End User Stress

EndUser Stress.

“A comprensive look into stress caused by poorly designed interfaces�

Do poorly designed and thought out interfaces increase stress for the end user?

Introduction Everyday we interact with complex software and technologies that we will never understand, nor need to. Technology has advanced at a phenomenal rate over the past thirty years and this advancement has been in keeping with Moore’s law which was defined

by Gordon Moore of Intel Corporation: he predicted that technology would double exponentially every 2 years. With this advance in technology has come the complex task of designing user interfaces that are not only simple and easy to use but perform all the complex tasks that might be required by the user.

In the beginning we had computers that just needed to complete basic functions like that of a typewriter to the applications of today like Adobe Photoshop that computes many thousands of process in a single second.

Back in the early years only a select few .

Everyday we interact with complex software and technologies that we will never understand, nor need to. Technology has advanced at a phenomenal rate over the past thirty years and this advancement has been in keeping with Moore’s law which was defined

by Gordon Moore of Intel Corporation: he predicted that technology would double exponentially every 2 years. With this advance in technology has come the complex task of designing user interfaces that are not only simple and easy to use but perform all the complex tasks that might be required by the user.

In the beginning we had computers that just needed to complete basic functions like that of a typewriter to the applications of today like Adobe Photoshop that computes many thousands of process in a single second.

Back in the early years only a select few people used computers, of these the majority

were seen as geeks, people who specialised in computer science, the world has changed somewhat since then, and now nearly every household in the western world has a computer.

Nearly everything you interact with on a daily basis has an interface of some sort, some good, some bad, some down right awful, with all these interactions and interfaces surrounding us, has technology made life easier or made life more stressful? Are we now accustomed to things simply not doing as we wish?

foundation for him or herself to too fully navigate the system.

If you take a look at Fig 1 This is a light switch at Salford University Why is it so complicated?

Where are the labels?

Where are the affordances and constraints?

In my previous work, entitled “Are users stupid” I describe how technology has advanced at a phenomenal rate but it seems to be the opposite for interface design, its with this I think it is important to obtain some credible and factual information based on a user’s sensory and emotional responses when met with different types of interfaces.

Software back then could afford to be technical, but not anymore increasingly people are turning to the computer, it is the designers responsibility to be able to create interfaces that not just the niche geek can use but design an interface that everyone can use.

Many terms of phrase are used when referring to the design of an interface and interaction with electronics which include HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), Interaction Design (IxD), Interface Design, Interface Engineering and User experience design.

Interaction design (IxD) is a relatively new field of design, the term being coined by Bill Moggridge & Bill Verplank in the late 1980s.

Although its with the help of Jakob Neilsen and Donald Norman that the process and fundamentals of good interaction design have come to fruition. But still it seems that large companies overlook the very basic principles of interface & interaction design. Donald Norman describes the frustration of using everyday products in his book ‘The design of everyday things’ Norman describes the root of his frustration from the lack of information being presented to the user through the product, this theory can be brought over to interface design, where the knowledge given to the user by the designer through the medium of icons, audio, colour and typography does not make sense and in doing so does not create any understandable affordances or constraints, thus not allowing the user to create a credible

Current Technologies On June 29th Apple Inc launched the iPhone and iPod Touch to fanfare from critics and Apple junkies around the world, the introduction of the iPhone brought about the introduction of multi-touch technology to the mainstream consumer.

Industry leaders small and large scrambled to bring out a product to take on the iPhone. This resulted in a mishmash launch of new phone’s with slow, buggy, ugly interfaces that really didn’t take into account the user but focused more on the idea of perceived usability that was common in website design.

When Donald Norman was asked through his website; “Websites and Web applications are meant to be used only once or few times, so is perceived usability more important than the real usability on the Web?” Norman goes on to say amongst other things that “First, I strongly believe that for most, everyday applications (products, applications, websites, and web applications), perception is more important than reality. In production environments, such as assembly lines or service bureaus, reality may dominate, but for the rest of us, something that takes longer but that is perceived to be efficient is superior to something that is shorter but perceived differently.” Norman states that perceived usability is important and this seems to be what designers have decided to listen to and run with, this may not be the decision of the designer but more, a higher management

decision, once the offending product is sold then quite simply the company makes a profit.

