We’re very proud to announce that the Ergonomics Society has awarded User Experience Consultant Frankie Pagnacco their Ulf Aberg Award for her Masters project. Frankie completed the project on sensemaking in the control of Rapid Urban Transit systems in 2008, as part of her MSc in Human-Computer Interaction with Ergonomics, at University College London's Interaction Centre.

The dissertation looked at how control room staff at London Underground’s Victoria Line made sense of the information they received about on-the-ground events through cues from their equipment and from each other. Using field observations, the study uncovered the situations that gave rise to sensemaking, the strategies adopted to ease and speed up sensemaking and the bottlenecks in information-seeking.

The Ulf Aberg award, given annually, recognises outstanding Masters projects in Ergonomics. Projects are assessed on the quality of the research, expertise, originality, clarity and interpretation of results.

Ulf Aberg, after whom the award is named, began his career in 1961 and spent over a decade working with Ericsson and later with the National Defence Research Institute. Aberg co-authored the first Swedish textbook on ergonomics and was the first foreign member of the Ergonomics Society and the founding chairman of the Nordic Ergonomics Society.

Congratulations to Frankie!

This may sound controversial but I admit it, I don’t love my iPhone. I realise I could get into trouble for admitting this publicly but I’m prepared to accept that, to get these thoughts off my chest. I was considering going to a self-help group, especially as I am surrounded by lovers of the phone, but instead I am sharing my thoughts on our blog. And I do expect arguments to the contrary.

There are a number of reasons I don’t love my phone (and a few reasons it’s not so bad):

1) I can’t walk down the street writing a text message

Ok, I like writing text messages and I like to send a quick message every now and again. I am also female and I like to multitask. With my old phone (Nokia N95) I used to be able to walk down the street, not looking at my phone and feel the buttons and know what I was pressing and write a message. With my nice smooth-screened iphone I have no clue where the buttons are and lampposts keep jumping out at me so the quality of the experience and my efficiency has decreased.

2) It feels like I’m putting unnecessary stress and strain on my thumbs while I try to hover to write text

Maybe it’s just me (as a 2 thumbed writer of text) but when I type any text into the iphone I find that my thumbs are kind of hovering over the keypad and I take more strain on them. If I’ve been taking lots of notes or writing longer messages I feel my thumbs starting to get tired. I can’t seem to find a nice resting point on the phone without activating a key.

3) I feel like I have to be a robot and hold the phone just at the right angle or it keeps switching between the different views

Now I don’t tend to hold my phone particularly straight when I’m using it, but as a traditional girl I prefer my phone to be upright (in portrait view) rather than sideways (landscape). However, on my iPhone, if I’m just casually looking it, reading something perhaps, then the screen has a tendency to just switch without asking to landscape view. All I do is casually hold it at a comfortable angle in my hand. Now, if I was a robot, then everything would be at neat 90 and 180 degree angles, and I wouldn’t have this problem. But I’m not a robot. (Someone told me how to get it back to portrait, but it doesn’t seem to work all the time).

4) I have to keep the phone switched on for my alarm clock to go off in the morning

I’m the type of person who likes to go to sleep with their phone switched off and charging overnight. Now, I know that the iPhone isn’t capable of this, although I have no idea why. However, back to my alarm - if I switch my phone off it doesn’t wake up automatically and switch itself on and then wake me up. Very rude if you ask me. So now, if I’m to use my alarm I am forced to keep the phone switched on. I know silent exists, so I shouldn’t be disturbed in the middle of the night by incoming calls or texts, but if the phone is there, and I wake up in the middle of the night I might sneak a quick peek to see if I’ve received a text overnight, so, I prefer to have it switched off. And I don’t want to lose precious battery life if my phone doesn’t need to be charged. I also liked the way my old phone would tell me how many hours I had to sleep, something my iPhone doesn’t do either.

5) It takes longer to send text messages

One of my ex Flow colleagues Martin once did a study looking at how fast people could send text messages on different devices. There was a difference between the speed that they perceived they were typing the message and the speed that they actually did type the text message. I haven’t measured myself, so maybe it’s true for me too (although I think not if you know me and have seen me text).

