Are you an inmate?

I recently read The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, a book by Alan Cooper. The book describes some problems with the current designers and the design process. Cooper states that engineers and programmers do not think the same way as normal people do. In fact he even classifies them as a separate species, Homo-Logicus. Homo-Logicus tend to complicate things too much for the common Homo-sapiens. Therefore, you do not want a Homo-Logicus designing your user interface. The interface should be designed without regard to the code that will be used in the background. When designing, you should design for a persona. Decide on the persona in the beginning and keep it in mind the entire time. Cooper states that if anyone is willing to actually take the time to properly design an interface, then they can do quite well.
How many times have you changed your initial interface design after thinking about how hard it would be to code?

Do we need new ethnographic methods?

I recently read “Ethnography Considered Harmful”, a CHI ’09 paper by Andy Crabtree, Tom Rodden, Peter Tolmie, and Graham Button. The paper describes a common misconception that changes in technology and implementation require a new method of ethnographic research. It is stated that although many of the previous ethnographies were conducted in the workplace, the methods used in those ethnographies applies to a much broader range than is believed by most. The ethnographic methods previously used are applicable to action and interaction regardless of where or when it may occur.

Fitts's Law

I recently read “THE INFORMATION CAPACITY OF THE HUMAN MOTOR SYSTEM IN CONTROLLING THE AMPLITUDE OF MOVEMENT”, a Journal of Experimental Psychology paper by Paul M. Fitts. The paper describes a series of experiments which were conducted by Fitts and his results. The final result of which is known as Fitts’s Law. The time it takes to complete a movement, such as bushing a button, is equal to the time it takes to start/stop the device plus, the inherent speed of the device times the log of, one plus, the distance from the starting point to the target divided by the width of the target. Fitts’s law can be used to predict t the speed at which users can complete tasks on a given interface, thus helping to improve interface design. Basically, the bigger the button and the closer it is, the faster it can be pressed.

HCD vs ACD

I recently read “Usability Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful”, a paper by Donald A. Norman. The paper describes the idea that blindly using Human-Centered Design instead of Activity-Centered Design might result in inferior products. He is not saying that Human-Centerd Design is bad. He is saying that sometimes it is better to design a product around an activity and have people adapt to the product. While it is a good idea to listen to users, it is not a good idea to blindly comply with their wants.

Think before you test

I recently read “Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time)”, a CHI ’08 paper by Saul Greenberg and Bill Buxton. The paper describes how, while it is not a written rule, it is an understood rule that CHI papers must have a user study to be considered. Because of this, standard usability studies are blindly applied such that the results are sometimes meaningless and other times harmful. For example, if the standard test results for a new interface show that the new interface is slower than old ones, then the new interface might be abandoned before it has time to mature. Tests can still be useful if they are well thought out and applied in appropriate situations. However, as things are now, too many ideas are being killed off too soon.

Improvisation and Brainstorming

I recently read “Using Improvisation to Enhance the Effectiveness of Brainstorming”, a CHI ’09 paper by Elizabeth Gerber. The paper describes how improvisation has a similar atmosphere to brainstorming and can be used as preparation for a brainstorming session. Improvisation uses two people ideas to create a performance that could not have been created individually. When brainstorming, members should build upon other’s ideas to come up with new ideas. Both brainstorming and improvisation require an environment of trust where individuals can express themselves with confidence without feeling rejected. With both improvisation and brainstorming, the results are dependent upon everyone contributing and working together.

Osborn’s rules advise brainstorm participants to
1) Withhold judgment
2) Build on the ideas of others
3) Generate a large quantity of ideas
4) free-wheel
5) Identify a leader

General problems encountered during brainstorming sessions:
1. Unable to share
2. Getting distracted by other ideas
3. Premature evaluation keeps groups from effective brainstorming

Keith Johnstone developed some exercises which should help relieve fear and encourage collaboration.