Personal Experience Whilst working for Sony Ericsson I was shocked to find out that as interaction designers, they did not see the phone they were designing for till late on into the design process, this seemed a bit backwards to me and was the general consensus within the department.

Objectives My main objective throughout this investigation is to answer following question; “Do poorly designed and thought out interfaces increase stress for the end user” How do the aesthetics of the interface affect both the users perceived usability and actual usability?

Does poor graphical representation require the user to spend more time re-coding their perceptual and mental information? And do users blame themselves for the misgivings of interface designers? And finally would it be beneficial to the interface design community to have foundation set for future design that everyone adhered to? Or would more rules and regulations stagnate interface? It is also my objective to delve deeper into the psychology of users I believe it is paramount in the creation of cutting edge technologies, award winning interfaces and sell out products to fully understand the user inside and out.

With my continued work within this field it is my objective to build on the information I have already gained throughout my academic career and create a wealth of information I can call upon in the future.

Past & Current Work There have been several studies into interaction design within the last few years, mainly from the likes of D. Norman, B, Ballard, J. Neilsen and B. Moggridge to name but a few On his website Norman states that “people do not make the link between aesthetics and usability”, and also states “I argue in favour of complexity, against the simple-minded notion that things should be simple. Simplicity

is boring. We want richness and depth in our lives. Moreover, the world and our activities are inherently complex, so the tools we use must match that complexity. Arguments against complexity are misplaced, I argue We don’t want confusion, perplexity, and confusion. That is, we want our complex tools and activities to be understandable.”

Other work has been conducted my Jakob Neilsen, whilst this is more specific to websites it also translates to everyday interfaces, Neilsen is the father if interface design and has been forcing the issue of good design for the last decade.

Neilsen conducts regular tests into the functionality of e- commerce usability and this is an extract from one of his latest client usability tests “Now to the headline question: Does it matter that most e-commerce sites annoy their customers during the checkout process?

The drop down menu is unpleasant, and we sometimes hear users sigh when they encounter it. That said, they know how to beat it into submission, because other sites have similarly annoyed them before.

Therefore, it’s unlikely that many sales are lost due to this user experience degradation.

The drop-down does cost sites money: given the scroll wheel’s revenge, it’s inevitable that companies will ship packages to the wrong state or — more commonly — that they’ll have to call users to resolve state/ZIP discrepancies. So, why go on about a design mistake if it doesn’t cost a company sales?

It’s certainly an error we’d classify as a lowpriority issue in a client report. But it’s still a usability problem, because — as nearly every test session confirmed again this year — state drop-downs annoy customers.”

Current research by Mformation showed that user related setting up a new mobile phone to ‘swapping bank accounts’ The survey of 4,000 U.K. and U.S. consumers concluded that 95% of mobile users would use more data services if set-up were easier.

Over-complication is also preventing 45% of people from upgrading to a more sophisticated handset.

Whilst I covered the subject of interface design in a previous research project entitled ‘Are Users Stupid?’, I now intend to further extend my knowledge in this field by conducting experiments that will further aim to discover a users response to a well designed interface and a poorly designed interface. In conducting this research I will improve my understanding as to how a user interacts with an interface and the sensory and emotional responses they have to the interfaces. it is hoped that this research will improve my own design of interactions and interfaces within my working career and will serve as a useful information to other designers in the future, although I fully understand the good and bad decisions in interface design, I am trying to focus on the psychological response to using badly designed interfaces, and how that could effect a persons ability to complete simple tasks within the workplace.

Methodology I have taken the unusual approach of choosing several types of methodology throughout this investigation, I strongly believe that each methodology has its good and bad points for each specific area of research, whilst this may be adequate for a single answer a single methodology does no fit in with the broadness of my main objective, not only am I trying to answer my main question “Do poorly designed and thought out interfaces increase stress for the end user” I am also trying to understand how people react to bad design within interfaces.