T9 was great. Nice and easy if you’d learnt it, with an option to scroll through the words that might come up as possible combinations. Worked fine. Now I have a qwerty keypad and no choice to revert to the old numeric keypad T9 that I love. I was hunting around for the option to switch this on on my iPhone but there doesn’t seem to be one – of course I didn’t get a manual (as it relies on me being motivated to go and seek one online) so I haven’t been able to check that. Now, I can touch type on a large keypad so I’m pretty aware of where the buttons are on a keypad but having to use them with my thumbs causes no end of problems. I’ve got quite large fingers and thumbs for a girl, but still I’m constantly pressing the wrong key, switching to capitals when I didn’t want to, trying to work out how to not accept the word suggestion it offers baffles me. Though I do like the way that the recommended words account for the fact you probably pressed the wrong keys.

6) I don’t know how many text messages I’m sending

Now, for those of you who aren’t aware, not all phone tariffs have unlimited texts. Therefore there is a big difference in price between a text that is 160 characters long and one that is 161 characters long. My iPhone seems to disregard this, and doesn’t tell me how many characters I’m using. Is the assumption that we all have bottomless pockets or that the number of text messages flying across the world should increase? A simple indication of the number of texts I’m creating would be a real bonus.

7) The battery life is bad – I refuse to keep it connected to an energy source all day

Ok, if you don’t use the phone then it’s fine. But as it is, there to be lots of other things on the iPhone aside from the phone – and it’s designed for these to be used better than the simple phone functions (as far as I can tell). It seems a real shame that there isn’t a low energy mode that will conserve power, or I can’t switch the thing off while I’m powering up overnight.

Things I love about it

1) It’s nice to have all texts viewed as a conversation

This is a really nice touch. I’d like to have the ability to order the text conversations alphabetically by person though, so I can easily find a previous one with a certain person, but then I’d have to be able to short link to a letter in the alphabet but as there isn’t a keypad, I can’t seem to do this – hmm…

2) It’s  nice to be able to view my voicemails and play them back

A while back at Flow we were designing a new voicemail system, and people we spoke to said they found great value in voicemails from loved ones, children who lived far from home and relatives who’d passed away, so the idea that the messages live on your phone and you can replay when you like – even on the tube – is a great one.

I’m sure there are more things that I love, but if I was to include 7 here that would seem unfair to my rant.

This is the second in a series of posts about UX Camp London. The first one can be found here.

Back to the Roots: If email is the past, is Google Wave the future?

Ex-Flowster Johanna Kollmann, now doing great things at Vodafone, shared her experience of using Google Wave with a tightly-packed audience. Her main argument was that Wave is a great advance on email, offering us something much closer to natural, oral communication, but with the advantage that it can be stored and traced.

Now, there’s a discussion to be had about what constitutes “natural” communication, and whether what we consider to be natural is just the result of using technologies that we are more used to. But we didn’t manage to have that discussion on the day.

Instead, Johanna gave a demo of Wave, and then took some questions. Though much of the discussion focused on the details of the interaction design (which still seems to have a few kinks to iron out), several people said that they didn't “get” Wave. The problem seems to be that by combining the most useful features of email, instant messaging and virtual conferencing tools, Google may have created a product that, for all its advantages, confuses some people by not being immediately recognisable as one thing or another.

Ground-breaking new products can be baffling at first to people whose expectations are formed by older paradigms, but when we use them they begin to make sense, and we gradually accept them and change our behaviour accordingly (think Twitter, or for those with longer memories, the mobile phone). But on the other hand, some new products are insufficiently well-defined at the proposition level (that is, nobody can quite define what they are for), and our research shows that this inevitably has a direct negative impact on the experience of using them.

It remains to be seen which of these two possibilities applies to Google’s Wave, but I’m impatient to see which one it is.

Johanna’s Slides are on her blog, here.

London’s first UX Camp, a BarCamp-inspired unconference for the User Experience community, happened on August 22 at Gumtree’s offices in Richmond. Over the next few days I’ll be posting my rather belated reactions to some of the best sessions.

X-Ray Listening

Judy Rees, co-author of Clean Language showed us how she teaches people to listen better, using techniques developed in Cognitive Linguistics and Psychotherapy.