1. Malapropism – misnaming objects and standardizing failure
2. Metaphor ball – finish the phrase
3. Yes, let’s. – Lets …, yes, automatic agreement
4. Alphabet awareness to transition from work to brainstorming
5. New Choice – generate as many new ideas as possible
6. Presents – generate new uses for objects as they are passed back and forth

A few things to remember:
1. Fail early, fail often – find problems before you get too far into the production process
2. Fail cheerfully – focus on the improvement gained
3. Leader shapes the show - if not going anywhere, the leader can point the discussion in a new direction
4. Brainstorming requires a warm-up and breaks

Is it easier to use nice looking things?

Image coming as soon as I wash my car

I recently read Donald A. Norman’s Emotional Design. The following are my thoughts on this book. Please enjoy.

In his other book, The Design of Everyday Things, Norman stresses that intuitive use must not be compromised for the sake of aesthetics. The general idea was that sure everyone likes nice things, but looks are really not important for an object. However, in his new book, Norman gives a little more importance to the way things look. I actually found it quite interesting how he changed his mind over time.

I was kind of disappointed that some examples are reused from his previous books: the masochist teapot, the car seat moving switch, and the sound of a kettle. The previously mentioned items work as examples, but it would have been nice if he had looked further than his house and car for some new examples.

As it turns out, if we like things, then we are more creative and able to figure them out. I thought that his explanation of the working of the brain were very interesting. Our brain can decide certain things before we ever have a chance to reflect on it.

We often feel certain emotions from object that have no real emotions. Likewise objects can be designed with the intent of exuding a certain emotion.

The development of robotic emotion and emotion sensing is both intriguing and frightening.

I wonder if someone could be devastated if they surround themselves with objects that give off negative emotions, even if the person does not consciously see the negative aspects of the object upon observation.

Simple gesture solution

I recently read “Gestures without Libraries, Toolkits or Training: A $1 Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes”, a UIST ’07 paper by Jacob O. Wobbrock, Andrew D. Wilson, and Yang Li. The paper describes a problem facing many interface designers today, which is the complexity and exclusiveness of gesture recognition software. They designed a cheap, easy solution, which can be implemented anywhere by anyone with around 100 lines of code. The following is a list of the requirements that they set for the new software:
1. be resilient to variations in sampling due to movement speed or sensing;
2. support optional and configurable rotation, scale, and position invariance;
3. require no advanced mathematical techniques (e.g., matrix inversions, derivatives, integrals);
4. be easily written in few lines of code;
5. be fast enough for interactive purposes (no lag);
6. allow developers and application end-users to “teach” it new gestures with only one example;
7. return an N-best list with sensible [0..1] scores that are independent of the number of input points;
8. provide recognition rates that are competitive with more complex algorithms previously used in HCI to recognize the types of gestures shown in Figure 1.

The following paragraph is a simple description of how the software operates. First the raw data points are collected from the hardware. The raw data is resampled and the excess points are eliminated. It was found that a set of 64 equidistance points was adequate without being excessive. Imagine that a line is drawn from the start point to the center of the completed gesture. The object is then rotated to align this line to zero degrees. The gesture is then scaled to a reference square. Optimal alignment is then calculated. Finally the gesture is compared to the gesture templates. Testing was performed with the sixteen basic gestures pictured above. Despite being far less complex, $1 was found to have nearly identical results as DTW and superior results compared to Rubine.

Images from “Gestures without Libraries, Toolkits or Training: A $1 Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes” (Image1 from page 1) (Image2 from page4)

Shocking indeed

I recently read Thomas Blass’ The Man Who Shocked The World: The Life And Legacy Of Stanley Milgram. The book follows Stanley Milgram’s life and controversial experiments. The following are some of my thoughts on this book about an interesting man’s life. Please enjoy.

Common assumption: if someone does something then there is probably a good reason for what they have done. This certainly seemed to be the case in the subway experiments where people gave up their seats when asked but given no explanation.

An interesting point was brought up by Milgram when he was in a hospital. While he was recuperating from a heart attack, some of the hospital staff members were on strike and banging on metal drums outside the hospital. Stanley felt that the noise disturbed the patients more than it did the working hospital staff, and he wondered how people that normally cared for patients could do such a thing.