I have used protocol analysis for my first experiment, as I show the subjects the two types of interfaces I will ask them to speak aloud their answers. I have chosen this method as it does not give the subject time to think about their answers, perception of an interface can make a big difference to its overall success.

Asking someone to speak aloud their answer removes the process of thinking to deeply about the question, I am certain that if I was to let the subject study the interface then their answer would be different to that of them speaking aloud.

Although the subject is not under investigation it is human nature to make oneself look intelligent in a test situation, removing the option for this will also eliminate any corruption within the results.

For my second experiment I have chosen to introduce a time limit in place of a typical work environment. The experiment will use two forms of methodology the first being protocol analysis where I will ask the user to speak aloud as they are going through the series of screens, this will allow me to capture first hand what the subject is thinking, I have also monitored there blood pressure to see if there is any raised levels whilst using each screen, this will give a definitive and honest answer to the stress levels experienced by the user.

The interface will be my independent variable and the heart rate will be my dependant variable.

Using the blood pressure monitor will allow me to have a factual representation of the users stress level, rather than relying on them to tell me if they are feeling stressed or trying to interpret their body language.

For my third experiment I have used a questionnaire using the Likert scale as my methodology asking the subjects a list of questions based on their everyday use of interfaces, whilst the main downfall of this is the honesty of the subject in question this cannot be overcome so as a researcher I have relied on their answers. Questionnaires also allow for misinterpretation to overcome this I was present throughout the duration of the user filling out the questionnaire.

I have used closed questioning allowing me to keep answered straightforward and this will also allow me to create easy to understand results in the form of pie and bar graphs.

These questions will give me a basis to write a conclusion on peoples mental impressions of everyday interfaces.

Proposed Procedure

Test One Test one will look at the effects of aesthetics within the graphical user interface and how users perceive something is going to be because of the way it looks.

Using guidelines set out by Douglyss Giuliana in his white paper entitled “User interface design explained” I have created a clean crisp interface, for the second interface I took the rules set out my Douglyss Giuliana and did the opposite using colours that dont match and fonts that look ‘ugly’ The interfaces were created using Adobe Photoshop, and whilst they are not functional in the sense of being able to navigate from page to page they full-fill the function they are intended for categorising the users initial response to the interface Test Two Test two will look at the affects of moving components around the screen, as interaction design has grown over the years there are some unwritten rules as to where certain components are places on the screen.

Consistency throughout design can affect colour is also seen as fundamental to the success of a design, as in the table opposite I have used what is seen as a ‘bad’ colour choice on the test interfaces.

I have also included a time limit, the reason behind this decision was to generate a the work environment where deadlines are constant and time precious. I monitored the subjects blood pressure throughout there time on each interface to determine if there body was going through signs of stress Test Three For my final test I will give the subjects a questionnaire to fill out, using closed questioning as to make my answers easier to collate, this has been done using the likert scale so as to minimise the Likert Questionnaire spectrum of answers, I have chosen the questions carefully using several drafts to weed out any problems that may prop up, doing this has allowed me to create a clean questionnaire that does not lead the subject into any answer

other than what they believe.

Results & Analysis Test One Test one showed an overwhelming majority of subjects perceived Screen B to be more usable than Screen A When asked why they chose a certain interface it was a general consensus that interface A seemed unprofessional, cheap and would have software bugs, whereas interface B threw up words such as, informative, well presented, professional and functional.

It is interesting that people were in fact basing the usability factor hand in hand with the professional look, for example in perceived aesthetics, it is thought that if something looks expensive or is expensive then of course it will work better, last longer and be better than something that does not cost as much.

Whilst people may have made the decision that interface B looked more professional and therefore would be more functional I think it would be interesting to see how people would have responded to a price tag on each of the screens, and even branding.

I do believe that the fundamental decision process made by people is based on the first few minutes with a product, this however could be overshadowed if for example interface A cost a considerable amount more than interface B In relation to the question being asked, “Do poorly designed and thought out interfaces increase stress for the end user” this does not seem to be the case when presented with both interface A & B, not one subject used words such as stress, apprehensiveness, fear, nervous, anxiety or worry.