I won’t attempt to explain Judy’s method in detail here, as I’m not sure I can do it justice (and, ahem, because my notes aren’t that detailed), but in a nutshell it is a way of combining template questions with the respondent’s own words, to produce endlessly adaptable, open questions. So for example, a template question might be “Is there anything else about...”, onto which the questioner adds a key word or phrase used by the respondent themselves.

After a brief introduction Judy took the group through an exercise. We broke up into pairs, identified some relevant topics for investigation, and took turns at asking questions and listening to each other’s answers. First we did this spontaneously, using our own choice of words, but the second time we used Judy’s Clean Language technique to frame our questions.

The results were striking: everyone said that they felt more comfortable and more ‘listened-to’ when answering the ‘clean’ questions, compared to the spontaneous ones. On the other side, the questioners said that the ‘clean language’ made it easier to formulate the questions on the fly, and elicited more detailed, more honest answers.

At Flow, we spend a lot of time talking to people, trying to ask the right questions, and trying to listen. Most of us find that scripts are too rigid, so we use semi-structured discussion guides to keep us on the right topic, but we formulate or questions spontaneously, using a variety of ad-hoc rules and best practices to get the best results. We are always looking for the best ways to make people feel comfortable, while still getting the freshest and most honest nuggets of information from them.

This brief introduction to Clean Language showed that it is a potentially useful technique for improving both the quality of interview data and the efficiency of the interview process, all the while making respondents feel more at ease. A win-win-win scenario, if I’m not mistaken. I look forward to finding out more about this, and trying the techniques out in a real interview. I’ll let you know how it goes.

The next article in the series is here.

There is a school of thought within usability that asserts that during
facilitation, moderators should not speak to the participant as this interaction affects behaviour, and so invalidates the research.

It’s similar to the idea in ethnography that the very presence of an observer will lead to modifications and unnatural behaviour.

There is also the idea that people may not have conscious access to the real reason for their behaviour. In trying to explain their actions to the moderator they will introspect and provide an answer that they feel is rational, but is effectively made up.

Malcolm Gladwell sums this up something like this (I’m paraphrasing here): Basically—we feel about a thing, then act.

And then, the moderator asks us why.

Faced with this question, we try to think up a plausible, rational-sounding explanation for our actions. And then—here’s the thing—we alter our future behaviour to match that rationalised thinking.

Wilson and Schooler investigated this phenomenon in depth, concluding: “We come up with a plausible-sounding reason for why we might like or dislike something, and then we adjust our true preference to be in line with that plausible-sounding reason.”

So if we had never been asked why we did something, we might continue doing things differently.

However, without entering into conversation with a participant we can only say what happened; and with no insight as to ‘why’ we can’t make decisions and can’t improve.

The problem then is that we need to know ‘why’ but can’t ask ‘why’.

Here’s a few methods that we use at Flow:

Sometimes more open interviewing will tell you what you need. If you need to know why a participant clicked on that link (or didn’t), questions such as “Tell me about the kinds of things you have looked for in the past on a site like this?” can tell you about the keywords or visual elements that a participant is searching for.

“What are you interested in finding out at the moment on a site like this?” can tell you what it is they haven’t found yet.

Ann Light continues in this vein: “An undesirable, but common, way of interrupting evocation [the flow of recall, in this instance] is to invite the interviewee into a judgemental mode. To avoid this, there is no use of questions starting ‘Why... ?’ Instead, carefully manipulated ‘How... ?’ and ‘What... ?’ questions cover the same ground: ‘How did you know that X?’ ‘What were you thinking at the moment when X?’ This does not interrupt the recounting process. So ‘tell me how it was that you came to be looking for this site that day’ does the work of ‘why were you looking... ?’”

Of course together with the different ways of asking why, the facilitator needs also to combine high degrees of empathy and observation. Interpreting what the participant does and says, and ultimately understanding those things will enable us to make better decisions about what to do next.

References

Wilson and Schooler (1991) Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (2), pp181-192
Light, A (2006) Adding Method to Meaning: a technique for exploring
peoples’ experience with digital products, Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2), pp175-187

Last week, visiting consultant Nick Bowmast and Flow’s Karl Sabino reported back to us about a new tool they've been using, called Treejack. This is Nick’s account of what they found out:

If you want to find out how well your website navigation structure works for your customers, Treejack is a great tool for the job.

On the other hand, if you want to know why certain parts performed poorly, and what to do about it, you’ll need to get inside the head of your customer. The tools for this are your eyes and ears.