There is a loss of self that occurs when an individual merges into an organizational structure. Obligations are diffused among a group's members. Beware people passing the blame by referring to the obedience studies. Should people not be held responsible just because someone of authority instructed them to do behave in a certain way? Should not both be held accountable? Surely it is easier to obey when the instructor claims responsibility for the outcome. Perhaps obedience can act as a gateway for hatred: at first some feelings of guilt, then total desensitization, followed by embracing the experience with your fellows.

A few questions to think about…
Would people obey a computer?
What if they believed that the words from the computer came from an authoritative figure?
Obedience is necessary for society to function. How are we to know when it is ok to obey and when is not?
Are people more likely to obey commands to be mean or to be nice?

A nice quote from page 551
"Social norms can often have a compelling effect on our behavior, wielding their power by means of unexpected amounts of inhibitory anxiety generated by their violation."

Scary but true. Why do we feel the need for acceptance? Is it natural or is it a learned behavior?

I have thought about these questions, but I believe it would take up too much space for a blog post to thoroughly expand upon and explain my thoughts on these questions.

K-Sketch for novice animators

I recently read “K-Sketch: A “Kinetic” sketch Pad for Novice Animators”, a paper by Richard C. Davis, Brien Colwell, and James A. Landay. The paper describes an animation program, which uses a pen as an input tool. They wanted to design a program that could easily be used by novice animators. They interviewed 8 experienced animators and 11 inexperienced animators to see how and why they wanted to create animations.

Prototyping 35%
Entertain 21%
Doodle 21%
Explaining 21%
Thinking 2%


It seems that only professional animators are willing to invest significant time to learning a complex animation system. Therefore, it was decided that one of the major goals would be to reduce learning time. They decided on 18 animation operations that would be the most useful. In an effort to maximize usability while minimizing complexity, a subset of the original 18 operations was selected: Translate, Scale, Rotate, Set Timing, Move Relative, Appear, Disappear, Trace, Copy Motion, Orient to Path, Repeat Playback, and Copy Object.

Sixteen novices tested K-Sketch and PowerPoint. Users were able to complete their animations in K-Sketch about three times faster than they were able to when using PowerPoint. It was also noted that the users felt much more comfortable making and presenting K-Sketch animations in front of other people. Eleven testers felt that K-Sketch needed more tools, while seven testers felt that PowerPoint was complicated.

Image from “K-Sketch: A “Kinetic” sketch Pad for Novice Animators” page 6

Ever wonder about the future?

I recently read Donald A. Norman’s The Design of Future Things. The following are some of my own thoughts on some of Norman’s visions of the future. Please enjoy.

Donald Norman states that many things have sounds that we naturally recognize. However, we only know that a certain sound is made by a bird or a dog because we have learned what they sound like. Likewise, I think we could learn to tell the difference between timers in our homes if we tried. However, if the buzzers all sound alike, then perhaps the manufacturers could allow for user customization of tones. Take cell phones for example. We all know when a cell phone rings in a room even if we have never heard that ring, but we can distinguish our cell phone's ring from all of the others.

Donald Norman suggests assigning sound which are naturally related. The problem with this is that some things do not naturally make sounds. Food for example does not make a special sound when it is done, which is why we give it the arbitrary sound of a buzzer.

I found the idea of a cobot or a collaborative robot rather interesting. The idea is to intuitively control robots through natural movements. For example, when you attempt to lift up an engine, the robot automatically assists you by raising the engine.

I found the idea of cars that swarm around pedestrians to be interesting as well. The idea is that the automated cars equipped with sensors and the ability to communicate with each other would behave like a swarm of fish moving around an object. Theoretically a pedestrian would be able to walk across a street without having worry about traffic; the cars should be able to swarm around any people or objects in the street and pass the information to the cars behind it.