This questions if users ‘actually’ feel a level of apprehension when presented with an interface which they deem to be poor and cheap.

In conclusion it is safe to say that my results show an overwhelming result in favour of perceived usability, and in answer to the question my results show that there is no train of thought relating to stress or anxiety when presented with said interfaces.

Results & Analysis Test Two

Test two looked at the possibility of a link between the poorly designed layouts and heightened blood pressure.

My results showed no significant change in peoples blood pressure whilst using the interfaces, whilst the visual response did in fact show that people were getting stressed by using interface. It seems strange that the blood pressure monitor would not show up any heightened readings. When I consulted medical staff about the experiment I proposed to do I was told that the monitor would in fact pick up slight levels of stress.

It would be hard to clarify and conclude the results from experiment two on the one side I have verbal response from the users in the form of huffs, puffs and sighs, and on the other I have a mechanical device that shows no change in the persons blood pressure.

In conclusion I believe that it would be beneficial to redo the experiment at a later date in the company of a trained medical professional with more precise equipment.

Results & Analysis Test Three Question 1 asked the subjects if they could use a phone straight away 44% agreed with this statement and 44% disagreed with this statement, whilst this may show that just many of the subjects could use a new mobile phone straight away I think its important to point out that 44% of people simply couldn’t. This clearly shows that manufacturers are not doing enough to make there products usable for the general public, something which I discussed in “Are users Stupid” over half of people would consult the manual whilst 66% of people hated asking for help.

With the majority of people not wanting to ask for help I believe this shows that people feel inferior when they do not understand how technology works, not knowing how something works, and feeling like you cant ask people would in fact increase the stress levels that person is feeling.

66% of people like phones to be intuitive whilst not one person disagreed with this statement, but ironically only 22% of people chose there phone based on their in store evaluation whilst 66% chose their phone based on its looks.

When it comes to replacing a phone that they cant use the results were pretty similar at 33% each.

Interestingly even with the high numbers of people agreeing that they find it difficult to work a new phone only 33% agreed that all phones should use the same software whilst 44% disagreed.

Going onto computer software 67% of people agreed that it was difficult to get used to new software and again only 22% thought that all software should look the same, even though this would in fact help them greatly, but more people thought that icons should be universal.

Unlike mobile phones more people would ask for help whilst 44% agreed and 44% disagreed that they understood error messages.

Interestingly 55% of people said they got stressed when applications didn’t perform in the way they had wanted.

In conclusion it can be said that people do indeed feel stress when using applications, this can be see when they return there mobile because they cant get used to the software, although strangely it seems people do not want to have the same software throughout all phones.

My results show that people would rather not use an application if they did not know how to use it, and people declined in asking others for help.

The simple fact that people feel inferior if they have to ask for help would be stressful enough, it seems strange that people can be made to feel stupid by badly designed software.

Conclusion In conclusion I believe that people do in fact suffer from some form of stress when using software that has been designed badly, my results show that even though people do not make the distinction between bad design and usability it does in fact show through. It is important to note however that when people buy products they do not buy them on the basis that it is going to work well, more so on the basis that it will look good, when offered the opportunity to make all interfaces look and feel the same the majority chose style over usability.

This can be seen throughout choices made by people day in and day out, the majority of people go for looks when seeking a potential new partner, it is instilled in them that a conventionally good looking person will be a good and kind hearted person, this however is usually not the case.

From my results it clearly shows that people enjoy the challenge of new software, maybe they feel better about themselves when they solve a niggling problem. This does not mean that as designers, we should not be trying to decrease the stress felt by end users, rather the opposite, whilst people may buy software and phones based on there looks. People will eventually buck the trend and go for something that is more usable, add that to the cost of tech support and you have yourself a failing product, people buy things from the advice of family and friends, if the advice is bad then no matter how good looking the product is, in the end it will fall into obscurity.

Finally in answer to the question Do poorly designed and thought out interfaces increase stress for the end user? I believe this to be true and my results show this throughout.

Image Left: Blood Pressure monitor used to measure the stress caused to the user.

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/