Treejack was developed in New Zealand by Optimal Workshop so has been built with a user-centered approach in mind.

It’s a tool to test the navigation structure of your website. Treejack will pinpoint the most difficult areas or items to find, based on click-trails as survey participants navigate through a prototype of your website’s structure. (the prototype is a simple “tree” of text links generated from a spreadsheet you paste in‚ it couldn’t be easier)

Treejack is a great tool, saving time and headspace, but it is no silver bullet.

You’ll get summarised and detailed outputs showing where each participant went, how directly and quickly they found set items during the survey. But it won’t tell you how much sense it made to them, or why the tricky areas were confusing.

To design a website that’s intuitive to navigate it’s essential to understand how your customers will interact with it. There is simply no substitute for observation when it comes to gathering these insights.

Teaming Treejack up with qualitative one-on-one research makes a killer double-act bringing you the best of both worlds.

Some tips for integrating Treejack into user research sessions:

• Run a warm up exercise on a generic “tree”. Clicking through a bare-bones navigation is quite abstract so this helps participants get used to the interaction style.
• Encourage participants to “think aloud” while using the prototype. When you notice them pause, they’ll be thinking. Having them vocalise their experience is the closest you’ll get to knowing what’s behind their thoughts and any indecision.
• Save your questions till after each task. Interrupting the participant mid-flow can make them change their behaviour, skewing the Treejack report. Let them click through naturally then discuss it afterwards. You’ll need to rely on your note taking here.
• Have a duplicate Treejack survey open in another tab. This way you can ask participants to re-trace their steps without affecting the Treejack results.
• Ask the participants to “rate” each task for how much sense it made to them. Treejack shows where and how they found an item, but doesn’t tell you whether this made sense to them.
• More participants, fewer tasks. As people develop a familiarity with the “tree” they will start memorising where things are, making your findings less useful.
• Use your eyes. The old adage, “it’s what they do, not what they say” is as relevant as ever here.

I’d be interested to hear about anyone else’s experiences. Go check it out at www.optimalworkshop.com/treejack.htm

(an earlier version of this article was published on http://www.userexperience.co.nz/)

Ethnographic research involves the study of people and groups as they go about their everyday lives.  The ethnographer participates in daily routines within the context of the research setting, observes what is going on and systematically records his or her experiences and thoughts. Participation based on social and physical proximity is key to this process.

Flow frequently uses ethnographic research methods to gain a deep understanding of the social and working lives of people who use different products and services in different contexts. The findings provide richer insights into service and product design requirements and opportunities for innovation, particularly when designing for global and multi-cultural audiences.

One of the key questions around ethnographic research is how its findings are transformed into design. One example of such a process was presented at a recent UX Brighton: ‘A Journey from Ethnography to Design’. The event included two speakers: Simon Johnson, User Experience Consultant at Flow and Miles Rochford from Nokia. Simon spoke about the ethnographic research and subsequent design that he completed for the Environment Agency. Miles’ presentation focused on using ethnography to design products for emerging markets.

The Environment Agency commissioned Flow to conduct contextual research and subsequently design an interactive map that will provide users with coastal erosion information – a national project that will affect 2.1 million houses on the coast. The key objectives were to establish what an erosion map should look like, how it should work and what sort of information should accompany the map.

Claire Mitchell, Flow’s Principal Consultant on the project and Simon started the project with a research phase that included ethnographic field observations in two coastal settings: Norfolk and Hastings. Simon spent two weeks documenting the lives of coastal communities, interviewing local people and immersing himself in their lives. Additionally, Simon interviewed eight professionals at Flow’s experience labs in London.

Ethnography enabled Simon to apply his empathy and humanistic values to drive the project. It was clear that his findings provided the Environment Agency with a rich understanding of the concerns, information needs and myths that people who live in rural coastal communities might have. Simon described how his research findings confirmed some of EA's current thinking, provided new insights and defined the subsequent design process and deliverables.

The research that Claire and Simon conducted described how emotive the coastline is, an institution in British history that invokes strong feelings and forms a strong part of a shared heritage. The implications were the need for the Environment Agency to communicate that it cares and to reassure people that action was being taken to protect the coast. It was also clear that people trust locals and distrust central government, erosion maps caused alarm and that a certain amount of local knowledge derived from  ignorance and/or myth. An example of a myth was the commonly repeated argument that the government was making money dredging ‘their’ sand.