How long before we can have swarming cars?
Even if all of the latest model cars could have this swarming ability there are still many people that drive older cars either for financial reasons or because they just like their current vehicle. I currently drive a 1993 Acura Legend, and I love my car. (According to numerous phone calls I have recently received, my factory warranty is about to expire. Hmm. I wonder if they are trying to trick me. Anyway…) The new cars could simply swarm around the old cars for years to come. However, I think it will be a long time before you are able to cross any street with your eyes closed.

Scratch Input: Use your fingernail

I recently read “Scratch Input: Creating Large, Inexpensive, Unpowered and Mobile Finger Input Surfaces”, a paper by Chris Harrison and Scott E. Hudson. The paper describes Scratch Input, input based solely on the sound produced when a fingernail is dragged across a textured material. Scratch Input is put forth with the main purpose of providing a large input surface for small mobile devices. A device that contains one of these sensors allows surfaces that the device rests upon to become input devices. The unique sounds created by fingernail scratching are easily filtered from extraneous sounds. The sensor itself is a modified stethoscope and microphone combo. The spatial location of input is not determinable. Although Scratch Input can support dozens of unique gestures, not all possible gestures have a unique sound. Slick surfaces generally do not work. However, fabric works, such as the jeans you are wearing. Accuracy seems to be fairly good. Mass production price is estimated to be less than a dollar a sensor. I honestly did not see this coming, but I now look forward to Scratch Input devices.

Foldable Input Devices (FIDs)

I recently read “Towards More Paper-like Input: Flexible Input Devices for Foldable Interaction Styles”, a paper by David T. Gallant, Andrew G Seniuk, and Roel Vertegaal. The paper describes Foldable Input Devices (FIDs). FIDs are essentially papers with IR reflectors on them. A IR web cam tracks the reflectors and displays the results on screen via the Foldable User Interface (FUI). One of the things that makes FIDs attractive forms of input is there deformability. There are 25-35 reflectors per sheet, and each of these reflectors has to potential to act as a button. Position, shape, and motion are all traceable. Various deforming techniques and there possible natural mappings are listed in the paper. The main idea is to take advantage of the nature of paper to allow people to interact with digital data much in the same way that they would physical data. I think that FIDs have a lot of potential to help with 3D modeling. I think they should consider using a method I have seen in augmented reality research, which is to use a barcode in the center of the page. This would give the computer the ability to distinguish between sheets. Likewise the augmented reality researchers should consider putting a few precise “buttons” on their sheets.

Would you risk your life?

I recently read Jennifer Toth’s The Mole People. The following are some of my own thoughts. Please enjoy.

In class, we have been discussing user studies and ethnographies. Both are essentially the observation of people. Traditionally, studies conducted by computer scientist are very short, half-hour to a full hour. There is a lot of information that may be missed by using such short observation periods. The end result is an inferior product. While The Mole People may not be directly related to computer science, it is an ethnography. The book allowed me to see the results of a longer observation period. She stayed long enough to get to know the individual people and the way that they lived. If she had only gone underground for a half-hour, then there is no way that she could have found out near as much as she did. Actually, I think that we would have been presented with a very different view. Without time to get to know people, here findings would have had to be based upon her initial impressions alone. I have a new found respect for people that are willing to put there lives on the line in order to pursue knowledge. While I am convinced that longer observation periods are necessary, I am still not ready to risk my life to find out how people use products. Luckily for me most user/product studies don’t involve life threatening danger.

Have ever had to wait? Ethnography

How do people behave when they have to wait? I conducted observations on the behavior and emotions exhibited by people waiting on both day buses and night buses. I found that the negative emotions generated from waiting grow stronger over time, but they can be held back as long as the mind is distracted. In the modern world we spend a lot of time waiting: waiting on a bus, waiting in lines at stores, and even waiting on our computers. I decided to see how people behave when waiting and if they behave similarly in different waiting situations.

My method of observation was simple. I became one with the crowd. This allowed me to be close enough to hear what they said and see what they did. Since it is hard to convey the information I was interested in with simple quotes, I recorded the emotions based upon facial expression, tone of voice, word choice, gestures, etc. I also recorded physical actions that I noticed.

