Crayon Physics is an amazing little game that has attracted a lot of attention. It's wonderful fun to play and it can teach us a little bit about interaction design too. Thanks to Aoife Ni Mhorain for pointing this one out.

Experimental game play

Petri Purho is a student at Helsinki polytechnic. He has set himself the task of producing a new game every week - and each one has to test out a different form of experimental gameplay.

With Crayon Physics, Petri appears to have hit on a winning idea. He's had such demand for a more complete version that that he's had to break his own rules and work on a version that will take more than 7 days. There's a very cool video of it here.

Get out your crayons

As you can see in the pictures, Crayon Physics is styled to look like crayon drawing on an old piece of paper. You create new objects by drawing them - sticks, blocks and balls. And the moment you create those objects they gain physical properties. The fall, they topple, they roll, they land on top of each other.

Fun! And the lessons are?

Lesson 1: Good interaction design builds on things we are familiar with

We're familiar with all sorts of objects and rules about the world. A folder holds documents. You can put sheets of paper on top of each other on your desk. And you can throw them away in a trash can. The original Xerox PARC interfaces showed how computing could be made approachable by using on-screen metaphors for everyday objects and actions: folders, windows, trashcans.

Crayon physics is easy to learn because it uses the laws of physics we already know. Things fall, things land on top of each other, heavy things can be used to lever light things.

More recently, Apple has been pioneering some advances in this space by incorporating "physics", now very advanced in the world of 3D games, into its software. The iPhone/iPod interface provides "momentum" - if you're scrolling through a long list, a good flick of the finger will keep the scrolling going for a while until you put on the brakes again with a stationary finger.

Lesson 2: We want cave-man magic

Everything that computers do for us is to some extent magical. We can create beautifully typeset documents, we can communicate instantly over large distances, and we can move mountains of data with minimal effort.

Drawing a crayon picture and having it come to life is magical. Much more magical than word processing. I think that's because the activity that crayon physics is simulating is much closer to our most primitive human ways of thinking. Typing on a qwerty keyboard is quite an unnatural thing for us humans, and its history comes from interacting with heavy, mechanical machines. Drawing with a rough coloured stick is very primitive and very appropriate to the way our cave-man brains evolved. Seeing our basic scribbles transformed into moving objects feels very magical indeed.

The next generation of user interfaces, with multitouch and gestures, are all tapping into this. Using two hands to drag, stretch and pinch gets right back to the fundamental activities out brains evolved to perform. And it feels great.

Lesson 3: Sketch prototyping is a great way to think

I wrote recently about the power of sketch prototypes. And Crayon Physics illustrates the point. Some of the puzzles are hard to solve, especially on some of the add-on levels. But you can try out different ideas with very quick sketches and it really helps you build a solution. Sketching really is a great way to think.

Anyway - enjoy Crayon Physics. And If you get bored of that, the Experimental Game play Project has about 360 other innovative games to try. I think I'll try "Tower of Goo" next...

• Kloonigames: Download Crayon Physics
• Experimental Gameplay project

I'm excited. I've just registered for Designing Interactive Systems 2008, in Cape Town, South Africa.

It's at least partially about interaction design for less developed countries. Here's a key chunk of blurb:

"At DIS 2008 we want to bring together people from different cultures and understand how designs and techniques employed in affluent high-technology environments can be translated to relatively poor environments to be used by people with relatively low literacy levels. Due to the prevalence of cellular handsets throughout the continent, many Africans are now having their first experience of interactive technology. We believe that DIS 2008 will be an important step in understanding how to design interactive systems for these new users."

It's a huge and wicked topic, and I'm looking forward to learning more about it.