The design approach focused on a simple website that addresses the needs of both professionals and locals. Claire and Simon decided that the design should answer core questions and myths, stick to plain English, use local materials and represent risks  without alarming local people.

Is it Ethnography?
After the presentation the audience participated in a lively debate, which had a particular focus on the true meaning of ethnography. For some designers ethnography was a new concept and their reactions during the Q&A sessions and after the presentations indicated that they found both Simon and Miles’ presentations truly thought provoking. Some felt that rapid ethnography with a specific structure and design agenda was different from “ethnography” and needed a new term associated to it.

Theoretical research has two main aims – the validation of existing knowledge and the acquisition of new knowledge. Flow uses research to acquire and validate specific knowledge, the context in which services and products are used.  Flow uses principles and techniques taken from social sciences such as sociology, anthropology and psychology to inform design decisions. Our main aim is to design solutions that work outside of design studios, laboratories and meeting rooms. As a result, we often use appropriate research techniques to focus on specifically targeted contexts and activities. A term that is often used to describe this work is Design Ethnography.

Simon's presentation

_____________
Many thanks to Danny Hope and former Flow Consultant Harry Brignull for organising the event.

--Ofer Deshe

The principle of Occam's Razor offers interaction designers three ways to keep complexity under control.

Occam's razor has been really useful to me on several projects recently. It's nothing new. Occam was around in the 14th Century. And it wasn't even his idea: it might well have been Aristotle's. Perhaps that long history proves that it's a great tool to have in your arsenal when designing user experiences.

The basic idea is something like:

"If you have two equivalent theories or explanations for observed facts, all other things being equal, use the simpler one."

The user-centred design version might be:

"If you have two interfaces that both address user needs, go with the simpler one."

But there are three different ways the idea gets expressed, and each form has something to offer interaction designers.

First blade: Choose simple solutions

"Two interfaces - choose the simpler one." A no-brainer, right? Simple designs are easier to implement and maintain, and quicker for everyone to learn and use. But choosing a simple design when you see it is actually surprisingly hard. Organisations with lots of people, objectives and agendas will generate complexity faster than you can say "knife" (or indeed "razor").

• Some stakeholders can be left feeling short-changed by simple designs that do what customers and users really want. One cry that's very familiar to website designers is "but I want my product/service/department promoted on the homepage too". And that leads to tragedy.
• Other stakeholders will obsess about edge-cases - things that logically can happen, but very rarely will. Catering for all of these ties your design up in knots.
• And some people seem to gain a sense of importance from fiddling with a good design - turning it, step by step, into a disastrous mess. This video about the design of the stop sign says it beautifully.

All these kinds of events will conspire to push an unwary interaction designer off course. Remembering Occam's razor, and quoting it to your clients, team and stakeholders, can help to keep you focussed and change other people's points of view.

Second blade: Keep merging features

Another common phrasing of Occam's razor is:

"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity."

In interaction design terms I like to phrase it as:

"Whenever you see two things that seem to do something similar, see if you can turn them into just one thing."

"We've got the 'picker' over here, for choosing widgets from a long list in alphabetical order. And the 'chooser' which sits over there for choosing widgets from a categorised short list. Then there's the 'finder' up here which is for finding widgets which might be in either list. And the 'selector' over there which pops open when you need to select a widget from the full database."

You get the idea. If you find yourself having conversations like that you should take a breath, and realise that you've multiplied your entities beyond necessity. Chances are you need one tool for selecting widgets, not four.

For example, Google has taken the merge blade to their Chrome web browser. They've merged the search box and the URL box into one. Those are two very different boxes. But from most people's point of view having one box where you type in what you want is great. No tricky decisions to make.

So as you go along, be on the lookout for ways to merge multiple separate components in your design into one. You'll end up with a design containing a few flexible items, instead of many small, inflexible ones. Typically that means less to learn, and a more elegant user experience.

Third blade: Don't oversimplify

Knowing when something is simple enough can be tricky. Trying to oversimplify something that is inherently complex can be a waste of time. How do you know when to stop?