During the day, people in the crowds generally have less than a one foot radius of personal space while waiting, as apposed to the should to shoulder packing when the bus arrives. I believe this is to attain maximum personal space while still ensuring their place on the bus. There are a few people that have alternate methods of ensuring a place on the bus, which seems to violate the seemingly unspoken rule of first come first served. Concerning the difference in personal space that people keep during the day as opposed to the night, it seems to me that the greater the risk of not accomplishing the goal of waiting, the more discomfort people are willing to tolerate to ensure that goal is met. Consider the people that break the social norm to ensure a spot on the buses. After making these observations and thinking about other cases of waiting, I think that people probably exhibit much of the same behavior regardless of what they are waiting for. I think that we naturally put some things to the back of our mind to think about later. These things come to the forefront when we are looking for something to occupy our mind.

The feelings exhibited during waiting are all negative emotions. The longer people wait without distraction, the stronger the emotions get. As long as people’s minds are distracted, the feelings are suppressed. When the distractions cease, the feeling will return. I think that people’s dislike of waiting is due to our fixation with time, as seen by the constant checking of phones and watches. We cannot stand to let time be wasted. After all, we have a limited life span. I believe that most people, at least in the society I live in, think that to wait is to waste time; other cultures may view it differently.

What is real?

I recently read Byron Reeves’ and Clifford Nass’ The Media Equation. The following is a summary combined with some of my own thoughts. Please enjoy.


The Media Equation can best be summarized as a collection of rule to keep in mind when creating media and documentation of the experiments which proved all of these rules. In the end it turns out that people treat computers and media the same way as they treat real people.


If we perceive media as reality and apply a single set of social behaviors to both media and reality, then can media/computer personalities create stereotypes and instill prejudice behaviors that will be carried over into the real world by people who interact with those virtual personalities? Can this be used in a positive way to eliminate stereotypes or will this most likely lead to negative effects? Has it already happened? Is it happening now?


If someone is abusive to a robot/machine, then is that person likely abusive to people as well?


This was a question I asked in class. I think that most of the class just laughed it off, and it seemed as if they didn’t pay much attention to the actual question. That may have been because of the tone with which I asked the question. Never the less, I feel that it is an important question. According to the media equation, if someone abuses robots, then they abuse people too. If they don’t, it would only be because they show more self control when confronting people because of the consequences. A robot will not tell on you, and there is likely little or no consequence. On the other hand, a person will call the police, landing the abuser in a world of trouble. It seems to me that someone who abuses a robot holds in abusive tendencies that, were there no consequences, would be unleashed on people.

How to make things better

I recently read written by Donald A. Norman called The Design of Everyday Things. The following is a summary combined with some of my own thoughts. Please enjoy.

Donald Norman states that human problem solving is based on past experiences and not logic. By using standards, there is a good chance that a user will have already encountered portions of your object. Those previous encounters will make it easier for them to use your new object. In general people analyze objects and remember only what they need to get by. Exceptions to this would be things that peek your interest. Users will develop a system model in their heads; it may or may not be correct. It is critical that the system projects the correct model to the users.

We should try to design so that use of our objects is understood with just a glance. Put controls near and align them with the things they operate. The controls themselves can even be made to resemble the objects they operate. Always give feedback. Don't drop functionality for aesthetics; you can have both with enough effort. He mentions museums for being at fault for this; too many exhibits look nice but are uninformative.

Norman writes about the human mind and memory for some portion of the book. Several methods of learning and recall are discussed as well. Many of us learn to look in standardized places to trigger recall of a particular event; this place could be a calendar, a clock, or an email account. We do this because we can never count on something being in our mind at any given time. If we don't see any reminders we will often forget about an event. Another thing that I though was interesting and agree with is that a reminder should have a signal and a message.

Norman points out some good ideas concerning errors. Try to understand the way the users think and attempt to fix the areas where you think the users will have trouble. Regardless of how good you think your creation is, you need to have outsiders test it because you have most likely become accustomed to it during the design process.

