Thu 4 Oct 2007
How Far Should Usability Extend Beyond The Thing Itself?
Posted by nerdmeyr under Beobachtungen
[2] Comments
In an article about iPods by Rob Walker in The New York Times Magazine back in 2003, Steve Jobs stated:
Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like…That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.
–”The Guts of a New Machine“
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about interfaces and design and usability of the world. I just read an article in Wired about Getting Things Done, and as I was bicycling into campus thinking about it and how GTD attracts people who want to design their lives so they can better work their stuff, I had an experience thats been happening more and more often. I’ll be coming up behind a pedestrian on campus, purposefully stop pedalling so the freewheel clicks, and then, if they still don’t seem to hear me coming up, say, “Passing on your left…”, only to have the person show no indication whatsoever that they know I’m there. At this point, I’ll usually slow to a crawl or stop, and say the same thing again louder. And 100% of the time, the person will finally be startled, turn around, and take their iPod earbuds out. Its impossible to tell when people are iTuned out from behind (or the front sometimes), so I don’t know they’ve disabled themselves. Nor do passing cars, other pedestrians, or public safety officers. To me, somehow, this is poor design. To make a product which is meant for use while perambulating, and yet to render the user unable to interface with the environment they’re perambulating through. (Although clearly its within the control of the user, and much of the popularity of the iPod is the ability to push away the outside world, without the outside world really having any say whatsoever).
It also, nerdily enough, relates to object-oriented programming. In OOP, an object’s interaction with the outside world is defined through its behaviors – can this object jump, talk, or drink lattes? And, of course, objects which inherit from the People blueprint have different behaviors than objects which inherit from the Squirrel blueprint. There are things in OOP called “interfaces”, which is basically a formalized contract between a specific object and the outside world about the types of behaviors the object can be expected to provide, based on the blueprint(s) from which it descends.
In the outside world, humans are expected to be able to recognize other humans, and regard them as legitimate entities to share physical space with (at least according to my Western, post-Enlightenment way of thinking). Basic, yet often muddied by the complicated nature of humans and our environments – think of all the crazy messed-up interactive behaviors that happen between roommates, in public bathrooms, or at a Klan rally. And as if these things weren’t complicating enough, we seem to increasingly add cyborg-like attachments to ourselves that subtly alter our public interfaces – our contract about how we can be expected to behave in the outside world – without really publicly declaring that we’re doing so.
PS. All of the above should definitely not be construed to indicate that I think differently-abled folks (blind, deaf, etc. etc.) are somehow reneging on a social contract just because its not immediately obvious that they’re interacting with the world in ways different from me. My beef is with the self-absorbed people of the world.