Einstein's phrasing of the rule helps us here:

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

The UCD version is, perhaps:

"Understand what people really need to do and make sure that your simplest design really does all those things."

That's why UCD stresses that you need to go out and observe your target users in action. It's the only way to find out what they really need.

A single button mouse is a great example. Apple hung onto the idea for years, and with good reason. It really is way easier to learn than a two button mouse. Watch a young child using a two-button mouse and see how many errors they make by pressing the right button intead of the left. But in the end, the multibutton mouse has won. Why? For the applications people were running in the early nineties, one button was often sufficient. But people's needs and expectations have grown, and now a single button mouse can't provide convenient access to the wide range of features people expect, and know how to use. A two button mouse, plus scroll wheel, lets people do more of the things that they really want to do, more quickly.

But this does beg a question, though. With a complex piece of software like MS Word 2007, people want to do hundreds of different things. How can you ever make something like that simple?

Alan Kay to the rescue:

"Make simple things easy and difficult things possible."

In other words make sure that you prioritise your design. Put the most commonly used features within easy reach and tuck away the more specialised and advanced ones.

The deadline sharpens the blades

It's easy to get tangled up. What MUST users have? What would they like a lot? What do we think they should want? Can we just squeeze this element in? What would happen if they tried to do that other thing? Luckily, Occam's razor suddenly gains power when you are faced with looming deadlines and limited resources. Those force you to really use the razor and they have the power to silence the most tangled corporate debates.

And when you're forced to use it, something amazing happens. All the "what about if" cases drop away, leaving you with the "all users will want to" cases. And following close behind that you typically find a clean, simple interface. Simple because it doesn't have to solve all the world's problems, just a manageable and intelligible subset.

So:

• Quote Occam's razor to help you fight for simple interfaces when you see them
• Look for interface elements which you can merge into a single element
• Understand what target users are really trying to do, so that you know exactly how complex things have to be
• Prioritise features so that the most popular are visible and the advanced ones are tucked away
• Use the power of the deadline to force yourself or your team to stop adding complexity and start fighting your way towards simplicty.

And remember Antoine de Saint-Exupery, author of "The Little Prince":

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

The original iPod Shuffle had a clear proposition; a cheap, simple, and minimalist music player. Technically the first iPod to use flash memory and physically the smallest, it lacked any display, scroll wheel or playlist management features. The constant need to control, skip, manage, and navigate was replaced with a simpler and more relaxed lack of control. Instead, the device simply shuffled music at random or played tracks in order. The front of the device had a simple interface:

• Play/Pause
• Next Song/Fast Forward
• Previous Song/Fast Reverse
• Volume adjustment

On the back was a three-position switch to play music in order, or shuffled or to turn off the unit.

The second generation was just as simple as the first, but had more storage and less than half the size.

On 11 March, 2009 Apple released the third-generation Shuffle.

One of the key design decisions was to simply not have any buttons, apart from a button that switches between 'Off', 'Random' and 'Order'. All controls are now part of the earphones.

According to Apple:

The new iPod shuffle is amazingly small and even easier to use.

But is it easy to use?

Soon after the launch, forums, social media networks and blogs started to criticise the new Shuffle. Whilst some disliked being dependent on using Apple's earphones, others criticised the new interface. Physically, the control could be difficult to grab during sporting activities or for those with bigger hands, but more importantly, most of the functions are controlled via a central button that has no labels.

The lack of visual display raises a design challenge. Unfortunately, touch is a less accurate sensory mode than vision and typically slows users down. Apple could have designed an interface with elements that could have been recognised through tactile attributes such as feedback, resistance, size, weight, and/or texture. The father and grandfather of the current Shuffle are good examples of such a control. However, the solution was to include VoiceOver technology, a feature that speaks 14 languages and plays back track and playlist names. Although a minor issue, VoiceOver struggles with pronunciation. Perhaps in the future, additional language information will be included with each track.