For now, here are a few interesting dimensions:

• Emerging economies are big, so designing for them is terribly important. Mobile phone manufacturers have been exploiting the massive growth in emerging markets for at least a couple of years now. In Q3 of 2007 Nokia sold nearly 112 million devices, and reports that sales of handsets in emerging markets have soared. The number of Chinese Internet users was estimated in June 2007 to be 162 million people.
• Some developing economies have developed further than others. Does interaction design really have any relevance to people living on a dollar a day or less? I can't see it. At the base of Maslow's pyramid, people have more pressing concerns. But there are emerging market economies, newly industrialised economies and less developed countries to consider. So its important not to reject ideas that can work well for one group or environment, just because it won't suit others.
• OLPC is a great case study. Is it the biggest, brashest example of ill-informed western ideals meeting "third world" reality? Or will the kid-powered network triumph over geographical, cultural and political constraints and help a new generation to learn by doing? It's interesting to watch.As discussed above, there are some countries where it won't work. Spending money on digital technology makes no sense when you don't have books, a teacher or a reliable source of clean water.
• Opportunities look different in each place. In South Africa, only 8% of people can get online from home. A lot of the population can't afford the high local price of broadband, or the cost of a computer to plug into it. There are a range of interesting results. 3G is more popular, and mobile operators subsidise laptops, as well as handsets. There's also a community that relies strongly on internet cafes for getting online.In Nigeria, where conditions are different again, you can buy a goat and pay by transferring mobile airtime minutes.

So - designing for developing contexts is complicated. Just like any form of design. And the only sound approach is to do contextual research, to make sure really understand the reality of whatever niche you're designing for.

DIS 2008 is at the end of February. I'll blog about what I learn.

You may have noticed that a few people are blogging about Blendie right now - the blender that you growl at to make it go.

If you like the idea then try downloading Racing Pitch - a prototype PC game from Skinflake that works on the same principle. You make an engine noise into your microphone to make your car go. Your pitch determines your speed, and if you ‘accelerate’ too fast, you make your car skid.

It’s only a proof-of-concept but it’s quite fun, and when the novelty of playing it wears off, you can watch your friends making a fool out of themselves. All in the name of interaction design research!

I read a nice factoid on this topic this morning in Eric Schaffer’s Institutionalization of Usability book. It’s a quote from Jared Spool:

In April of 2002, Princeton Survey Research Associates surveyed 1,000 adult Internet users about their concerns with privacy on the Internet. In the survey, only 18% said they never read privacy policies most of the time, or every time they shop.

Yet, in our study of more than 1,000 shopping sessions, where we actually observed what users did while shopping, we noticed that only two users ever checked the privacy policy. And for these two users, it had no effect on their shopping behaviour. This is yet one more case of users doing something different from what they say they do.

To reiterate this point -

What users said they do:
82% of users said they read privacy policies (from survey data)

What they actually did:
0.2% looked at privacy policies (in user tests)

This ‘observational data vs self-report’ argument is a road well trodden (read Jakob’s 2001 alertbox on this topic here, or a great signal vs. Noise post here), but I like this factoid because it sums up the argument so well.

[Note - typos have been removed from the original post. Thanks Jared!]

Booking train tickets online in the UK has always been a fiddly and tiring business. But in a couple of weeks, GNER will launch their new website and booking engine. We think it's the first of a new breed of easy, powerful, flexible travel booking applications. And we're proud to say that Flow designed the user experience.

The project is in a "live pilot" stage now and the feedback from the pilot groups is looking good. Here's a what a few UK railway fans are saying...

It's really quite powerful. It can be a very simple, clear 'cheapest fare available' system by clicking on lowest fare button... I'm quite impressed really.

Personally I think this site is a huge improvement on the The Trainline/ National Rail style sites. It makes it a breeze to find the cheapest fare / service combination. The user interface to me is much cleaner and easier to understand than the National Rail site.

Risky business

GNER saw they could gain competitive advantage by innovating a new kind of booking engine. Customers needed something more powerful, but also easier to use. But with any innovation comes risk: the chance that the market will reject the product or service.

To reduce the risk we to followed a user-centred design (UCD) process. We grounded design decisions in research and evaluation with over 100 target users right the way through the design process. We also worked collaboratively with Atos Origin, GNER and our favourite design agency Splendid, to make sure that user needs were balanced with technical and commercial requirements. Doing things this way gave us the insights we needed to develop break-through ideas. And it also made sure that the solutions we came up with really matched customer needs and business goals.

