frustration.

For the sake of proving my point I then asked the same 5 people to turn on a light with a conventional switch and they all completed the task successfully.

WHY? The main point I have been trying to get across here is that we already have the research necessary to understand how to design objects and products that are not just aesthetically pleasing, and use good affordances, but are easy to use and operate, and create a harmony for the user.

This information has been around for a long time and will be around for a long time to come; its simple and easy to understand.

Make things simple for the user, do not over complicate the mapping procedures, make all affordances clear, make all constraints clear, design from the understanding of the user, (and not your own understanding), do not become a victim of your own ideology (the product is not for yourself it’s for the consumer). Remember, information in the world is easier accessed than information in the head, and lastly, ‘keep it simple.’

CONCLUSION After extensive research and my own experiments I have come to the conclusion that product semantics and aesthetics play a huge and fundamental role in the users‘ immediate emotional response to a product. But it doesn’t necessarily stop there. Perceived usability only gets the product from the shelf to the consumer.

This, coupled with extensive results showing, that just because the products ‘perceived’ operation will be easier, it does not necessarily mean the actual operation will be swift and enjoyable.

Designers, both product and interaction, need

to band together, shred their egos and create good working foundations for the advancement of interfaces, and the process of interaction.

Technology has advanced at a phenomenal rate over the last twenty or thirty years, yet the interaction process has remained stagnant in a pool of “look at my product it does this” It’s time for a change. With the availability of more easily used interface software, and more consumer choice, the designers who don’t buck the current trend will simply fall wayside and disappear into obscurity.

So, in answer to my original question, “Are users stupid?” Yes, they are, but designers are more so because of their inability to create products that are simple to use.

Designers must start designing for the consumer, and not for their own gain. Its time to start asking people what they want, and stop telling them what they need.

We as ‘designers’ need to start forcing design, usability and aesthetics on industry heads. As a lecturer once told me, 80% of a products creation should be through research and consumer input. It seems today we have a lot of designers running to their colouring books before they even know what the product is.

28

INFOGRAPHICA101.POSTEROUS.COM TWITTER.COM/SNAGGLEPOP LINKEDIN.COM/IN/ANDISCOTT PLURK.COM/SNAGGLEPOP IDIOSYNCRATICDESIGN.TUMBLR.COM

Andrew Scott 51E Albion Works Pollard Street Manchester M4 7AJ

07595 347 256 hello@snagglepop.co.uk http://www.snagglepop.co.uk http://www.idiosyncraticdesign.co.uk http://idiosyncraticdesign.posterous.com/