Josh

This blog has moved…

Posted by: Josh Walsh in User Experience.

… but we love having you as one of our readers.

Since we’ve started this blog, it’s grown and grown. It’s grown to a spot where it deserves it’s own resources and domain. We’re working hard to create better content than ever before, and we hope you’ll continue to follow us over here:

Please update your feed-reader to use the new RSS feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/mfp

Join us at:
http://www.madeforpeople.net

Implementation Model vs. Mental Model

Posted by: Josh Walsh in Design.

Last week I wrote a post which generalized that programmers do not create great user interfaces. It stirred up some pretty intense debate. A few people even emailed me insulted.

I certainly didn’t intend to insult anyone, but it proves that this problem isn’t going away soon. Proper procedures won’t be put in place until programmers are self-aware.

Consumers don’t think about how things work on the inside. Your interface should function as a magic box. Push a button and something predictable happens.

The brake pedal on your car is a great example. Someone who doesn’t understand how brakes work may envision the pedal pushing a lever which exerts sideways pressure on the wheels, causing the car to slow. Their mental model says that pushing this button causes the car to slow down.

The real implementation model of a brake system is far more complex. That complexity shouldn’t translate into the interface.

Alan Cooper, in his book About Face 3, states:

User interfaces and interactions designed by engineers, who know precisely how software works, quite often lead to a represented model that is very consistent with its implementation model. To the engineers, such models are logical, truthful, and accurate; unfortunately, they are not very intelligent or effective for users. The majority of users don’t much care how a program is actually implemented.

Draft

Posted by: Josh Walsh in Reviews.

37signals announces ‘Draft,’ a simple iPad application for sketching up wireframes and sharing via Campfire.

This move seems like it’s less about the product and more about pimping their software development opinions. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. For the record, I don’t have a problem with the $9.99 price tag either.

(Aside: A lot of people are complaining that it’s too expensive. They also just broke into the Top 100. So, you decide if it’s too expensive.)

I’ve always agreed with their minimalist approach. It’s like YAGNI on steroids. Sharpie markers, bold strokes, forget the nitty-gritty details… all great advice.

But, it feels like they’ve intentionally taken this to the extreme. Basecamp is great because they left out features that would get in the way. In Draft, it’s as if they did this because it’s cool to leave out features, rather than useful.

On another note, the attitude in Jason’s comment irks me:

We might add yellow to version 2.0 in 2012.

Kinda witty and funny, in a blunt and rude way. It was a rather condescending response to a comment left by someone praising the app they just publicly purchased.

Just bought the app. Love the simplicity, and posting to Campfire makes it valuable. If the goal isn’t to add features… is version 1 the final version?

We run our business on Basecamp and Highrise, and wouldn’t change that for the world. I never thought I’d see the day where Adobe creates a better user interface than 37signals.

Why you should keep programmers away from your GUI.

Posted by: Josh Walsh in Design.

Programmers generally do not design great user interfaces. I do not mean to cast aspersions in their direction. If anything, it’s a discredit to the project manager who insisted the UI is part of their responsibility. It shouldn’t be – it should be the job of a dedicated designer.

Programmers don’t understand the Mental Models of their consumers. They are so entrenched in the geeky details, that they can’t step back and look at the product through their customers eyes.

A user interface does not need to reveal the inner workings of the product. Rather, the user interface should expose feedback about the actions that the person expects to happen.

For example, a landline telephone uses a very different protocol for transmitting voice than a cellular telephone does. To the consumer, these are variants on the same product. They exist for the same purpose. However, many programmers would consider these to be entirely different products.

It’s important for designers to be involved in deciding what features should be implemented, as well as deciding how the interaction will work, before any technical plans/code are put in place. Otherwise, you may end up with a website indistinguishable from online-banking websites.

On “FanBoy” as a 4-letter word

Posted by: Josh Walsh in Life.

Apple bashers love to dish the “fanboy” insult to anyone bearing iDevices.

My definition of an “Apple fanboy” is one who blindly and proudly consumes Apple products, blogs, keynotes, etc…, in an obsessive manner. The word blindly is insulting, not the word “fanboy.”

Apple customers, in general, are a fussy bunch. They are obsessive about high quality products with great experiences. They are also critical about devices which don’t live up to their expectations. These are not “blind followers.”

The fact that Apple generally creates amazing user experiences, doesn’t mean we are blind to bad products. We may be members of the Apple cult, but we aren’t ignorant.

I consider myself a loyal Apple customer – even after terrible customer service experiences. I’ve invested in a profusion of their products. I also hate the Mighty Mouse, the new iPod shuffle, and the fact that you can’t register an iPad without another computer.

This “fan” is not a “fanboy.”