New ideas

We explored some different conceptual approaches including an interface that reflected the simplicity of the over-the-counter travel centre experience, or one that was more like a vending machine. But ultimately, the approach that worked best was to give the customers the control and freedom to select the tickets and trains themselves. Giving power and flexibility to your customers is a great way to gain their loyalty.

It may look simple, but finding and choosing the right train ticket is a complicated business. We all trade off factors like price, flexibility, arrival time and date every time we do it. We chose to use rich internet application technology (AJAX and DHTML) to make sure that customers got rapid feedback and a chance to experiment with different journey possibilities easily.

A simple benchmark: tickets to York

Throughout the design of the booking engine, we used a simple user experience benchmark to help us chart our progress. We asked people to find the cheapest ticket from London to York.

On the current site, feedback from this task was not very positive. People mostly failed to find the cheapest ticket that suited their requirements, took a long time and felt frustrated by the experience. On the final prototype of the site prior to build it was a different story. Just about everyone could quickly and easily find the cheap tickets, and people were extremely satisfied with the speed and ease of the design.

This kind of feedback gave management and the technical team confidence that the project would deliver a great result - before the code was ever written.

Mostly positive

Launching a new site is always controversial - you can't please everybody all of the time. But we're very satisfied by the feedback we're seeing from the pilot testers. And we're certain that UCD is the only way to deliver a new product to this high a standard on its first release.

As for the site, I really like it! [...] I found the cheap fares with ease using this site.

It doesn't force you to reserve a seat if you pick an open ticket. That alteration alone makes it a vast improvement...

I think the original Trainline matrix (with the single fares add-on) takes some beating, TBH. It [GNER] it's fine for people who will spend time learning it […] but it's too damn complicated for the end user.
-- Neil

I disagree. IMX most people are just after the cheapest fare and clicking on "low fare finder" and just selecting the best time/fare on the grid couldn't be simpler.
-- Philip

If you don’t know much about Personas, or have your doubts about them, read this article and the comments thread over at Signal vs. Noise (the 37signals blog). Here’s an excerpt:

We don’t use personas. We use ourselves. I believe personas lead to a false sense of understanding at the deepest, most critical levels.[…]

I’ve never been a big believer in Personas. They’re artificial, abstract, and fictitious. I don’t think you can build a great product for a person that doesn’t exist.

As you’d expect, there was a bit of a backlash in the comments thread. It makes interesting reading, not because it gives 37signals a bashing, but because it clearly articulates some common misunderstandings of Personas, and explains how they are wrong, e.g.

• Personas are “baseless fictions” (Actually, they are the synthesis of your research findings)
• Personas are a replacement for user-research (Actually, they complement user research)
• Personas don’t get frustrated or express opinions (Ok, they don’t really exist, but they are used to simulate exactly this kind of user feedback to help making design decisions)

> Read the Signal vs. Noise article

It’s great to stumble across books that tap into our current thoughts. The two books introduced here address two of my recent conundrums, respectively how creative thinking can fit into our working lives and how ‘everything is designed’. Neither was written by a designer.

'Orbiting the Giant Hairball' guides us to protect inspirational creativity in corporate environments - chucking out the rulebook seems to be the secret. Gordon Mackenzie describes the unnoticeable, incremental creep of conservatism that reins in freethinkers, creative mavericks and mad genius. He likens the web of rules, regulations and corporate policies to a hairball you can get tangled up in. Gordon instructs us to find ways of avoiding the hairball - orbiting is his metaphorical solution.

This book did a valuable thing - it made me look at how many rules I follow, doing things the way they have always been. This approach can be limiting and demoralising. I vowed to at least try to untangle myself from familiar routine and look for experimental alternatives.