One button, nine commands

Apple was once famous for the one-button mouse. Although historically some suggest that this decision was based on cost, it was often argued that one button is all you needed. The one button became a symbol of simplicity. In contrast, the new iPod Shuffle has a central button that accepts many user commands. In fact, this 'one button' handles 9 inputs:

1. click
2. click & hold
3. double-click & hold
4. triple-click & hold
5. triple-click and hold within 6 seconds
6. triple-click and hold after 6 seconds
7. click until a tone is played
8. click until you hear a name
9. click & hold until exit

There is no direct cognitive mapping between users' goals and the required actions. For example, why does 'double-click and hold' fast-forward a track, but 'triple-click' rewind? Moving to the next track is achieved by double-clicking. So how do you expect to move to the previous track? Did someone at the back just say "triple-click within 6 seconds of the track starting"? Correct.

 Poor learnability?

Ultimately, if the device is used frequently, many users will move from being novices to experts. However, if learnability is poor, some users will remain perpetually intermediate and potentially frustrated.

Learnability is inherent in interface features that allow novice users to understand how to use a device and how to attain optimal (level of) performance. Learnability is based on five main factors:

• Predictability: operation visibility - what elements of a user's knowledge from past interactions with this device can help to determine the outcomes of future interactions?
• Familiarity: guessability - to what extent can users' knowledge from other systems and real world objects could be applied to interactions with the device?
• Synthesisability: how does the interface help a user to asses the effect of past actions on the current state?
• Consistency: likeness in behaviour. In this context consistency is related to user inputs and the subsequent output responses.
• Generalisability: support for the user to extend their knowledge to other applications and devices.

In the case of the Shuffle, lack of visual display could slow down skills acquisition. The design is not based on familiar metaphors, and poor learnability may increase cognitive load. Many users will not be familiar with the Shuffle's interface, apart from iPhone users who use a similar earphone-based controller.

As a robust device consistency between actions and auditory feedback that arises as a consequence will be high and usage is likely to be frequent. Therefore, for many users learnability will eventually take place. It is possible that Apple plans to extend this interaction model to other devices. For those who mastered this control acquiring this skill will become generalisable and useful.

Does it matter?

So it might be difficult to learn. Arguably, it has beautiful industrial design, long battery life and impressive storage capacity. Apple could sell many of these fashion accessories to users who would simply click to play whilst sitting on the train, running, or going to the gym.

The best way to gain an in-depth insight would be to test the Shuffle with users. In the next few weeks we are planning to evaluate the Shuffle in one of Flow's experience laboratories and analyse its performance and user experience.

- Ofer Deshe, Principal User Experience Consultant

Thanks to Thibault Baradat-Bujoli for the original illustrations

On Thursday evening, 19th February 2009, I was privileged to be at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London for the HSBC Rail Business Awards to co-receive the Information Technology Excellence of the Year Award for the new National Express East Coast (NXEC) booking engine and website.

As any of you reading this who have used the NXEC booking engine know, it dramatically simplifies the process of finding and buying rail tickets online...not just on NXEC routes, but for any train in the UK.  We have blogged before about the intuitive user interface and its cutting edge use of AJAX technology as well as the positive customer feedback and improved business results for NXEC before.

We (and NXEC) have also received lots of accolades from customers and the industry about how great the new booking engine is.  So it fills us with a great sense of pride and accomplishment to receive this well-deserved acknowledgement from the Rail Industry for all the creativity and teamwork that went into making it happen.

It has been a long road, but the hard work and effort has paid off, not just because we won this award, but because we succeeded in creating a first-of-its-kind, innovative and successful new booking engine for trains that will set the standard for all that follow, in terms of business performance, ease of use and customer satisfaction. It is also a clear demonstration of how User-Centred Design makes a tangible difference to customers and business.

I just want to take a moment to thank the entire NXEC team from Flow:  Simon Hatch, Alejandra Obregon, Martina Schell and Kelsey Smith; our partners at Splendid: Paul Bishop, Simon Parbutt, Alistair Thomson and Karl Wortmann; the team at Atos Origin who built it:  Graham Bodman, Richard Phillpot, Ian Collier, Eleanor Waldron and Chris Rees; and the team at Tullo Marshall Warren (TMW) for bringing the marketing website together.

But perhaps most importantly, I want to thank Emma Passey and the entire NXEC team for their vision, passion and perseverance.  We couldn't have done it without you!

Congratulations to everyone. A well deserved award!

- Ian Worley, Director of User Experience at Flow Interactive

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download Case Studies about this project:

• National Express East Coast Booking Engine Case Study (78k .pdf)
• National Express East Coast Website Case Study (92k .pdf)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------