Norman states that if something as simple as a door has to come with any instruction, then it is a failure. I say that this is not always the case. Some things that we often take for granted are more complex than we give them credit for; we just don't notice how complex they are because of how well they work. An example of this is a automatic sliding door I recently saw. I have walked through this sliding door many times before without a problem. It did it's job of letting people through and keeping the inside cool without causing me any problems. However on one particular day a set of sliding doors was out of order. What I found when I looked at the labeling that had been there all along said to push in case of emergencies. I pushed and the door opened like a standard hinged door. I was surprised to find that the door was capable of being opened in a completely different manner. Had those instructions not been there, I would have had to walk to another exit, or if it had been an emergency, I would have tried sliding the doors to the side.

I think that it is interesting that puts the blame on bad design instead of the users. Sure, there are plenty of poorly designed things out there, but I still believe that people are mechanically incompetent. If we do truly solve problems based soley on our past experiences, then maybe these people are just too inexperienced. I suppose that this lack of experience could arise from either laziness or mecha-phobia.

Do some people use poor design as an excuse for laziness?

This was a question I asked in class. Someone commented on what laziness is, while someone else said that it was the same thing as mecha-phobia. At the time I accepted that, but I wasn't quite satisfied. After thinking about it, I have concluded that they are not the same. While the resulting behavior appears the same from the outside, the internal process is completely different. I think the inexperience due to laziness could be overcome with just a little more observation. As for the people with phobia, they should probably build up experience and confidence with simple devices. However, a better design benefits all.

About a stereo I once knew...

Once upon a time, I learned to drive. My first vehicle was my older sister's old vehicle, which was my father's old vehicle, a 1993 Eddie Bauer Edition Explorer. You know, the ones that had the exploding tires, but that is a whole other story. Anyway, when i got the vehicle, my dad gave it a little upgrade, a new stereo deck. I was excited because I could now play CDs. I thought the deck was really cool. I just pushed a little button and the face plate would turn and slide out revealing the hidden CD insertion slot. I remember liking everything about it: the feel of the buttons, the color scheme, and the entire layout. It had an ATT button that would instantly turn the volume down low enough that everyone could talk without a problem and still just barely hear the music. If the button was pressed again, then the volume would instantly return to its previous volume. My younger sister learned to drive, and she got my mom's old minivan, which coincidentally had the same stereo deck that the Explorer had before it's upgrade. I used to tease her about not being able to play CDs. Jump into the future a few years. I'm at Texas A&M. In parking lot 50, I get side swiped by another student who is talking on a cell phone and not paying attention. The insurance company decides that it is cheaper to pay the blue book value for the Explorer than to repair it. Now the minivan gets the stereo deck. My younger sister is really excited that she can now play CDs. Jump a year or so into the future. My sister says that she needs help setting the time on here stereo deck. I say sure and tease her about not being able to play CDs. She sulks and says that its not fair. Wait a minute, she has my old deck now; she should be able to play CDs. She says that she thought that was the case, but she couldn't find where the CD is supposed to go in. I know that I gave her a demo of everything when she first got it, and I had never forgotten how to open it. However, she could not see any obvious signs of how a CD would go in. Well, she was really excited once again to be able to play CDs. Now onto the time. After a year of not seeing this radio I had forgotten how to set it's time. It took a little deep thinking and remembering to get it done. If I remember correctly, the source has to be switched to none, which is essentially turning off the radio. Then and only then can the time portion of the menu be accessed. I found that rather annoying after getting used to the simplicity of the clock in my current vehicle, which I am proud to say is a 1992 Acura Legend. Trust me, it may be old, but it is nice. I won't even put details on how to set the time in the Acura; I'll just post a picture and see if you can figure it out. There is still much I like about my old stereo deck, but there is also much that could be improved. I am pretty happy with my current stereo, and everything is easy to adjust. I'm sure you can see the simplicity. I would rather have a stereo that is twice as big as usual than a stereo that has all of its features buried.