‘Mezzanine' is a microanalysis of everyday objects and situations - revealing the impact of the tinniest design decisions. Nicholson Baker describes, in fine detail, his observations of familiar and everyday objects and our interactions with them. He draws conclusion as to why they are the way they are. Drinking straws, shoelaces, paper towel dispensers are discussed from a engineering, social and psychological perspective. His style is akin to a design analysis and this is why it is interesting. Reading his book is like listening to an overly analytical talk-out-loud user session. He draws attention to the tiniest of details and explores there meaning.

Some everyday human behaviour is given the same scrutiny. He dissects small talk and considers the strategic motivations behind it - with cringingly familiar conclusions.

By focusing in the small details he draws attention the bigger decisions that influence their creation. I appreciate his analysis, it supports my desire to celebrate the ubiquity of our great industry.

On the 12th November, the One Laptop Per Child initiative will begin a limited "give one get one" programme. For $399, people in the USA can buy an XO1 laptop for themselves, and at the same time have one donated for use in a developing country.

This seems to be because OLPC isn't going to sell nearly as many units as expected to governments of developing countries. There was lots of nodding and smiling when Nicholas Negroponte talked to the world's education ministers and heads of state, but not much signing on the dotted line.

A good while back the Indian Ministry Of Human Resource Development rejected the XO1 as "pedagogically suspect." China also rejected it. For both countries, reasons are more likely to be political than pedagogical - but whatever the reasons, they are big markets to lose.

The Libyan government's promised order is not materialising.

"I have to some degree underestimated the difference between shaking the hand of a head of state and having a check written," said Nicholas Negroponte, chairman of the nonprofit project. "And, yes, it has been a disappointment."

Competitive pressure

The competition aren't hanging around.

Intel's Classmate is making headway, and the pricepoint is not far from that of OLPC. Intel doesn't want to see the global educational computing market dominated by the OLPC's AMD chips. There are allegations of Nigeria switching allegiance to Intel after some shady dealings.

Microsoft have similar concerns to Intel. They're working on a version of windows that will install on the XO hardware.

Not that there is much XO hardware yet. Manufacturing has got off to a slow start. There are not going to be enough machines to satisfy Paraguay's order by Christmas. (Paraguay loves OLPC - and they are putting their money where mouth is).

OLPC supporters called for a change of sales tactics and a new initiative to "get them out in the market." The belief is that the XO1 laptops will prove themselves once people can see them in action. Hence the "Give 1 Get 1" idea.

I still love this project

I'm a big fan of this project - even though everyone tells me I'm an idealistic fool.

I personally want and XO1. I'm pondering whether to ask my friend in the states to get me one. Why?

• They are wonderful objects, well designed by committed, talented people
• They represent a vision for kid-powered education that transcends politics, propaganda, race, class, poverty and geography. There's power in networks that delivers unexpected, astonishing results. Look at Google, Facebook or the blogsphere. I want to see that happen again. (I think I may be a constructivist).
• In spite of all the controversy no one is saying that the user experience of the machine itself is anything other than wonderful.

A report from research in India...

"Even when English and Marathi are so different, even when the keyboard is in English, even when the interface is in English, even when we don't speak each other's language, and even when they are so new to computers, the XO is so user-friendly that I can manage to get across to them, to show them how to do something with it. And in little time, and having lots of fun, the children of a completely different language are doing this or that on their XOs."

A headmistress in Nigeria...

"You know education is not static. Education changes, and as it changes the world it self changes. The way I passed through education is not to compare with nowadays education. Also children themselves today are more curious than before."

Harsh realities

Well, the debate rages on. And I mean rages!

It looks like a very rocky road ahead for the XO1. All the designers I know in Africa say the XO1 doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Life out here is just too tough, they say.

A sobering example: XO1s can run on Solar power. But the networks that support them can't. They need generators.

"From the Nigeria Chapter of the Club of Rome, we learn that the generator has to be stored in the principal's office to prevent theft, requires costly gasoline, and servicing that can take days. Worst of all, the generator broke down, burning out the UPS for the Internet, and its still insufficient for all the power needs of the school."

Ah well. A man can dream, can't he?